The Committee met at 5:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Harding): Okay, we are ready to debate the Estimates for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

I would like to welcome you all here. First of all, I would like for the committee members to introduce themselves by name and district.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, St. Barbe.

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Labrador West.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Ed Buckingham, St. John's East.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, the District of Port de Grave.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

We will follow the standard procedure. After I call the first subhead the minister may take up to fifteen minutes to introduce her officials and then give an overview of her department's estimates for the coming year. Following that, the critic, the Opposition, will have up to fifteen minutes and then we will alternate between - for ten minutes each, whoever wants to ask questions.

For the benefit of the officials, this is recorded by Hansard, so whenever you are asked to respond you need to state your name so that they can identify it down in the room where they are recording.

Anyway, I will ask the Clerk now to call the first subhead.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01., shall that carry?

Minister Johnson.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, before I go into my notes, I just want to say thank you so much to Mr. Butler and yourself and for all the committee members. Mr. Butler has been most accommodating and in the end, we ended up right back where we were, thanks to the good old fog here in Newfoundland, but just thank you so much for the whole process and being accommodating and understanding.

On that note, I would just like to say good evening and thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss my department's estimates for the fiscal year 2008-2009.

Joining me this evening, I have Bill Parrott to my left; he is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Environment. The Deputy Minister, Bruce Hollett, is out of the Province on a family emergency so Bill will step up and answer questions in Bruce's absence. Next, we have Shane Mahoney, Shane is the Executive Director for Sustainable Development and Strategic Science. Next we have Ross Firth, Ross is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Natural Heritage. Behind me we have Colleen Johnson, Colleen is the Manager for Financial and General Operations. We have John Drover who is the Director of Policy and Planning. We have Denise Woodman who is my Executive Assistant. We have Allister Taylor, ADM for Lands; and last, but not least, we have Melony O'Neill, my Communications Director, Director of Communications.

For the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year, a gross budget in the amount of $48,426,500 is reflected in the Estimates to cover departmental costs for the protection and enhancement of the environment, management of the Province's biodiversity, wildlife, endangered species, inland fish, water and Crown land resources.

To offset a portion of the cost, related revenue of $18,559,500 is budgeted, which results in an estimated net total expenditure of $29,867,000.

The gross budget for the department's four main programs is as follows: Executive and Support Services is $17,464,000; Environmental Management and Control, $10,499,000; Lands, $6,340,600; and, Wildlife, Parks and Natural Heritage, $14,122,900.

The Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for four branches. The first being Environment Branch. This includes pollution prevention, water resource and environmental assessment. Bill is the ADM responsible for the Environment Branch. In addition to the head office, we also have offices in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor.

The Lands Branch includes Crown Lands, surveys, mapping and land management. Allister is the ADM responsible there. Our Lands Division has satellite offices in Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville and Labrador.

Natural Heritage Branch includes parks, protected areas and wildlife. Ross is that ADM. The Parks Division is located in Deer Lake, and the Wildlife Division is located in Corner Brook with a satellite office in Labrador.

Sustainable Development and Sustainable Science manages sustainable development issues and the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science, known as IBES, and that is in Corner Brook. Shane, as you know, is the Executive Director for this branch.

I am very pleased to report that we have several significant issues funded this year. One of our most important funding initiatives for the fiscal year focuses on the appropriate management measures for our declining caribou population. We allocated $3.3 million in funding for this year, as part of a $15.3 million five-year scientific and management strategy for the Island Woodland Caribou populations.

This strategy builds upon earlier efforts to better understand and mitigate the current decline in Woodland Caribou numbers of 40 per cent to 60 per cent for most herds on the Island portion of the Province, as well as the role of predators in this decline. This funding will allow us to continue with the collection of necessary caribou data, initiate a predator caribou ecology study, implement and enhance the information on education program, increase emphasis on habitat assessment and begin a provincial-wide regional assessment of black bear populations, one of the key predators of caribou calves.

Also, we have increased our investment into drinking water quality in the Province. Just last week, I announced $2.9 million has been allocated to this department over the next three years to implement the Drinking Water Safety Initiative, with $1.025 million allocated for this fiscal year. The initiative will develop a comprehensive overview of drinking water quality issues in municipalities and communities in parts of the Province and develop a sustainable plan of action to deal with those issues. A significant component of this initiative, but not limited to, includes the installation of Potable Water Dispensing Units, which are basically small scale water treatment plants from which the residents of small communities are provided high quality drinking water.

Funding is being provided to support government's commitment to climate change and energy efficiency initiatives. We received $850,000, which includes $620,000 for year one of a three-year $2 million Green Fund. The funding will help support projects and feasibility studies that contribute to energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction, as well as to allow us to update the climate change action plan and support organizations in their climate change outreach efforts.

The department also received $720,000 to help improve service delivery to the public regarding Crown land applications. This funding will help reduce wait times for inquiries regarding the acquisition of Crown land and add surveying resources to reduce the processing time required for analyzing legal survey documents. It includes the addition of three new land management officer positions, one in each of our central, western and Labrador offices. Also, two land survey inspector positions will be created. The Crown land application process will be expedited as a result of this investment and residents of the Province will certainly have a better access to this natural resource.

So these are just a few of the highlights of our budget this year, and certainly my officials and I will do our best to answer your questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Johnson.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

First of all, minister, I would like to welcome you and your staff here this evening and to assure you I am not here to probe or prolong. I have some questions to ask and once they are answered -and I am sure Ms Michael is the same way. Sometimes in those estimates in the past they kept going to see who, I think, could stay up the latest, but that is not my plan. I hope everything works out for you tomorrow.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: I have some questions ready. When this was postponed I forgot to get them typed up, so you will have to excuse me, I am going through my notes. They might not be in order. One might be for one division and the next four or five might be for someone else, but I hope that is okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is no problem.

MR. BUTLER: That is what I am going into first, just some general questions.

I know from time to time we heard concerns about pollution from the - by the way, I will explain this too. Maybe some of my questions could be for another department because I got caught up yesterday between your department and Government Services. I do not mind being told I am wrong. So, feel free to do that as well.

From time to time we hear about pollution from the Holyrood generating plant. I was just wondering if you can give me an update on that, or does that come through your department to have a review from time to time? I am not saying it is a problem there now but I know we have heard it in the past.

MR. PARROTT: At Holyrood there has been a change in the fuel. The mix of sulphur in the fuel has been reduced so that it significantly reduces the particulate matter in the sulphur that is being emitted into atmosphere. That was a major initiative to reduce pollution coming out of that unit.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I guess my next three or four questions are with regard to the used tires that we have in our Province. I was just wondering - I guess you are probably still looking at proposals. I know there were a couple of times everyone thought that everything was very close to being finalized. I was just wondering if you or your staff can give us an update where we are today with that issue?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is certainly an issue that is not unique just to our Province. The more research I do you see that this is really a North American problem. We are working very diligently though to find a solution. As you know, it was difficult too when you were in government to find the solutions as well. It is not an easy one.

We have been meeting with a particular organization. I am very confident that we are going to get a solution with this particular organization, but I just want to be cautiously optimistic I suppose because oftentimes you think you have it and then at the end of the day it falls through. Things are moving along. I am getting weekly updates and really the hope is that within the next short order, probably in the next couple of months, hopefully sooner, I will be able to do an announcement.

MR. BUTLER: I know it is probably in the Estimates there but I would not know where to find it. I just have a general question. Roughly, how much money is accumulated from the surcharge on the tires in a budgetary year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Each tire, of course, is charged a fee of $3 up to a seventeen inch tire. We collect, on average, about 450,000 tires annually. So, if you multiply that by $3 - somebody quickly?

MR. BUTLER: Multiply that and I got my answer.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Probably around $1.4 million. So, 450,000 tires times $3 per tire.

MR. BUTLER: The other one I - not in my area because as far as I know there is no major concern there with the stockpiled tires but from time to time we get calls with regards to where they are stockpiled. Some people have a concern, and God forbid if something should happen and there was a major fire there. They are just wondering, like the communities, or if they are close to some smaller communities, would they be able to handle that? Is there any plan in place that some other centre can go there, where the toxic emissions from this and - are there any concerns about if it should happen? God forbid, we do not want it to happen, but in a case like that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. There are two sites: one is Bull Arm and one is Placentia. The tires are stored according to fire safety code. So certainly that possibility of a fire taking place is certainly minimized. You can never guarantee that it would not happen but it is certainly - they are stored according to fire code and certainly the fire departments in the local areas work with us.

MR. BUTLER: They would be able to handle something of that magnitude, the local fire departments, or would another force or some other system kick in? Say if that did happen -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, as you know, with any fire department there is always that co-operation that goes on, certainly if backup is needed, but we do have the fire departments engaged in the particular communities. Certainly, if a fire happened in Harbour Grace, Carbonear would certainly come and help if need be. So, we would expect that to happen as well.

MR. BUTLER: Fuel tank inspections, does that come under your department?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it does.

MR. BUTLER: The household fuel tanks?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it does.

MR. BUTLER: I know there was a deadline when everyone was supposed to comply with it. I am just wondering, has that - I just forget what the date was now, has that passed, and -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It was.

MR. BUTLER: - how has it panned out throughout the Province?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will get somebody to correct me if I am wrong but I think the deadline was March 31, 2007, and we provided a two-year extension.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, it is a two-year extension.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: A two-year extension to March 31, 2009, and I think our compliance rate to date, off the top of my head, is 65 per cent. It could be sixty-one to sixty-seven.

OFFICIAL: It is in that area.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it is in that area.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. On the production platforms off our coast, do they have independent oil rig monitors on them and, if so, would that be through your department?

MR. PARROTT: That is federal jurisdiction, so we do not deal with the offshore.

MR. BUTLER: You would not have anything to do with that at all?

MR. PARROTT: No.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is only when it comes on land is it ours.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

I do not know if this one is on land or not but probably - you can judge this one both ways, I guess. Like out in Placentia Bay, we have a refinery there now and the possibilities of another one coming and Voisey's Bay and everything coming on stream. If there was a major spill out there - and God forbid, I know in some of the studies I saw that this could occur every twenty years. You might say: Well, who is going to worry about twenty years time? Is there a plan in place if something should happen out there? Where that might be on the water, maybe that is partly federal too is it, or -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yeah, that is federal too. Now, certainly, if it did come on to land, it would come under our jurisdiction.

