The Committee met at 6:00 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

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

I would like to welcome everyone and, first of all, I will have the Committee members introduce themselves by name and district.

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, MHA, Labrador West.

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

MR. DALLEY: Derrick Dalley, MHA, The Isles of Notre Dame.

MR. VERGE: Wade Verge, MHA, Lewisporte.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA, Port de Grave.

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

CHAIR: We have one observer, so just for the record.

MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP office.

CHAIR: Thank you.

After I ask the Clerk to call the first subhead, the minister may take up – or Acting Minister Jackman - may take up to fifteen minutes to first introduce his officials and then give an overview of his department's Estimates for the year.

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

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister Jackman.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Conservation for the fiscal year 2009-2010.

On behalf of my colleague, Minister Johnson, who just had her baby, I am pleased to report that mom, dad and baby are all doing well. I know that all of us congratulate her and wish her all the best. This is a new thing for this parliamentary system within the Province, so it is very pleasing to see that everybody is doing well.

Joining me this evening are the officials from the Department of Environment and Conservation. Right to my left here is Mr. Bill Parrott, Deputy Minister. Next we have Ross Firth, Assistant Deputy Minister for Natural Heritage. Next we have Allister Taylor, Assistant Deputy Minister for Lands. Behind, to my left here, is Colleen Johnson, and she is the Manager of Financial and General Operations. Next we have Scott Jones, Director of Finance and General Operations. I was asking him, when he was coming over - this is his fourth Estimates session - and he says he really enjoys it. Next to Scott we have Denise Woodman, Executive Assistant to Minister Johnson.

For the 2009-2010 fiscal year a gross budget in the amount of $62,467,600 is reflected in the Estimates to cover departmental costs for the protection and enhancement of the environment, and 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 $26,631,300 is budgeted, which results in an estimated net total expenditure of $35,836,300.

The gross budget for the department's four main programs is as follows: Executive and Support Services, $25,493,400; Environmental Management and Control, $12,545,100; Lands, $7,587,300; and Wildlife, Parks and Natural Heritage, $16,841,800.

The Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for four branches. The Environment branch, this includes pollution prevention, water resource management and environmental assessment. In addition to the head office, there are offices located in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor.

The Lands branch, this includes Crown lands, surveys, mapping and land management. The Lands division has satellite offices in Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville and Labrador. Allister Taylor is the ADM responsible for this branch.

The Natural Heritage branch, this includes parks, protected areas and wildlife. The Parks division is located in Deer Lake and the Wildlife division is located in Corner Brook with a satellite office in Labrador. Ross Firth is the ADM responsible.

Sustainable Development and Sustainable Science manages sustainable development issues and the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science in Corner Brook. Shane Mahoney, who is not here with us this evening, is the Executive Director of this branch.

I am pleased to report that we have several significant initiatives funded this year which are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, assessing environmental impacts and supporting climate change adaptation efforts. As part of our continuing focus on the sustainability of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have allocated $1.3 million towards the development of the necessary tools, policies and strategies to help communities assess and adapt to climate change impacts, in recognition of the necessity to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also prepare for the eventual impacts of climate change.

We have also received $750,000 for a joint review panel for the environmental assessment of the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project. The establishment of this panel allows for the harmonization of federal and provincial environmental assessments of the Lower Churchill Project.

I am also pleased to report that the department is continuing with its ongoing support of its five-year scientific and management strategy for the Island woodland caribou populations which we announced in last year's budget. The strategy focuses on appropriate management measures for our declining caribou populations and permits the necessary collection of caribou data, implementation of an enhanced information and education program, and increased emphasis on habitat assessment as well as other efforts to understand and mitigate the decline.

The department is also continuing with its four-year $4 million park renewal program, resulting in the implementation of a recycling program in our provincial parks, scenic attractions and ecological reserves in 2009.

These are but a few of the significant investments we are making towards the promotion, protection and enhancement of our environment. I appreciate the consideration that you will give the department's budget today and we will do our best to answer your questions.