MR. BUTLER: So anything that happened on shore would be -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, as Bill pointed out, we do work with the federal government closely though to monitor what is going on. Certainly, our environmental assessment process would ask businesses to look at cumulative effects, but again, for our perspective it would be on land.

MR. BUTLER: I know here in the city, because I have seen it here on this parking lot and only the last couple of years I have seen the same thing happening out in my own district now when we have a day to collect household hazardous waste. I was just wondering, even though those programs - probably some of them are just beginning. I know in my area it is only the second year, I think. I may be wrong - in Bay Roberts that is. I know they had one this year. Maybe it is the first one, I am not quite sure now. I was just wondering, with those ongoing - outside of that, what percentage would you say of household hazardous wastes might be still going in landfills undetected, or is there anyway of knowing that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That falls under MMSB, and certainly it is not part of this. So I do not have that information in front of me, but going by memory, I can tell you that the average person generates about seven litres of household hazardous waste. Through the money MMSB has funded, we have avoided a couple of hundred thousand litres of household hazardous waste from going into landfill. What the percentage of the total is, I can undertake to get that for you. Again, I would have to go to MMSB to get it.

This year, I think, MMSB put $250,000 into this program. It is a very successful program and more communities are taking us upon it, but I would have to find out what the actual percentage is we are keeping out.

MR. BUTLER: Now this one is probably in conjunction with Municipal Affairs as well because it has to do with municipalities, but I guess then it is probably tied to your department. If it is not, that is fine. Would you be able to tell me how many communities in our Province now, through inspectors, which I would think would probably be through your department, are on a boil order at this time? Would that have anything to do within your department?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The boil orders we could tell you, yes.

This year, our drinking water annual report was just released last week and there were - and if you have it there you can correct me if I am wrong. I am going by memory. There were 223 boil orders in 153 communities.

Does that sound right?

MR. PARROTT: That sounds correct.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Just to give you a bit of history, in 2001 there were about 223 boil orders in about 220 communities. So we have come down significantly. While it says 223, there are about 170 of those that are long-term boil water advisories. They have been on for years. The other fifty-odd are if there were mechanical problems or if a line was shut-down, more short-term reasons, but the 170 are more the longer-terms, and there are many reasons for that.

MR. BUTLER: That was my next question.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: See, I am reading your mind.

The reasons for that - well, some communities just do not have a disinfection system in place. Others have disinfection systems but they are not working properly, or they have chlorine and they are not using it. Some communities just choose to have a boil water advisory and boil their water rather than use water, because they do not like the taste of chlorine.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is one of the reasons as well. As I said, the short-term reasons, if there are repairs being done to the line or if there has been a heavy runoff and you need to flush the lines and those types of things.

MR. BUTLER: With regards to, you mentioned chlorine. In each community - I understand now some of them do not do it for that reason, but the ones that do have chlorine in their systems: How often are they inspected, and how are those inspections done in the various communities?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The water operations and any service in the community, as you know, is run by the municipalities themselves. So they are responsible for checking the daily chlorine levels and the residual levels that come out.

Our department, what we do is we do bacteriological samples and samples for any chemical contaminants. In fact, we are the only Province in the country that does it, and we get a lot of recognition. Last year alone we did 19,000 bacteriological samples and about 2,950 chemical. The water quality operators, or the water operators at the local level, they check the daily levels of the chlorine; now, having said that, we do provide them with a lot of training.

We have mobile training units. Last year we had, I think it was 149 sessions around the Province. Every year we hold the annual operator training program in Gander, and everybody goes to that. It is a really good event where we - this year, for instance, with the contaminated chlorine issue, we showed them how to look for it on the bottle to ensure that it is a certified product, because it is something that our department requires them to do, is carry a certified product, but they need to know how to check that.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. So the inspectors would go in and check the water, probably in different areas of the town or community, or whatever?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The government inspectors -

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: - could go in quarterly, in some cases?

MR. PARROTT: Inspections are split between the Government Services centre, the environmental health inspectors. Health inspectors carry out the inspections for bacteriological issues and the environment inspectors inspect for chemical. So the ratio of inspections is based on the size of the town and the number of people using the supply.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: And all of this then gets reported to the town and on-line.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

What percentage - I know there is, I will call it a surcharge, and maybe it is not. I know that is on tires. When it comes to our bottles and different containers, I guess there is still a surcharge, is it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The eight cents you are referring to?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: What percentage of beverage containers is being recycled in the Province now? I would think it is fairly high from what you see around.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, we are doing really well. We are at about 69 per cent to 70 per cent.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Uh-huh.

MR. BUTLER: A lot of mine are only just general questions.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I am waiting for you to get into the nitty-gritty.

MR. BUTLER: To our Provincial Parks - Provincial Parks is yours, isn't it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it is.

MR. BUTLER: I know being a camper myself over the years, many years there were a lot of vacancies. What is the vacancy rate now, would you say, throughout the parks that are operated by the Province? That must be fairly high too, the numbers of people going there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I would have to get the exact number of the averages. I know for this weekend in a lot of parks there are no vacancies, of course being a very busy weekend. Butterpot is sold out. I have a list of the others, I just got an update. A lot of them are sold out. The parks are doing very well. This new parks reservation system certainly made it smoother for people, especially from outside the Province or visitors, or even locals. Having that ability to pre-plan and do a reservation on-line or over the phone certainly makes it easier for trip planning, but I would have to get you the average vacancy rates.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They are very widely used, no doubt.

MR. BUTLER: Just one more short one, seeing the clock is running out, then I will turn it over to my colleague.

Seeing you mentioned Butterpot -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: How they made out?

MR. BUTLER: Out of curiosity, out of the numbers of people who were grandfathered into the previous system - I am not going into any detail on this, just a general question. How many of them do you think got in through the regular system now? Was there many of them who did not make it, out of the ones that thought that they should be there because they were grandfathered in?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: There was originally thirty-one grandfathered in, in 2005, and then over the few years that went down to twenty-five. So last year there were twenty-five grandfathered in. The last report that I had is eighteen out of those twenty-five got their sites back through the reservation system, four or five were not interested and had indicated that they were not interested this year, and my understanding is that one just wanted a monthly site. So in the end -

MR. BUTLER: So they all got in.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: In the end, I think most people were fairly satisfied, but the point is they got in in a fair manner. Everybody had equal opportunity and access and they got in there fairly.

MR. BUTLER: They are there for the year now, the same as they always were.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

CHAIR: We will give Mr. Butler a break now and give Ms Michael up to ten minutes or whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, and thanks to the minister and to all her staff for being here.

I was going to do some line by line because some of my general questions come out of that, but I just want to follow-up on a couple things that Mr. Butler asked about.

Mr. Parrott, if you would not mind, could you give me just a bit more detail on the Holyrood generating plant and the degree to which there has been a difference. Have there been discussions with the community to see if they are seeing a difference? Are they satisfied with what is going on?

MR. PARROTT: I do not have a lot of detail on that here right now but we can certainly get the information out of the department's records.

MS MICHAEL: I would be very interested in that, if we could have that information, please.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: With regard to the two things, the communication with the community as well as what is happening with what is coming out of the stacks.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

The other one that I will come back to - then we will get it finished - I do understand that with Placentia Bay it is going to be difficult because, of course, the bay itself will be under federal jurisdiction, but we all know that the potential for accidents is going to increase the more we have activity in that bay. I know some of this will get, hopefully, dealt with through the environmental assessment processes that will go on with regard to each of the projects, but to what degree is your department, and maybe the federal government too, together looking at the cumulative effects of what is happening in the bay?

MR. PARROTT: We have looked at, in the environmental review for Voisey's Bay, Long Harbour, there has been a component of the cumulative effects of what is happening in the bay with the enhanced tanker traffic, as well as the marine life that is in the inner part of the bay.

In terms of the environmental assessment that was done for the oil refinery, there was onshore and the coastal littoral was reviewed under the provincial study, as well as migratory birds and game birds that transit between both the ocean and the land. Anything on the water is covered off under the federal environmental assessment process. So we have had participation in that; as well as during the provincial process, on the advisory team that advises the minister, there has been federal representation from Fisheries and Oceans, as well as Transport Canada and Coast Guard.

MS MICHAEL: At this moment, do you sense an openness on the federal level - because they are the ones who would have to do it - to put more money into monitoring of the bay and having emergency services available that would be able to deal quickly with spills and that kind of thing, because what is offered now is not going to be enough as the traffic increases? So, are they going to be willing to put more resources in? Then, when it comes to on-land stuff, will the provincial government be ready to put more resources in?

MR. PARROTT: One thing in this department this year in the budget, it has provided us one engineering position for an oil spill engineer, and we plan to dedicate that position, initially, totally to Placentia Bay and the possible impacts that a potential oil spill could have. The federal government has several committees set up. I cannot speak to if they are going to put money into it but they certainly seem to be quite willing to enter into an open dialogue with the Province, as well as the various groups who use Placentia Bay and have an interest in Placentia Bay, from the fishers, as well as from environmental groups. There has been a lot of dialogue back and forth amongst all the groups, and the lack of equipment and the potential for a spill has been paramount and has been enunciated by provincial representation at these meetings.

So, at the end of the day, we certainly hope that there will be a better capability in Placentia Bay - especially with enhanced traffic, that we could see a spill. Hopefully, with better shipping lanes and things like that, we could get to the point where there is no spill at all. That is our goal, to make sure that we do not have an incident. So we are recommending things to make sure that it does not get to the fact that there is a spill.

MS MICHAEL: That would be my hope, that you would have so many preventative measures in place that hopefully we would avoid spills at all costs if possible.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: With respect to the Voisey's Bay environmental assessment, that is one of the reasons why they have to go through the process again and resubmit because we were not satisfied with their submission, and one of the areas that we were not satisfied with was the cumulative effects piece. We are very diligent and this is a key priority to ensure safety is the utmost.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it is. It is a serious one.

We are monitoring that closely. As a matter of fact, it was only last week that Voisey's Bay invited us down for a briefing.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: You probably knew that, and I had an opportunity to ask a lot of questions.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They have been doing public consultations in the community as well.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

I hope they are better than my experience when they were doing them in Labrador around the mine because sometimes - I am not in touch with the ones they did this time, but sometimes - my experience as a panel member, with regard to Voisey's Bay mine, was that many of the information sessions were more window dressing and pr than giving really good information. I hope they have learned to do better information sessions than they did back then. They have a lot more experience with us now, so I would hope that - I am not making any statement on them, it is just going back to my experience.

I think what I will do now is do some line items and then I will have some specific questions besides, just budget as we do some of the lines. The first two are pretty straightforward. There is nothing that spectacular there, but if you go to 1.2.02., Administrative Support - I will give everybody time to get your papers.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, I am good.

MS MICHAEL: Is everybody ready? Okay.

The first one I am looking at is subhead 02., Employee Benefits. Through this process last year too, I learned through this process that employee benefits means something different almost in every ad and in every department. What do employee benefits mean here and why did it go up so much in the revision last year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will get Colleen to explain the overall what employee benefits means, but the reason for the $50,000 increase last year was to cover injury on duty billings from Workers' Comp. If you want more as to what employee benefits are - you can go ahead, Colleen.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: For this section, the employee benefits, the entire budget is for Workers' Compensation payments. That is what the entire budget is used for.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. For the whole department?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. For everything under Environment and -

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Yes, it is.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

What was that again, please, Charlene, with regard to why it was over budget last year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It was an increase to cover injury on duty billings from Worker's Compensation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Obviously, you do not expect that again, so you are back down to the $55,000.

Under Purchased Services, which is subhead 06., it seems like you have a standard budget line here of $157,100. Even though you only spent $30,000 in 2007-2008 you are going back up to that. What would be the normal services that you would be purchasing under this head?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That would be for, one of it is the leased - maybe all of it is leased is it? All of it is leased accommodations. Last year we were expecting an increase in the cost of leased accommodations and that did not occur last year but we are expecting it to occur this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. It looks like a big increase then.

Where would your leased accommodations be?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: We have leased accommodations for several of our divisions within - we have some currently in Labrador, Corner Brook, and Deer Lake. Some of our Crown lands offices are leased accommodations.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under head 1.2.03., I have questions almost on every line along there. Subhead 01. Salaries, the budget led in 2007-2008 was $688,100, spent only $600,000. It looks like maybe a position was not filled, but this year's budget is going up to $747,100. Are you planning new hires, or what is going on there?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year we did not use $88,100. There were some temporary and other employee positions that did not get filled. For the upcoming budget, the $747,100, that is an increase in salaries for two new positions we are creating under Policy Development and Planning. That is really focused around the Green Fund.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

In this head, what are employee benefits for in this head, subhead 02.?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I think part of it in this head - but I will get Colleen to elaborate -is for conferences and the like.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: All of the employee benefits, outside of administration, are for conferences and registration fees.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: You're welcome.

MS MICHAEL: Which is similar to some other departments?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so I will not ask about them anymore.

Thank you very much.

Transportation and Communications is probably self-explanatory. If you are going to have new people hired, you are probably going to have more transportation and more travel. What is the breakdown between Transportation and Communications about, or do you know? What percentage goes to travel, what percentage to communications?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Colleen will get that for you in just one second.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

The first department to give us an answer, if you have it.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: It is all travel.

MS MICHAEL: It is all travel.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: T here is no communications.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, very good. Thank you.

Last year you did not use - you used about half -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: $51,300.

MS MICHAEL: Right, but you do have to keep that there, so that is fine.

Under subhead 05. Professional Services, you have gone up substantially in this year's estimate to $154,000 and you only spent $40,000 last year and had only estimated $64,000, what do you have planned that would bring it up so high this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It has increased by $90,000 and this was part of our Energy Plan and Blue Book commitment. The $90,000 is to develop a database around greenhouse gases and also to do a climate change update and also to do the Northern Strategic Plan and how it relates to climate change and adaptation.

MS MICHAEL: What would actually be the content of the database around the greenhouse gases?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: John, would you like to -

MR. DROVER: We are developing a database for the Province that would look at such things as energy use and how that translates into greenhouse gas emissions and our reductions from our Large Final Emitters, and basically how monitoring a lot of programs and progress made in the years. We will also incorporate into that things related to adaptation, such as increased rainfall and sea level rise, things like that. It primarily would relate to energy related and how that relates to greenhouse gas reductions in landfills and things like that as well.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is an important piece of information to have, because it provides us with baseline data; because, if we are to apply targets in the future, we need to know where we are.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

How are we right now with having that baseline data?

MR. DROVER: I am sorry; I didn't hear the first part.

MS MICHAEL: What is the status right now in terms of the actual baseline data that we have for the Province around greenhouse gas?

MR. DROVER: There are databases throughout government. Transportation and Works probably have some on their own buildings, that kind of thing. In our case, on the greenhouse gas emissions, we rely on data collected by the federal government, under their system.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

So this will give you the capability of getting much more of our information ourselves.

MR. DROVER: Yes, it would.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. That is good.

Under Grants and Subsidies, what would be the nature of those Grants and Subsidies? While you might want to give us an idea of the nature of them, and where some of the money goes, rather than going through a whole list, would it be possible for us to get a list of, at this time, who does get money under the Grants and Subsidies?

I would like some idea, though, because it is going up significantly from last year's expenditure. Not from last year's estimate, but from last year's expenditure.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: A lot of it is the ecoTrust fund, which is the $23 million fund – $23 million or $24 million – $23 million, I do believe. A lot of that didn't get spent last year, so in this year's budget you will see some of that.

Also in that is $720,000 that I referred to for our Green Fund, and there is $240,000 as a base for our climate change grants, outreach, and things like that. Then, the bigger chunk, other than the $240,000 and the $720,000, the rest of it is all ecoTrust.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Would you mind making that available to us, that list of all the details?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, that is no problem.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The only real thing that we have – there is only one application that has been approved to date, so it would be a short list. It is for methane recovery at Robin Hood Bay, and that was in the amount of $1.6 million.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: So we are really encouraging people to apply, because this is a keen area of interest.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

If you also, though, could give the breakdown of the different funds - you have the Newfoundland Green Fund, so much for that - what all makes up the $9,757,200.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, there are those three items, but we can get you those, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Just to have it on paper.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I think I have used up my time, Mr. Chair, for the moment.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Does anyone over here have a question, or not?

No? Okay.

We will move back to Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I guess it was about a month ago now, we sent a letter wondering if we could get a copy of the proposal submitted in reference to the Caribou Action Plan. I was wondering, is that forthcoming or are you able to release it even? Even though we requested it, that doesn't mean to say that you can release it.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will speak to it and then if Shane wants to add on….

A lot of it was internal discussions and going back and forth, but our intention is, in the very near future, to release a public document as to the actual plan.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Along the same lines, I guess, and I apologized to Shane Mahoney the other day when we had the statement here in the House. I guess, being politicians, sometimes you get away from the actual fact; I guess I tied what so many million dollars could do for other needs, and I apologize. I congratulate you sincerely, Sir, and I meant it at that time, for the award that you did win.

I know back, I don't know how long ago this is, I think I was at a meeting when I worked with John Efford and there was some issue ongoing, and I had charts there then showing the caribou population versus when our good old buddy the coyote came on stream, and it seemed like from that time it was downhill.

I know studies have to be done, but is it a known fact - or maybe not a known fact, but I know there are other issues in relation to it - the coyote, would that be the main predator when it comes to our caribou? Maybe there are other issues not relating to predators at all, but I was just wondering if you could explain that a little for me.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is certainly one of the main predators. Black bear and lynx would be other ones. In some parts of the Province coyotes would be the most significant predator, whereas in other parts it could be lynx and it could be black bear; but, on average, from the studies that have been done, Shane, is it somewhere around 20 per cent of the predators are coyotes?

MR. MAHONEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Even with all the predators, regardless of what the study shows, I guess why this is happening - we know that the population of caribou was up at a certain point, so I guess the population of those other species are the cause of it now. Whether it is the coyote or the black bear, they must be increasing as well in order to cause this destruction.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, that is a really good point because that is what our study is going to try and determine. We know, as studies have been done in the past on caribou calf mortality and calf recruitment, we know that calf recruitment has significantly reduced, and we know that the main reason for that is predators. What we don't know is the number and abundance of predators. So, before we are to apply any predator reduction strategy, you need to know how many coyotes do you want to take out, or how many black bears, a percentage of what?

We don't know what the total number is, so there is not enough information right now on the number of coyotes, the number of black bears, the number of lynx, and that is one of the things that the study is going to do, to get population estimates for them so that you can know how many to reduce it by in order to be effective.

Shane, if you want to elaborate, you are certainly the expert.

MR. MAHONEY: I think, Minister, you did quite a good job.

MR. BUTLER: The other issue in relation to that, when all of this surfaced and we heard different individuals had different opinions, and that is like every topic, I guess, that comes up on the board, I don't know if it was a phone call or some correspondence - and I can't say it was an official in P.E.I. because I might be misleading you - but it was someone in P.E.I., and apparently they had a problem with coyotes as well and they say it is very, very difficult to reduce their numbers; they are so keen in what they do and how they do it.

I was just wondering - I am sure you must have the expertise on that as well, and know what they went through - if it comes out in this study that the coyote is in certain areas, is there any plan how you would handle that? They had difficulty up there, and I am just wondering: Is there anything in mind if it comes out to be the coyote and a certain amount have to be taken out? What is planned to do that, if they had difficulty with it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Do you know what? It is not only them but there is difficulty all over. Coyotes are here, and they are here to stay. They usually have pups by one year old and, when they do, they can have litters of anywhere from seven to twelve, and they can do it yearly. They can pump out pups yearly, so they are not going anywhere

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Pardon me?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) reference to a statement I made in the House today.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Okay.

So, you know, one of the key components of our strategy is the education component, and numbers for hunting are on the decline. A lot less people are participating in hunting, and it is certainly a very important wildlife management tool. Imagine if we didn't have people trapping beavers, and the impact that would have on municipalities in terms of flooding and so on. So, one of the key focuses for us, for the long-term, is education and communication. In fact, we have already started with that. Just recently the department has held sessions on how to properly trap a coyote, because it is not really well known knowledge in the Province. We have done that with some of the rod and gun clubs. We have done that with the outfitters. Certainly we need to get more people actually hunting and trapping these animals as well, so that will be a key component.

The other component is, once we have some information back from the first year of the study and we are able to then go in and reduce the predators, certainly involving the outfitters and the trappers to assist us in helping us do that is one way that they can be part of this and understand how complex this issue is.

Is there anything you would like to add?