I would like to start off by recognizing that during our Estimates for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the question was asked that the numbers that exist from last year's budget did not coincide; so, if the parties are interested, we have a sheet that has been done up. It shows what was budgeted last year, the original budget, the difference, and a commentary as to why the difference. We can provide you with this now or we can provide it to you later, whatever you prefer. Mr. Chair, I do not know how we would distribute that.

CHAIR: Do you have copies?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, we have copies; they are over here.

CHAIR: You have them? Okay.

MR. JACKMAN: Now we are ready to proceed with any questions that you might have with the Estimates.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Jackman.

For the benefit of our media people, if the officials are asked to respond or comment, then each time you do so if you would identify yourself.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Sir.

Minister, I would like to welcome you and your officials in your acting capacity. Mr. Chair, I will be governed by your time frames. Whenever I have gone my limit, you can let me know and I will gladly pass it over to my colleague.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I have a few probing questions before I go into the one-liners. Seeing caribou has been on the menu for the last three or four days I will begin there again.

MR. JACKMAN: No problem.

MR. BUTLER: We all understand the $15 million caribou action plan that has been in place for over a year now, and we have been advised that there will be a report coming down within the next couple of months; or that is what was stated.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I was wondering if you could just elaborate a little on the concerns that have been expressed by the outfitters. I know government has said that they have been consulted. Those people, I met with two or three of them today and they say they have not been consulted. I am just wondering if you could clarify that point for me.

MR. JACKMAN: I suppose you have to start by stating what you mean by consultation. I have met with a number of outfitters myself. Just recently I spoke at the conventions, meetings that they had in Corner Brook, and I suppose the one thing that always comes up is getting the move on and getting on with – I will put it this way – removal of predators. I think the general public and some of the outfitters have identified that the coyote is certainly one of the predators that we need to tackle. The science work that has been completed by the department has indicated that it is not only the coyote that we have to worry about, but that bear is very much a predator as well.

We are moving forward with the science as to how we can remove these predators. It is not as simple, I would put to you, as saying that we are going to go out there and take a gun and everyone is going to go out and hunt the country and we are going to wipe out the coyote. We are certainly very cognizant of the fact of the animal rights that are engaged in this, and we do not want to be targeted as being barbaric and so on and so forth.

If we are going to carry out a plan here, it has to be based on scientific fact, it has to be very well co-ordinated, and it has to be very well publicly stated. That is exactly what we are looking at right now.

The question that you asked today about the caribou advisory committee that we committed to, I am certainly hoping – I do not ever give time frames, but - that within a very short while we will have that advisory committee in place.

That committee is going to be very important because the strategy that we are going to roll out, we will dispense the information to this committee. We have department officials, we have academics, we will be putting someone on there to represent the outfitters, the general hunter public will be represented, and as we dispense information to them, following that, we dispense it to other outfitters and the general public.

I am certainly again hoping that the presentation that we are near concluding, that we will be able to present this to the outfitters within the next very short while.

I think, too, it has to be understood that this is more than just an animal that is hunted; this is an iconic symbol for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will also state that other jurisdictions in Alaska are also experiencing declines with their caribou. Hopefully we are in a unique situation here, where these woodland caribou exist on the Island, and that we will be able to do something to turn the numbers around.

MR. BUTLER: I have to agree with you, and the outfitters will agree with you, it is not only the coyote.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The gentleman I met with today, there is one section in this Province where the black bear is the main predator.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Another one had the coyote as well as the bald eagle –

MR. JACKMAN: Certainly.

MR. BUTLER: – taking the calves and so on.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The concern they have, at the rate of decline now, if something is not done within five years – and hopefully it will be done in five years – the chart that they showed me today, within five years they are going to be down to the level where there will be no caribou hunt in the Province.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: What they are saying – and I can understand where you are coming from; we cannot just go out and kill off everything.

MR. JACKMAN: No, that is right.