MR. MAHONEY: Only that the efforts to control, if you will, or manage coyote populations across the North American continent have resulted, in the last century, in about 20 million animals being taken from areas as far away as Southwest Texas and New Mexico, all the way up to Canada now, where they have expanded their range.

They are extraordinarily difficult to reduce to low numbers. Also, what we have to understand and appreciate is that the effort to reduce predation is complex, ethically charged, and also the challenge before us will be, if we can be successful, that Newfoundland and Labrador may have to commit itself to a very, very, long-term commitment to this kind of activity to be effective.

We are very much, I think, in kind of a Greek position in the sense that we have to choose the greater good, and we are trying to apply all of our techniques with professionalism and responsibility to all of the animals - to bears and coyotes and lynx, as much as to caribou - and yet to safeguard the critical resource, the iconic resource that caribou represent for our people and for our Province.

It is not easy, and the experiences elsewhere have proven to us that simplistic solutions, despite often delivered with great passion, commitment and honesty, cannot be applied with effectiveness. This has been the experience elsewhere.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I hope Greenpeace doesn't get on the side of the coyote.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They just might.

MR. BUTLER: They just might is right.

Minister, back to another issue now, I know you made a statement that there would not be an extension to the teepee incinerators, and I hope I got this right -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is right.

MR. BUTLER: - in lots of isolated communities, and I know there are several in the Province, I am wondering, are you working in conjunction with the Minister of Municipal Affairs? No doubt you are. If the deadline comes tomorrow that you cannot do this any more, and they may not have a plan how this can resolve itself quickly, is there a possible extension then if something like that should happen in some of those really remote communities that I am referring to?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is a commitment that was made under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The commitment was made in November 2003 to have all of the teepee incinerators or conical incinerators reduced by December 31, 2008. At the time, when we made the commitment, there were forty-one teepee incinerators on the Island. Now we are down to twenty-five.

The reason that the government made that commitment is because 27 per cent of all of the dioxins and furans that are emitted in Canada come from these teepee incinerators, so they are not something that people should want in their backyards.

Having said that, we are working very closely with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and we are doing that now; we are not waiting for the last minute so that people and communities will not have alternatives in place. So, we do have a committee in place between Municipal Affairs, Government Services and our department to work with the communities and help them seek alternatives. Certainly, the funding for consultation studies and so on would come from the Municipal Affairs Department, but we are going to be aggressive and I have given direction to staff to get out and do that consultation now. It is eight months away; we still have time. I do not want to leave this until the last minute.

MR. BUTLER: The other issue, and I am going to try to get this right because I was told in the House I was saying it wrong, the New Harbour landfill –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I say that tongue-in-cheek because –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, you can call it a dump right now.

MR. BUTLER: - from the pictures we see in the paper, and you know as well as I do that I live fairly close to it and I drive by it, for the life of me I can't get away from calling that place a dump; but, then again, we will go with landfill. I am just wondering if you can give me an update on the New Harbour landfill with regard to when it will close, and the cleanup, I guess, of the contaminated soil. I had another question - I will put them all into one - is there a tender called?

The other thing you can touch on - because I know you are well aware of this situation - I know I read it somewhere, and I don't know if it was in your statement, and I will use membrane for a better word, that was going to cover the site so the rain could not get down through, I am just wondering if you can give me an update on the full situation.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I sure can. Whatever I forget, you can fill in for me.

As you know, I was the member for that district. I lost them in the last election, unfortunately, so I have been very familiar with the issue of the New Harbour dump. As to when it will close, that is really up to the committee that is in place.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, I used the word dump.

There is a committee in place, and we are very committed to working with them and we have worked with them closely, but it is not until they decide where they want to bring their waste, and those studies, as you know, are ongoing right now. Municipal Affairs has provided funding for a consultation study. They originally looked at Robin Hood Bay, now they are looking at Winterton, so until that is complete our hands are tied, really.

In the meantime, though, in 2005 we did provide significant funding for a leachate control system, so that has been done and that is in place. We also have committed to doing compaction and grading once the site is closed, but again that has to wait until the decision is made. We have ordered the geomembrane cover, and that is sitting right now in storage until it is closed.

We have also put out a tender for the PCB removal, the PCBs that are greater than the CCME limit of 33 parts per million. That tender did close on March 12, and we are just doing our due diligence piece now before we award that tender. Once the dump is closed, we have committed to doing continuous monitoring of the site and ensuring that there are no issues that arise there. So by the time all is said and done, we, our department, will spend almost $1 million on the New Harbour dump to close it out.

Did I forget anything?

OFFICIAL: I don't think.

MR. BUTLER: Just a brief one before I turn it over. That is a good explanation.

In relation to the same area and from the same site, I notice we had a map - and we probably had the wrong map, which -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have all the answers for you, by the way.

MR. BUTLER: All right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I do not know if you have the letter yet.

MR. BUTLER: You are prepared for those, aren't you?

I was wondering if the waters in Dennys Pond have been ever tested to say that nothing went in there from there? I guess the map was a concern with those new cabin lots being sold, or put up on tender or draws or whatever, for Dennys Pond. On that map it did not show the site of the New Harbour landfill. It showed a dump further down the bay in an area.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering, is that map correct, or will that be revised? I am not saying it was an intentional thing so you could sell cabin lots there because the dump was not there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, and the purpose of that map really is to show where the cabin lots are. The purpose of that map was not to show where a landfill would be or anything else. It is strictly for people to know where the cabin lot is. That map is a map from 1981, and it is a federal government map. The reason why we use federal government maps is because they are the only ones available with that scale, to delineate exactly where the cabin lots are.

As to your question about water samples, that is something that the Lands Management Division certainly does. They do conduct water samples before this development would proceed, and there is a buffer of 1.6 kilometres. In this case it was 2.8 kilometres away. So that was not an issue, but water samples were conducted. Also, the Lands Management Division also consulted with our Water Resources Division, who has also done water quality samples, and there were no issues as to the water quality there. This is all public information. I do have the letter drafted to go back to you and it says exactly that.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I will turn it over to my colleague now (inaudible).

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Let's go to 1.2.04., please, Sustainable Development and Strategic Science.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: In four categories, subheads 01., 03., 05. and 06., all of these were very much underspent in 2007-2008. I guess it is because you have not fully gotten into what you want to get into, but I will let you speak to it.

In Salaries, in Transportation and Communications, Professional Services and Purchased Services, there was quite a bit of underspending last year, but most of those subheads have gone up even beyond what was estimated last year. So what are your hopes for this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Under the Salaries, last year it was really an issue of delayed recruitment. That is why that did not get fully spent there. For this current year, we are creating new positions and these new positions are directly related to our Caribou Strategy. The hope is to have all of those positions filled this year. So we will use that money.

Under Transportation and Communications; there was a decreased requirement there for air services and travel. That is the reason for that to decrease. Also, that number is up again this year. Again, that is just strictly due to the Caribou Strategy, and that will be used for travel costs for new staff and also air services support for doing the census, the capture and the collaring of the caribou and also of the prey. It is pretty intense and a lot of helicopter time involved with that.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Under Professional Services; again, we did not have the need last year to fill all of that and that is why that number is down. The number is up again this year, and that is money for the Caribou Strategy. That would be for purchases such as field research support and expert advice and consultation.

Under Purchased Services; last year we did not spend $32,000. That was a reduction in advertising, printing and leasing costs. That number is up this year by $50,000, and that again is for the long-term Caribou Strategy. That would be for things like printing and advertising costs for the strategy and the field work component.

MS MICHAEL: So the Caribou Strategy is going to be the biggest sort of thing this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. It is big in that particular subhead and also you will see it in wildlife as well.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Do you still intend to set up an advisory committee with regard to the sustainable development and strategic science, because I thought that was part of (inaudible) –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The round table?

MS MICHAEL: - and the round tables?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Do you have a schedule set up for the round tables yet?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is not complete yet, but the hope is to have that round table in place in the very near future.

MS MICHAEL: There will be public consultations when the round table gets set up, that is still part of the plan?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, that's right. That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: But nothing finalized yet?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Nothing finalized yet, but we are getting there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I can move on then to 1.2.05., the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science.

My biggest question there is with regard to the research that will go on in biodiversity and ecosystem science. Is there any co-operation between your department and the institute at all with regard to the research that they do or do they just set up their research plan, or do they look at what the needs of the Province are with regard to the research? Does your department work with them in doing that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will let Shane speak to it, but we certainly do work closely. In the case of caribou, for instance, there is certainly need there for more information on caribou and those students would do those types of projects. Shane, you can elaborate.

MR. MAHONEY: The institute is actually government owned and so all of the people who are working there are actually government employees.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I did not realize that.

MR. MAHONEY: The personality of the institute, I guess, it was designed and set up actually to do exactly what you are wondering about. The institute itself does not decide upon research priorities. In fact, it is there to serve all government departments. So government departments come forward with questions that they need answered and the purpose of the institute is to provide a formal mechanism whereby individuals who are focused on this find the best academics, not only in our own university but anywhere around the world, who can assist our own government departments and agencies to get the answers to the questions they need.

So there are some, I guess, misconceptions perhaps about how it is structured, but it is actually government employees that are housed at the university, but they are there to serve, in fact, all government departments. So, IBES sets no priorities. It accepts the priorities of government and then works on behalf of those.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. That is clear. I really was not aware that that is how it was set up.

If we could go back up to 1.2.04. again, please. I had meant to ask about this, and Roland just saw it as well. Under subhead 07., Property, Furnishings and Equipment. You have quite a large budget there this year, $459,700. I am suspecting it has to do with the Caribou Strategy, since everything else there did.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, and it would be for the furnishings of new staff. It is also for ATVs, which will assist us, and vehicles and snowmobiles and the like.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much.

Under 1.2.06., the only question here - I have a couple, I think - under Purchased Services 06., there was no money budgeted in 2007-2008 for Purchased Services but $1,139,300 was spent. What was that about, and has there been a transfer of expenditures from that line to another line? It looks quite weird as a budget item there right now.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will attempt to answer it. I am not going to pretend to be an accountant, so Colleen, you can certainly fill in. I think this was a case of, under the Parks Renewal Program there was a four-year, $1 million per year fund, and basically what it appears to me has happened was last year all of that money was put into property and furnishings, but as you went through the process and spent the money, then it was subdivided into the appropriate categories.

Colleen, you can certainly add to that, but that is why you can see, line 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment, only $329,000 was spent and $1.448 million budgeted, but then you see under Purchased Services, and the other headings, they were properly attributed to the proper categories.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Correct.

MS MICHAEL: But what was the accounting reason for doing that?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: For some reason the partial capitalization has always been budgeted under 07., and it has just never been corrected. Vehicles for the department are also included in this, which is actually what the 07. account is, it is for vehicles.

Parks recapitalization does not have any Property, Furnishings and Equipment. The majority of that is for construction services, which would be 06.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: It looks like a big change has happened, though.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is quite a learning experience in government accounting, let me tell you.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I believe that.

Okay, 2.1.01., Pollution Prevention. I find the heading curious, because when you read what it is about, pollution prevention is only one of many things, because the appropriations provide for the development of plans, programs, standards and activities concerning environmental emergencies, waste management, petroleum storage, industry, pollution prevention, air emissions, environmental science and pesticides. I would have expected a broader heading, but I understand.

Under Salaries, you are going up somewhat from last year to $2,152,300. Is that filling vacancies or new positions?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is new positions. Bill mentioned earlier the oil spill engineer for Placentia Bay.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is in there. We are also hiring a new position for contaminated sites.

MS MICHAEL: For what?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Contaminated sites.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Subhead 04. under the same head. You seemed to have unexpected supplies in last year's Budget and you are back down to $51,000 this year. What was that about, the $200,000?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That was the money spent for contaminated sites. It was the geomembrane that we purchased for New Harbour landfill.

MS MICHAEL: Under Purchased Services, last year you only spent $100,000 even though you have $1 million in that category and we are going back up to $1 million again. What happened last year that that was not used?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year we had intended to spend that money on New Harbour dump - landfill - but as I explained earlier, the committee had not made a decision to close it. So, because of that, we really missed the opportunity there and we have to wait for them to decide what they are going to do. The intent is to spend the money this year.

The other project that we were focusing on last year was Northwest Point. There were some issues there in terms of weather and it just did not get done by the time the tender went out and we were into bad weather season for there, so that did not happen.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

We will not tell Minister Denine that you are saying dump.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They call them landfills until they are properly (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: That's right, exactly, which is your point.

Thank you very much. I have run out of my time.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Are you finished?

MS MICHAEL: I have run out of my time.

MR. BUTLER: You can go ahead another while if you want to.

MS MICHAEL: Can I?

MR. BUTLER: Indeed you can. We are not going fighting over time here tonight.

MS MICHAEL: You and I do not fight over anything, I don't think.

I just want to look at a couple of points that are written here.

I would like to know what discussion is going on inside of the department with regard to ornamental pesticide bans. Is there any big discussion going on?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have had some meetings with various organizations such as Landscape Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Cancer Society, and I have met with some individual pesticide companies, the Lung Association, so I have committed to reviewing it.

We know recently what was announced in Ontario, but even prior to that I did commit to reviewing it. There are numerous groups that want to come in and meet with me and businesses, so it is going to take a piece of time.

Before I make any decision, and our government makes any decision, I want to make sure that the proper consultation piece is done, so that is where we are. We are in the consultation process.

MS MICHAEL: Good.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: As you know, with the House open, there is very limited time to attend meetings, so right after the House I am going to clue up all of the rest of them in short order after the House closes.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

I don't know the answer to this one, and it is more based on a personal experience of living here in the city. If a municipality does not have regulations with regard to pollution going into the air from people burning things on their property, and that kind of thing – because, the only regulation that the St. John's municipality has is that you can burn things on your property as long as you have a mesh over the barrel and flankers don't go in the air, but there is nothing about the pollution, the possible pollution, of burning things within the city - are there provincial guidelines with regard to that? Does the Province work with municipalities around that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Bill, do you want to speak to that?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, there are guidelines on what can and cannot be burnt, and there are directives that have been issued by the department pertaining to burning, to prevent things like plastics, tires, or wall coverings. Anything that has a plastic base or causes great contamination other than, really, wood, we provide those municipalities when they require it.

As well, there are new regulations pertaining to wood-burning stoves. The stoves that are being sold now are more efficient, so it reduces the contamination coming from wood-burning appliances.

MS MICHAEL: So, even if a municipality doesn't have those guidelines actually written into their own regulations, the provincial is still there. Then, is it the municipality's responsibility to make sure that people live by them?

For example, if I complain about something being burned and I go to the municipality, can they go and check on it or will they do what they said to me, when I did go to them: That is not our responsibility; we don't have any bylaws with regard to what goes into the air.

MR. PARROTT: The Municipalities Act and, of course, the various city acts, provide the municipal governments with the ability to regulate such things, so that is where it normally is regulated, but some communities do not do it and a lot of times the Government Services Centres who do inspections on behalf of the Province get complaints about these things; but, usually by the time you get a complaint, unless you are on the site when the person is burning, especially if it is household garbage right behind the house or something, it is over, and at that point in time, then, all the inspectors can really do is issue notices to make sure – it becomes an education process, then, to educate people about not burning these things in the future.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I have finished that section now.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

This is a question I didn't even anticipate asking when I came here, but we were talking about the New Harbour site. I was just wondering if there was someone – Charlene, this goes back not before your time but before your time of being minister. I worked with another minister at the time and it was in our district at the time, Makinsons, and that was a site, it was a scrap yard or whatever you want to call it, for cleanup. To be honest with you, back at that time I didn't realize those PCBs in those Light and Power what do you call them - ?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Transformers.

MR. BUTLER: Transformers – even went to the New Harbour site back at that time, and I attended many public meetings in Makinsons. I forget the gentleman's name - I don't know if he is in the department now; I think he is retired - he used to go out to the public meetings, anyway.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Was it Ken Dominie?

MR. BUTLER: That is who it was.

Anyway, we used to attend those meetings and I can remember seeing him up there taking the soil. I don't know whether they were actually burning the soil, but there were supposed to be treating it, putting it in drums, and it was supposed to go away to the mainland somewhere.

When all of this broke recently, and you read in the papers about all of the canisters that went from Makinsons, I thought, to be honest with you, that they were cleaned up there. So, really, there was nothing done with them up there at that time, only just carried over there and buried as they were?

I don't want to stir up any (inaudible) about this, but I was just wondering, trying to piece it together.

MR. PARROTT: I have not delved too deeply into the old files of the department. We have spent our time, since I have been in the department, working to make sure that the dump at New Harbour is cleaned up and remediated to standard. If you would like some information on the old Makinsons cleanup, the files are certainly there and we can get it for you.

MR. BUTLER: I know the site was cleaned up in Makinsons, but I thought the transformers were cleaned up on site, or to a certain degree, because they had people in there and they had all kinds of equipment there, washing, burning, or whatever. Even if they buried them over there, I didn't think there was anything in them. Number one, I didn't think they went there; but, no, it is not an issue that you want to go back and check your files - I don't mean it that way - but I thought someone might have – you know, I am wondering now what that crew did when they were there. Maybe they did nothing with the soil or any of it.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Obviously, some of it got there.

MR. BUTLER: It was a company from outside of our Province, I understand, that came there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Obviously some of them got to the dump, because there have been a couple that were found above fifty parts per million.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I agree with you on that part of it –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: – but to know that there was a company come in and had the contract to clean up that site, and they had transport trucks there, putting it into it, and then, when you learn about it after, transformers were carried under the disguise of darkness and buried over there, it is unbelievable to know that if there was a contractor cleaning it up, that something like that should happen and they got away with it at the time, I guess, is what I am trying to say.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have heard all the different stories, too, so we just have to deal with it, now that it is there.

MR. BUTLER: I understand there was an environmental assessment done and approved on the new refinery for Placentia Bay, in that area, and I was also under the impression – and you probably know the difference in this; you are a minister, and I don't want you to let any secrets out that you might know – to my knowledge, at the time there was no major investor in place. I was wondering, with no one in place to look after that there, will it be a problem to ensure compliance when – should someone have been in place out there before this was all approved or the assessment was done? Maybe I am not making sense in what I am trying to say.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Do you want to have a go at it?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

Could you just qualify the question?

MR. BUTLER: There was an environmental assessment –

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: – done and approved. I think I saw that, right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: In my understanding there is a refinery going there. We hope it is, anyway. What I am trying to say is, where there is no investor on knowing who to be dealt with, if there was someone there saying I want to build this, and you do the assessment and tell them what they had to do, is it ever a complicated thing to have them comply? They are coming in after the fact, more or less?

MR. PARROTT: Okay, there is no investor.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We were dealing with the Refinery Corporation. That is who we would deal with, the Newfoundland Refinery Corporation, so they are an entity that we do deal with.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Where they go, then, for their investors, that really is not something that we are – not that we are not concerned with it. From an environmental perspective we are concerned.

MR. BUTLER: And they are there, right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: There is a corporation that we deal with.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

The other thing, and I can't believe I am going to ask this question, because I worked with a minister when the new highway went through here, went through Pippy Park and everything, and I remember all the fuss about the environmental issues, that the highway shouldn't go there and so on. Here I am now asking a question, and at that time the minister and the government of the day were defending it, that this was done properly and so on.

Now I am going to ask you a question: Do you think the Torbay Bypass Road - and I know it was only this week we had a letter from a resident that was sent to the mayor of the town. I don't know if it was cc'd to you or not, but I can get you a copy of that - where they are concerned about the wildlife and the environment where that road is going through. The assessment has been done for that road, hasn't it, and received a green light?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I would have to check, Mr. Butler, to see if that was filed under environmental assessment. Nothing has come across my desk, to the best of my knowledge, since I have been minister. Maybe it was done prior to me being there. We will have to check, but it may not file for EA until they actually have their site plan in place, but again I will have to check for you.

MR. BUTLER: The Minister of Transportation and Works advised me today that - I think the tender is let for cutting the site.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We will get back to you on that one in short order.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

You mentioned, and in conjunction with –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We will check it out. We are not –

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

You mentioned, I think you were part of an announcement about the Drinking Water Safety Initiative, $2.9 million.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I think you touched on it in your opening statement, so my question was: What will be done with I think it is $1.025 million that is allocated for this year? I am just wondering how that will kick off the program, I guess, if you can elaborate on it a little?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Sure.

We are going to work really closely with Municipal Affairs, and the other part of that funding, of course, is the $6 million annually from Municipal Affairs, so a total of $18 million over three years. They will be responsible for the actual capital. We will be responsible for working with each of the municipalities, devising what the best plan forward is for them.