MR. BUTLER: What they are saying, if something is not done with the predator now, they do not think they will recover; because the level is approaching the point now where it is going to be down to what it was back in, I think, the early 1970s, or whatever it was, when there was no hunt at all.

That is the concern they have. Like they said, there are 400 jobs at stake and so on.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: They make a good point.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I can understand where you are coming from, but –

MR. JACKMAN: I think the numbers, the years, I think there was a time in the 1930s, another one in the mid-1950s –

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the 1950s.

MR. JACKMAN: – and now this one.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, and that is the concern they have if something is not done now with the predator.

They know how difficult it is with the coyote or whatever, and a lot of people will come out and say that the black bear is just as bad as the coyote, but they will tell you - and apparently science will prove this - that the black bear, yes, goes after the caribou, the calves, about two-and-a-half months of the year. Once the berries are ripe they go into a different eating procedure and then they are in hibernation for five-and-a-half months. So they are not as bad as the coyote because the coyote is there at all times, right. That is the concern that they have.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, but I think the concern is that around the couple of months that you talked about, if the predation is on calves, then your recruitment is not going to happen because this is where you have to bring the numbers back because if we are not bringing new animals into the system then the herd cannot. So, hopefully, like I said, the outfitters will see that our strategy, which we hope to roll out in the very next short while, will be progressive and addressing the concerns that they brought forward.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I think it was approximately $3.3 million this year, the first year of the strategy that was spent out of the $15-some-odd million. I was just wondering, what did that go into? I know it was probably for the collars or whatever they call them that go onto the animals. What else would that -

MR. JACKMAN: I will speak to some of the things and then Ross can allude to other things if I have missed some of them.

If you take a look at a particular area, let's say the Middle Ridge area. When you look at that, you are not talking about a city block that you are going to take a look at. This is a vast area, land that takes in from the Bay d'Espoir Highway coming all the way across the Burin Peninsula. One of the most expensive things that you have - this is helicopter time, that they have to get out there. They have to track these animals. They have to have the staff then on the ground to get the collars for them. Some of these collars range in prices. The newer ones I believe, Ross, are up there around $5,000. If you expend helicopter time, and then buying and purchasing of equipment, that is one of your huge expenses there.

Ross, I do not know if you can add to any further expenses that we might have around the caribou strategy?

MR. FIRTH: Yes, I think one of the things that we need to be cognizant of right off the bat is that the caribou strategy is divided up in a responsibility. Although it is within a department, within the sustainable development strategic science section and also the wildlife division, there are a number of different components that comprise this strategy. In addition to what the minister was saying, there is also a lot of collaring that we are doing with regards to female caribou, calves and collaring of predators as well; so coyotes, black bear and lynx as well.

There is quite a significant component with regards to stewardship and education as well. We are doing a lot of hunter education workshops, encouraging people to hunt coyotes because it can be a very complex and challenging species to hunt successfully. We are also looking at land use patterns. We are looking at the body condition of caribou as well. So there are many components which comprise the strategy.

MR. JACKMAN: I think one of the things that Ross mentioned as being very effective is the hunter education, how to hunt these animals.

I had a meeting at the motel in Marystown a little while ago and I did not think it was going to be all that a contentious meeting. I went into the meeting, and God, the lobby was full, and I thought: Oh, oh, this is not going to be a good one tonight, but I did not realize that next door they had the hunter education on. There were about ten people at my session; there were ninety-two in the other session.

So, it shows you that the hunters are going to be an important part of addressing this situation. They are all too eager to become a part of it, which I think reflects good on the department and the work that they are doing.

MR. BUTLER: Next question. Minister, Nalcor Energy recently announced that they have reduced emissions at the Holyrood generating station by changing the type of fuel they use. I know we have heard recently that scrubbers will be used at the plant in the event that the Lower Churchill project should fall through.