We know, in looking at SaskWater in Saskatchewan, that these potable water drinking units are certainly something that can take care of drinking water quality issues immediately, but it is not the only solution. There may be a case of you need a filtration system or a chlorinator or something like that, so part of the money is to be spent for staff to work with the communities to devise the proper plan.

The other piece of the money is, while we were focusing on communities less than 500 in the beginning, the other I think it is a couple of hundred thousand dollars is to do a detailed analysis of what to do with the communities over 500. The other part of the funding would be for vehicles and also staff.

MR. BUTLER: One of the recommendations that -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: And consultants, sorry, the consultants as well.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This year, at the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Convention, one of their recommendations they put forward to be considered by government, and I have to read this because I might get it wrong: Government considered a transfer of Crown Lands within municipal planning areas to be turned over to the municipality for economic development.

I was wondering, has that come to your attention and how do you look at that? I don't think they are just looking for the Crown Land for the sake of looking for it, but if they had plans. I have dealt with Mr. – I am after forgetting your name now.

MR. PARROTT: Bill Parrott.

MR. BUTLER: - Parrott on this issue sometimes in some municipalities out in my area. They argue about the fees back and forth and so on. It is at a minimum amount, I know, but has there been any consideration given to their resolution?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I just recently had a meeting with Graham Letto, the president, and two other representatives of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. They put their case forward to me and I had some questions and some information that I am looking back from them. Right now, they have to gather that piece of work and bring it back to me.

Their main issue is that they feel that is inhibits development, and I really want them to show me how, because there are many cases where, in the Province, the cost of Crown Land does not inhibit development. We see land going in Norris Point and other small communities for $18,000 a hectare, so it is certainly selling there.

I kind of asked them to get me some more information and solidify their position.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

I am going to have the name of this program wrong, but this is what it started out to be called. It has nothing to do with your department at this point in time. Under the former Liberal Administration in Ottawa, they came up with a plan they called the home heating efficiency program. I know when the new government took over they put it on hold and then they announced that there would be a program. It was to be administered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Back at that time, the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Mr. Simms - there was a letter sent out saying that the applications would be available April 1, I think it was 2007. Naturally, everyone gets wind of this. I have seventy-five people on a list now – I think it is around seventy-five – who are waiting for their applications, and there are still no applications.

I was told by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that the issue is now with Environment and Conservation and Natural Resources, I think it is, and it is called REP.

OFFICIAL: REEP.

MR. BUTLER: REEP, is it?

OFFICIAL: R-E-E-P.

MR. BUTLER: I left out an E.

OFFICIAL: Residential.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

I was just wondering, with your department, what is the issue that would be holding this up? Because that is the way it was put to us; it was being held up by two departments here provincially, in order to get the program in place.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, certainly under the Energy Plan we did commit to looking into programs such as this, and Natural Resources is the lead on the Energy Plan but we do work closely with them. I know such a program is being looked at.

In terms of our involvement, we are at the table because anything that improves energy efficiency is certainly something that we are interested in, but as it stands right now that program will not fall under our department so I would have to leave it to Natural Resources, being the lead on that, to answer to that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

So it is cleared from your department, without any hold up on it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is not going to fall under our department, but I am certainly kept in the loop as to the different options that we are looking at.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

It was supposed to be administered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, right, but that is what happened.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The Environmental Impact Statement in regards to Voisey Bay, would your department have anything to do –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I know it was returned for additional work, and I was just wondering what the status is, or if it was with your department, or both you and federally, or –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We wrote the company – I think it was in February or March – and told them that what they had submitted was not satisfactory. There was so much that was not satisfactory that we just basically asked them to resubmit the Environmental Impact Statement.

They did do that, and now it is going through the public consultation process. I think the deadline for comments is June –

OFFICIAL: June 17.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: June 17, and then my decision would follow after that.

So, while it is going through the process, I just really remain silent until all of the information comes in and we will review it at the end.

MR. BUTLER: That is fair.

Ever Green Recycling – the reports we had on the paper and the cardboard - I know the funding was discontinued at that point in time.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: That was through MMSB, I guess.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: MMSB.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering: how has that panned out? Because I know the people were told they had to take it to either Mount Pearl or CBS.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Have there been any problems with it, or is everything just moving on smoothly?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: With regard to CBS or Mount Pearl, that was a comment, that I said I would do it; when I am going to my friend's house, I would drop it off. I just said it kind of tongue-in-cheek and in hindsight it wasn't the best thing to say, but it wasn't certainly a policy that I was announcing as part of our department.

This was a pilot project that Ever Green started, and at the time when they did start the pilot project we did provide them with approximately $30,000 in terms of a grant to help them market and promote the service that they would provide.

It was made clear to them at the time that we can provide capital and we can assist with marketing, but when it comes to the daily operations you have to be responsible for this yourselves, and I guess it worked out because they did have a partner that was taking it and there were no issues. Then eventually their partner left the business, which left them in a bit of a financial situation.

We have provided capital to Mount Pearl, Lewisporte and Corner Brook, and those communities all take care of the operations themselves. That is made quite clear because, as you know, we have the Waste Management Strategy that will be coming on stream, so if people are going to have the opportunity to put their fibre and cardboard right at their curbside then it would be a duplication, and would people really use a drop-off service when they can put it out at their curbside anyway?

In St. John's, the plan is to have that up and running in 2009; so, really, to put an investment into that when it is going to be there in nine or ten months anyway is just not the prudent thing to do.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to e-waste, would that be administered through your department?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is under MMSB, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Would that also come in under the time frame of 2010? What is being done with it at the present time?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We do not have a timeline set for it. It is a high priority. It is a high priority for me, something I am interested in.

We are looking at other jurisdictions, and I have talked to a lot of other ministers across the country and they said: Whatever you do when it comes to e-waste, take it slow.

I am taking the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and their roadblocks that they have encountered, but there are some things we can do in the interim. We are exploring things like Phones-for Food, and we were at a recent announcement with that. I know the Department of Education funds to the schools for the recycling of computers and shipping them off. So, in the interim there are small things we can do, but in terms of an e-waste strategy we are not fully there yet but we are certainly explorations other jurisdictions and the pains that they are having.

Nova Scotia, as you know, just brought it in, in February of this year, and in talking to them they have storage rooms full of computers and TVs and really do not have a plan as to what to do with it yet, so we want to make sure that we have all of that in place.

MR. BUTLER: I have one other question and, unless my colleague doesn't finish up on the one-liners, I had a few of those there.

This goes back to a site in Bay Roberts. The inspector, I think it is from your department, used to go out there periodically. This was three or four years ago. He would go in and say: Look, this site has to be cleaned up.

It was only a joke for this guy because, to me, it was a dump again, but he said he was making a dollar on this piece of metal and another piece of metal and something else. I remember three occasions that I had him out there and we walked through it and he said: Look, you have to get rid of this; you have to do this and another thing.

Why I am asking this question is, I am wondering if the department ever came across it anywhere else. Really, it went back to the justice system because this guy would be taken to court, he would walk in and the judge would say a $500 fine. He laughed at that when he got outdoors because he was going to have $500 made before he ate his supper. Then, four or five weeks down the road, the poor old inspector would go out again.

Is that a common thing, like sometimes when you try to clean up something, whether they are taken to court and what have you, and they are let off so lightly, and here you are trying to do the best you can for the environment with regard to whatever it is?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is frustrating, and I don't know of the one you speak of, but I have a similar situation.

The inspectors that you refer to would be from Government Services, correct?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: So that would not be in my department. They are environmental health inspectors, but they are with the Department of Government Services.

I don't want to speak again to too many justice matters - I am no expert there – but, unfortunately, when it does go to the courts and the court makes a ruling it is really hard to charge somebody with the same thing twice, is what I am being told in the case of the situation I have been dealing with. I don't know if you know if it is common or not.

MR. PARROTT: It has happened but, fortunately, most people, when they enter into the court process and are found guilty, they react to that and do go and clean up the site, but there have been cases where people have paid the fine and you end up back into the situation six weeks or six months down the road.

MR. BUTLER: The site I am referring to is still there and it is almost just as bad, to be honest with you.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: If it is in a municipality, of course, the municipality has the opportunity in their bylaws to deal with it as well.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I had two other points under Pollution Prevention, but Roland asked about e-waste so I don't have to do that one.

You don't want me to ask this question but I have to. With regard to Robin Hood Bay, there are still many questions in my constituency around Robin Hood Bay, the people who live around it, and there are also environmentalists and environmental scientists who say that the study and then the peer review that was done of that study are not satisfactory from their perspective with regard to a number of areas. One is leachate, another is the chemicals in the steam, and another is the polluting of the marine environment.

The question that is being put out, and I am putting it to you, was: Did one ever think about doing an environmental assessment? There hasn't been real public input into that from the people who live in the area, for example, and has thought been given? Somebody has to trigger an environmental assessment, I know, and I am surprised that nobody did, actually, with regard to Robin Hood Bay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will speak to it and then I will pass it over to you, Bill, to elaborate.

The case with Robin Hood Bay: the city did do a study, as you referred to, and then the department did do a peer review. Given that it is in a bedrock bowl and there is a positive groundwater pressure, these were satisfactory characteristics in dealing with the leachate so that gave it the equivalency. When we asked for an engineered landfill or equivalency, that was satisfactory for that equivalency. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, in terms of the leachate, there is a plan for a leachate collection and treatment system so that any leachate that comes from the dump will be treated and brought to provincial and federal standards before it is discharged into the Atlantic.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What about the whole issue of chemicals in the stream? I haven't read the studies in detail. I have seen them. Did they deal with that?

MR. PARROTT: The chemicals in the stream, the stream discharges from Robin Hood Bay?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, that would be contained in the reports pertaining to this, considered under the leachate.

MS MICHAEL: So you would have considered that as – with the leachate.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, the main flow of leachate is in that stream, and that is what would be contained and treated.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I am sure they know that but there still are a lot of questions; but you are satisfied?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, we did have the peer review done and we did spend the money to verify the city's report, so these are professionals who did that review.

MS MICHAEL: Have you thought about doing even a community session just to inform people? I actually was trying, as the MHA, to do that, and we were putting out calls to people maybe who would be on a panel and I wanted to sponsor, just for the whole district, a public session of some kind. Would your department be interested in doing that, in partnership with me as the MHA, and get the information out? I think people do not have the full information.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I could be wrong, but I thought that the city did hold a public session on this. Again, I stand to be corrected. I thought that they did. I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere.