My question is: why would you wait to see if something is going to fall through? Why wouldn't the scrubbers – probably the cost, I do not know. Why wouldn't the scrubbers be installed now if it is of such a benefit to the environment?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes. Well, I will let Bill speak to some of that now shortly, but I know that introducing the fuel alternatives have certainly reduced the emissions, both the particulate emissions and the overall emissions.

So Bill, if you want to just speak briefly to that.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, at the Holyrood plant there is modeling done to check the contamination and pollution that comes out of the stacks and the modeling showed that there was an overage on some particulate matter. Also, the modeling showed that if you change the fuel component to reduce the sulphur content in the fuel, you would reduce the particulate and come into compliance with the certificate of operation.

So that is the latest move that Hydro has made at the plant, and that move, according to the computer model, which will be followed up by testing, should bring the plant into compliance with the regulatory permits.

MR. BUTLER: We know your department expects AbitibiBowater to pay for the environmental damage that they have left in the Central area in wake of the closure of their operations.

I was wondering if you can release a figure, or if you would have a figure, of what your department feels that this amount would be with regards to the remediation for that particular project?

MR. JACKMAN: Allister or Bill, one of you?

MR. PARROTT: We are currently pulling together the information on the Abitibi file to determine exactly what the total would be on the environmental liabilities that are associated with the AbitibiBowater use of properties in Central Newfoundland. Without full access to their sites of course, and without the data that they have, the engineering and scientific data, at this point in time we cannot put a concrete number on that.

MR. BUTLER: Some of those questions, if you think they are for another department do not mind saying it is not applicable to us because I might have an overlap here.

The community of Port aux Basques, and this is probably tied to Municipal Affairs as well, have asked for an extension to the use of their teepee incinerator. I was just wondering, have other communities requested any such extensions, and what has been the response to that?

MR. PARROTT: The extension was given so that the communities could continue on with the environmental studies that they are having done in conjunction with the Department of Municipal Affairs who has been funding these studies. Some of the communities have said that they feel they will be in compliance and others say that they may need various amounts of time. So the environmental engineers with our department, in conjunction with the people in Municipal Affairs, are reviewing each request and the minister is reviewing any requests that come in on an individual basis.

MR. BUTLER: In the budget for 2009-2010 it highlighted work the department is doing on contaminated sites. I was just wondering if you can give us an update on the New Harbour site? I know we have heard different things through the media and still concerns being expressed. We know that the dumpsite in this community is still open and we wonder whether all of the soil has been removed at this point in time, all the contaminated soil.

MR. JACKMAN: The work is still ongoing around New Harbour; there is no doubt about it. You are probably aware that there was a committee that was in place with the municipalities or the local service district, it is still ongoing. At their request they wanted some further test holes done. We went in and did that. We identified some contaminated materials in some of the holes there and we will address that accordingly. There is somewhere in the vicinity of $275,000 that was spent on getting further work done to that site this year.

They are still looking at the option of transporting their waste to the Winterton site as opposed to, right now, moving to Robin Hood Bay but this is something that continues to be ongoing. We will work with them and we will – I do not know if it will meet all people's satisfaction but from an environmental standard, we will take the contaminated soil that we feel needs to be treated. It will be done so. I think everyone involved would certainly like to see where the site gets remediated to the point where it gets recapped and returned to as much of its former state as we could possibly get it into.

MR. BUTLER: Back, I guess months ago now, AMEC Earth and Environmental, they made some recommendations. I will just touch on three or four of them. One was fisheries information when it comes to The Steady part out there. Fisheries habitat in the gully stream in Steady and Denny's Pond; water samples from Three Corner Pond and Denny's Pond, and sediment collection in The Steady, Three Corner Pond, and so on.

I was just wondering, have those recommendations been carried out? Because some of the people – there is one gentleman I know, he is very vocal about it and he is saying those recommendations were not followed through on. I was wondering if you could elaborate. If that has not been done, will it be considered? Maybe it has been done, I do not know.