MS MICHAEL: Sometimes, with something like this, one session is not enough.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, and I don't know if it was one or more, to be honest.

The other thing, too, is the Greater Avalon Waste Management Committee is in place now and certainly their role - and again I am going over into Municipal Affairs a little bit - their role is to bring information to the public and make sure that they are educated and aware as to what has been going on. That was recently formed, and they have a big task ahead of them.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

If there were a public meeting and a request was made to your department to have somebody be on a panel, would that be something you would respond positively to?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I don't see why not. We are very aware of what is going on, and we talk to the city frequently, but again that would go through the Greater Avalon Waste Committee, but we do these all the time. Just recently, actually, in Gander, at the symposium for Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, we did have a panel there, and somebody from Municipal Affairs and Government Services and MMSB were on that to explain the whole Waste Management Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Well, I may try again to get this done and have a public meeting, maybe in early June, before people get into going away for weekends and stuff.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Just get in touch with us.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, will do. Thank you.

Under 2.2.01.01., Salaries, going up a bit, just under $300,000, is there more hiring happening there?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, there is money budgeted there should we hire people under the drinking water strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Under Purchased Services, the budget is going up significantly, both from the estimated last year and what was spent, up to $1,061,000. What is it that is causing that category to go up so much this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is strictly all for the drinking water (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

I like simple answers like that. It gets us out more quickly.

Under 2.2.02., Water Quality Agreement, is the drinking water strategy becoming part of this as well or is it all under the other category?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, that is all under the other category.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Well, then, a lot of this does go up. The Salaries are going up in this one, the Transportation and Communications are going up, and the Purchased Services. So, 01., 03. and 06. are all going up. What is happening with them under this program, or under this agreement?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador water quality agreement and also for the Lower Churchill hydro project. Under Salaries, we are hiring a permanent position in Labrador for water quality, and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador water quality agreement is really a national pilot project.

MS MICHAEL: Which is - I am sorry?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is a national pilot project.

MS MICHAEL: The water quality monitoring?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Water quality agreement.

MS MICHAEL: Agreement, yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Under Transportation and Communications we do have additional funding there for both that agreement and also the Lower Churchill hydro project. The same is the case as well for Purchased Services. It is really focused around those two projects.

MS MICHAEL: I notice the federal funding will be down a little bit from last year. Is this an agreement that has more life to it after this year?

MR. PARROTT: There are a number of agreements we have with the federal government. I think the reduction here is there was a specific short-term agreement we had related to agriculture groundwater in the Province. Most of that money was spent in the last fiscal year.

MS MICHAEL: I see.

I have a question here from my researcher, so I will ask her question. How is the government going to address the new federal regulations preventing dumping raw sewage into the ocean? St. John's is not the only place - neither in Newfoundland and Labrador, nor in Canada - that does that.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Certainly, discussions are ongoing. People within our department provincially are liaising and communicating with the federal government. Also, discussions are ongoing with municipalities as well, and it is certainly a topic that I would hope we will bring up at the Atlantic Ministers' meeting in June.

There is a lot of toing and froing going on and we are certainly raising the concerns, particularly around the financial ability for communities to do this. A staff member in our department, in fact, is the chair of one of the subcommittees around this, and as a result of our discussions at that table, we did convince them to put a component into the study around financial sustainability.

MS MICHAEL: Good.

So the federal government has come up with the new regulations but has not come up with money to help municipalities?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is correct, and they did announce - I remember reading somewhere recently that they had allotted $8 billion, and it was kind of said in the same sentence as this municipal waste-water treatment. I think though, after sifting through all of that, it is not new money, it is money that they had previously announced. So that is certainly one of the things we will be bringing up.

MS MICHAEL: That you are bringing up. Great. Thank you.

Here I have more, a few general questions. Will I do this and then -

MR. BUTLER: You go right ahead.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

A few general questions but a couple of line items, too.

2.3.01., Environmental Assessment, subhead 01. Salaries are going up over last year's expenditure by $200,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is really for - $71,000 of that is for the annualization of new initiatives that were brought in last year but they might have only received half-year funding for it, so this is to annualize that piece. Yes, so that is the $71,000.

MS MICHAEL: That is $71,000 -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: $70,600, if you want to be exact.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Do you have new positions as well, because last year it was $550,000?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That was new positions last year that had only gotten funded for part of the year. So we are now annualizing that salary component.

MS MICHAEL: Right, but it has gone up $200,000 from what was spent last year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well the reason last year it was down, there was delayed recruitment in those positions.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

The other one that has gone up significantly is Purchased Services, 06. It is going up to $563,600 from expenditures last year of $25,000. So what is that about?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is all strictly for the joint panel on the Lower Churchill Project.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: $550,000.

MS MICHAEL: Right. What is the status of that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Of the environmental assessment?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have to think, now. The draft regulations went out for public review and that time period has been up. Now we are in the process of doing our piece internally. Also, the MOU has gone out to Aboriginal communities to have comment on and then that will go to the public in about three weeks' time. If it is thirty days, it would go to the Aboriginal communities - June 6 it goes out. So that will be the next part of the public consultation piece, is seeking comment on the MOU between the Province and the federal government. When all of that is complete, then we expect to have the environmental impact statement back - sorry, you are right; we have to issue the guidelines. It is quite a process and we are working through it.

MS MICHAEL: I am curious, are the Aboriginal groups partners with the Province and the feds as happened with Voisey's Bay, because there you had four joint partners?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, we have consultation with them all the time. I am not sure -

MS MICHAEL: No, that is different. It was a joint environmental assessment between fed, provincial, Innu Nation and Inuit - LIA at the time.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. It is just the federal-provincial.

MS MICHAEL: It is just federal-provincial.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, but they are certainly consulted every step of the way.

MS MICHAEL: So it is a different process. The panel is in place, is it? Is a panel appointed?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Not yet.

MS MICHAEL: So all of this is happening without the panel being appointed?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The draft guide -

MS MICHAEL: Everything you have described to now -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, the draft guidelines is the only thing that has been done and just recently the MOU between the feds and the Province. So you would not need a - actually, the MOU between the feds and the Province speaks to what the panel would look like. You cannot have the panel in place until -

MS MICHAEL: What are the draft guidelines for? They are for the impact statement?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The guidelines for the development of the environmental impact statement.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Yes. Well, the panel I was on, we actually did the guidelines.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Because the panel did the guidelines, not the two government agencies.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, right.

MS MICHAEL: So it is a very different process, and that is not unusual for the panel to do the guidelines. Other panels have done guidelines, too.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Bill just indicated, and it is true, the federal government has moved away from that particular process.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am aware of that.

With regard to uranium exploration in Labrador, to what degree is the department involved with actual monitoring?

MR. PARROTT: The actual monitoring during the exploration?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: The monitoring during the exploration is, I believe - the department does not monitor. I believe that is carried out by Natural Resources.

MS MICHAEL: Natural Resources does the monitoring, the environmental monitoring?

MR. PARROTT: Well, the environmental monitoring in terms of - I guess if you are looking at if they are putting in waste disposal systems and things like that, that is carried out by the Government Services centre environmental health inspectors.

MS MICHAEL: But, my understanding is that even in the exploration phase with uranium, radio activity can begin during that phase. Who is monitoring what is happening with regard to radio activity because of the uranium being disturbed during the exploration phase? - because that is a fact, that does happen. So who is monitoring that?

MR. PARROTT: We will check on that for you.

MS MICHAEL: It is a real serious concern. I would be really happy to learn about that because it seems to me that Natural Resources is not the place. They do not have the capability for doing that monitoring, it would seem to me. Maybe they do, but I would like to know what is happening with regard to that.

Thank you.

I will do one on this page and get that done because it is related, it is Environmental Assessment.

CHAIR: If we could keep our questions more to the estimates rather than general policy of the department.

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

Under 2.3.02. Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board, what is happening here that the Environmental Management Board is finished? Because you have the budget and revision from last year and then there are no expenditures this year. So this no longer exists?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: At the time that we were preparing for budgets and the upcoming budget, we had not had a decision made. Since that time we have made a decision that we are going to continue with the board and with the Environmental Management Agreement. So, we are going to have to find the money somewhere within. We will certainly review that as we go forward, too, the whole board and sit down with the interested stakeholders and have a discussion.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. When that happens and a budget is done, could we receive a copy of the budget then?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

You have some line items, yourself?

MR. BUTLER: I just have a couple, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: 3.1.01. Crown Land, under 07., Property, Furnishings and Equipment. I know last year it was $10,000, $138,000 this year; just a brief explanation.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is mainly for - as I mentioned, we have new inspectors we are hiring, so that is new vehicles for those inspectors.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

3.1.02. Professional Services, 05., $53,000 to $245,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That money was budgeted last year for the cottage lot development at Salmonier, and that did not happen last year. We are moving forward with it this year. So part of that $245,000 is the money for the cottage lot development, $50,000 of it, and the other $75,000 is the money we announced in the budget for the comprehensive land use management strategy.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

When you mentioned Salmonier and cottages, another question came to me? It is through your department, I guess - or I think it was, I could be wrong again - like up around Fox Marsh and all those different areas where people used to be camping in the woods and down through the bushes and everything else, and there was a clean up started. I think it was through your department, the Environment, and I was wondering how that was progressing? If it is through your department, maybe I am wrong. There were notices that went out and put on - I thought it was through Environment but I may be wrong there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, that is through our department. Certainly, under the act, if it is illegal occupation of Crown land we can post notices to remove those. So you are right, and that is probably an area that we - it is done.

MR. BUTLER: It is done. So there is no problem anymore?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Not in that particular area.

MR. BUTLER: You cannot have any better answer than that.

4.1.02., I know it was budgeted last year under Salaries, 01., $173,100 and it was just $50,000. I was just wondering - I guess I know what it is, the people were not hired or whatever, but from what was budgeted to the revision, and it is up to $100,000 again this year. It is under subhead 4.1.02.01., Park Development.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That was delayed recruitment last year. This year we hope to hire those positions, but also there are some planned savings in there as well. That is why, for 2008-2009, the $100,000 is there rather than $173,000. That is an area where we have been able to find some savings.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 4.2.02.06., Endangered Species and Biodiversity, Purchased Services, I know it was budgeted at $28,000, it went to $63,000, and this year is budgeted at $203,000.

MR. BUTLER: Is that the same one that is up in the Eastern Avalon where the woodcutting was?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is correct.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: In order for us to develop plans on a go-forward basis we need a lot more research into this particular moth or lichen. Ninety-five per cent of what is left remaining in the world lies in this Province, so that money there is to do the contract services for the surveys, and a research co-ordinator.

MR. BUTLER: I know back some time ago now, up there with the woodcutting - I know you don't look after forestry, but it was due to this lichen –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is right.

MR. BUTLER: - that people were not allowed to go in there and cut. The timber was after blowing down, thousands of cords, and it was going to rot on the ground, but they were not allowed in there afraid they were going to disturb it. That is what this is for.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is. The area you are referring to, I think, is Lockyer's Waters.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It was frozen. It was given protection in 1997, so we do have eleven years of data on Erioderma in that area.

Certainly, we want to have more information so that we can develop policies and plans as we go forward as to how to strike the balance between harvesting and protecting rare species.

MR. BUTLER: Under 4.2.04.06., Purchased Services, last year it was budgeted at $1 million and revised to $319,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year there was a decreased requirement for advertising, printing and other services, and for this upcoming year there is funding there for the long-term Caribou Strategy but also removal of the predation strategy and caribou monitoring, so we are taking out money for two things and putting money back for one.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

Before I pass it over - I might not get the opportunity later - I want to thank you, Minister, and your staff for your time.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: You are very welcome.

CHAIR: Thank you, Sir.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Butler did cover some of the ones that I had, but I do have some more.

Subhead 4.1.01. – I don't want to do things that are obvious – Grants and Subsidies, subhead 10.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I like getting the lists of what comes under Grants and Subsidies, so if we could have that sent to us. You don't really have to –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is a very short list, if you want me to tell you.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, sure.

We would like to have them on paper, too, afterwards; but, yes, go ahead and tell me, please.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Sure.

Of the $194,000 that was spent last year, $190,000 went to the T'Railway Council, and we give that to them every year.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The other $4,000 is a federal-provincial parks agreement that we fund.

We did have budgeted $294,000 for last year. We did not spend $100,000 of that because we had funds committed in there for the NCC, the Nature Conservancy Council. It just did not get spent by the time of last year's budget but we do have it back in there and intend to spend that this year.

So it is just the three items.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, and you have an extra $100,000 in this year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is the $100,000 we did not spend last year for the NCC. We are going to spend it this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great; got it.

Then, the federal-provincial, the federal do not put very much money into this, from what I can see. Under the Revenue – I am sorry, 01. – you budgeted $2,500 last year and it looks like they came up with $2,500, and now this year it is $17,500.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, they gave us an extra $15,000 for the Labrador Heritage Rivers contract that we will be working on.

MS MICHAEL: That is part of the federal-provincial park agreement, is it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is the federal portion, and we are matching it.

MS MICHAEL: That is what I mean, the federal portion, yes.

Revenue, the provincial revenue, what would be the source of the provincial revenue? You are anticipating $105,000 this year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is money that we will get back from the parks recycling program. This year we are going to put recycling bins in all of the provincial parks, so that is the anticipated revenue from that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, good.

I hope that works.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Which is really a great service to have at a park.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it is. I am really glad.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We run the parks. We should have the recycling bins.

MS MICHAEL: Absolutely. I totally agree with you.

That one was answered. There is nothing substantial in that one.

Sorry about this, I just want to make sure –

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Okay.

At least it is not five hours like Natural Resources.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I was here five hours last night for Health and Community Services so I am anxious to go home, too, tonight, believe me.

Under 4.2.02.06., Purchased Services, you had budgeted $28,000 in 2007-2008, spent $63,000, and this year it is up to $203,000 for Purchased Services.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is the one that Mr. Butler asked, and that was about the Erioderma research.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, you are right. I have it written down and I didn't even see it.

The Natural Areas System Plan comes under this, does it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

I don't know if it is this – it does come under my department.

MS MICHAEL: Does it come under this head?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It would have been with Parks and Natural Areas.

OFFICIAL: Parks.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, Parks and Natural Areas.

MS MICHAEL: It comes under that head?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: When would you hope to have that implemented?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We did put $259,000 into the budget again this year. There has been a significant piece of work done to date. There are still areas that we are looking at internally to ensure that the various eco-regions are represented. Once that is done, of course, then we have to bring it to a public consultation around the Province, and I anticipate that will probably be about a year, Ross, to do that public consultation piece, so we are still a year-and-a-half to two years away. That is why we have budgeted for two years - $259,000 for two years – but it is important to take the time to do the public consultation piece.

MS MICHAEL: Absolutely. I totally agree.

I really don't have too much left. Under 4.2.03.01., Salaries, there has been some fluctuation. The budget in 2007-2008 was $626,900, and then it went up to $775,000 in the actual, and now you are coming down to $590,600 in this year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We did hire some more temporary jobs last year. The intent is to hire the same amount of people this year; however, obviously, we are going to go over budget so we are going to have to find the savings in some other division.

MS MICHAEL: So you do want to hire the same number.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: How is that program going?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is a wonderful program. I can get Ross to speak to it, but I know personally I have certainly learned a lot when I have gone out to learn about the different traps, and how to trap, and just the importance of respect for animals. You hear things about pets and traps. Just the whole education component around that is very valuable.

MS MICHAEL: You are getting good feedback?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

We have been working with the media to involve them, and invite them along, and they have found it really helpful too.

MS MICHAEL: Good.

I think I heard you interviewed on radio, talking about having been out there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. I am going to go bear hunting soon.

MS MICHAEL: Under 4.2.05., Research, which is quite important, under 01., Salaries, the 2007-2008 budget estimate was $1,010,100 and it was revised down to $630,000 and just going up to $775,900.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year there were, again, temporary and permanent positions that remained vacant, and this is another area where we saw an opportunity for savings.

MS MICHAEL: You have adequate for doing the research?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, we do.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 03., Transportation and Communications, it is sort of the standard answer to this one, I think you basically spent a bit more than half of what you budgeted but you anticipate that you should keep the same budget.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The issue there was that there were reduced air services. When you are relying on getting helicopters, it is not always easy. The need is always there, but you do not always get them when you want them, so we have to keep it in our budget. Sometimes, due to weather, and helicopters engaged by others, you do not always get them.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

In 04., Supplies, you seem to have a major expenditure last year that had not been budgeted, almost $100,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, and we wanted to re-announce the caribou strategy in February. In order to do a lot of the research and the collaring and things, we decided to order the collars under last year's program because it takes time to get them in and we want to get them on the predators and the prey. That is what that is there. It is radio collars.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What about 06., Purchased Services, because you had an over expenditure of $179,400 last year? What would that have been related to?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That would have been for printing, advertising, leasing and other purchased service costs. You will see in 2008-2009 it is $20,000 less than the budgeted amount in 2007-2008.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is because we are reallocating Habitat, Game and Fur. We are reallocating Habitat, Game and Fur.

The Habitat, Game and Fur – sorry - is being reallocated to the moose vehicle collision, $20,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under subhead 4.2.06.: Appropriations provide for a wide array of cost-shared initiatives related to wildlife species and habitat monitoring and program delivery, in cooperation with a number of partners including conservation organizations, universities and other provincial and federal departments and agencies.

Would it possible to have a list of who actually is involved in that, in partnership with -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Sure, and the projects really vary from year to year. We can get them for you, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That would be great.

That is the end of my questions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have one other question. We are talking about all species of wildlife here. Just now someone mentioned something about trapping, hunting and what have you. Do you have any involvement with the beavers, or to what extent? I will tell you why, rather than you answer I will ask you - and I know the Chair is going to say it has nothing to do with the budget but if this does not clarify, it is going to have something to do with someone's money.

Out in my area, in North River - I have had four or five calls about it and I have spoken to federal people - what it is, the salmon going upstream cannot get up to where they spawn because the beavers have the main part of that route blocked. It has happened in the past. I do not know, and I am just wondering, do you people get involved with anything like that, or maybe not? I have been talking to the federal people, and I guess they look after the salmon, the inland waters or whatever it is, and where you were talking about all the species, I was wondering, maybe there is something about this?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: In this case, it is a federal issue because it does deal with a salmon river but certainly there have been cases in the past where we have been contacted, where beavers have been causing problems. Certainly, we would get in touch with a trapper and see if they can help deal with the particular beaver. In this case it seems that people do not have an issue with the beaver itself. So in that case we would -

MR. BUTLER: It is out in the wild, really, so it is not a problem with a beaver in on their property or anything, right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: But if it was a beaver that was being a nuisance, for lack of a better term, we would - well, that is what we term them, nuisance wildlife. It is a really odd term but if there was that case then we would call upon a trapper in the area to assist us, but that is not the case in this one and it is involving a salmon river.

MR. BUTLER: But seriously, what happens? Nobody wants to go in and destroy the habitat of the beaver, and he has a dam for various reasons. He wants to survive there as well, but here are hundreds of salmon that go up and spawn in a certain area that cannot get upstream.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. If it is not your job, that is all I can do.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I did ask our officials, when you had contacted me, if it is our responsibility. We did check into it and they did tell me to tell you to contact the federal government because it is - whenever it involves salmon rivers it would be a federal jurisdiction matter.

MR. BUTLER: It is the beaver's fault but I was just wondering.

CHAIR: Any further questions on the estimates?

MR. BUTLER: No, sir.

MS MICHAEL: No, I think that is it.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

I will ask the clerk to call the remaining subheads.

CLERK: 1.2.01. to 4.2.06., inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.2.01. to 4.2.06,. inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 4.2.06. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates for 2008-2009 for the Department of Environment and Conservation carry without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates for the Department of Environment and Conservation carried.

CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister and her officials and the staff at the House of Assembly, our committee members, and we will - I will ask for a motion now to adopt the minutes of the previous meeting.

Moved by Mr. Baker, seconded by Mr. Hunter that the minutes as circulated of our previous meeting be adopted.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Our next meeting is going to be on Tuesday afternoon. The Government House Leader mentioned that it would be over in the Executive Boardroom, but it is actually going to be here in the House. So he will probably make that correction on Tuesday.

I ask for a motion to adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: So moved.

CHAIR: The motion has been made to adjourn.

This Committee now stands adjourned until our next meeting on Tuesday.

Thanks very much.

On motion, Committee adjourned.