MR. JACKMAN: There has been faulty water testing, I am well aware of that. Now if there is anything that has happened differently within the last couple of months, I will ask Bill Parrott to speak to that.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, there has been water sampling ongoing at the site. I do not know if these ones specifically that you refer to have been looked at, but one of the plans this year, as we move forward we are going to put out a contract for an environmental firm to review all of the environmental reports that have been done on that site, to bring it all up-to-date and come up with a fresh set of recommendations because there has been a certain amount of work done in the past and a certain amount of testing. So we want to get all of that work and that testing reviewed independently and come up with a recommendation of a path forward.

MR. BUTLER: I am just going to make a comment now. I am wondering if you can respond to it, and I am sure you can.

Last year there was a geomembrane that had been purchased. I think the minister confirmed that last year, and that is still in storage waiting for this project to be, I guess everything done environmentally that has to be done. The comment that is being made is that once this membrane goes over the site they feel like it is a house which has a roof with no walls and no floor in it. In other words, what they are saying is everything that is there in the ground – and they have major concerns – they are saying is going to be at risk to the environment and to those streams and ponds for hundreds of years to come.

Would anyone like to comment on that? Maybe what they are saying is not correct. That is what I am trying to verify.

MR. JACKMAN: I would certainly like to comment on it because we went in there, we drilled some test holes, and then the folks of the committee came back and said: We feel that the drill holes that you have done were not adequate. Then, we did not decide where to do the next test holes. The committee recommended that we do some test holes here, here and here. We went and we did and we identified.

So, some of what they were pointing to did lead to us coming up with some other contaminated soil, but the final work that is going to be done on New Harbour is going to meet the environmental standards of the department. The department is not about covering stuff up – I will not say that in terms of what we are doing here, waste management, covering stuff, but you want to make sure that a site is going to be remediated to an environmental standard and as such, the department is committed to this. Whether the people will agree to it entirely on the ground, that remains to be seen, but from an environmental standard we will do the ultimate to ensure that it meets environmental standards.

You are talking about the fish, I mean if you want a good test of what is seeping from that, well test the fish that are downstream. Do a biopsy on the meat and see if there is contamination there. I think that would give me a level of assurance if I were living in that particular area.

MR. BUTLER: The issue with regard to environmental liabilities. I know in 2004 government estimated a cost of more than $237 million related to the remediation of contaminated sites in the Province.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: However, a recent financial statement, March 31, showed that $8.3 million was recorded as a liability in the Province and $7.7 million in 2007. I was wondering – I do not know, maybe it is not conflicting, but to me $237 million and now it is only being reported as $8.3 million. I was just wondering if you could explain the variation of those numbers.

MR. JACKMAN: I will get Bill to do it. I could tell you that we have them all cleaned up, but –

MR. PARROTT: No, I cannot explain the variation in those numbers. From a departmental point of view, when we are looking at a contaminated area, to look at an area and say it is contaminated is one thing, but actually to do a Phase I study or do a Phase II where you have to actually drill and take samples to see if there is a plume or if it is spread or the extent of it. There is a tremendous amount of engineering and sciences required to delineate the actual contamination, then to do the engineering work to cost out how to remove it and treat it. That process in itself is quite expensive, so a lot of the sites that are in this Province have not had that tremendous amount of money spent on them to delineate to know what it would actually cost to clean up. Of course, as the cost of construction and engineering work increases every year then that cost would increase as well.

MR. BUTLER: We always hear concerns about the oil tank replacement program, and I know there was a further extension this year. My understanding was that, some of the figures I heard, there was a 65 per cent compliance with that particular program where the tanks had to be replaced.

I was just wondering: What is the status of that today, now? I know there was an extension, but will the 35 per cent come in under that new extension that was given to the public?

MR. JACKMAN: One of the things, certainly, is that the end of March was the deadline. Then, in the midst of winter and snow and everything else, it was felt best that you extend that to the middle of the summer, which makes perfect sense, and we would certainly hope that people would move ahead with upgrading and having their tanks meet compliance.

MR. BUTLER: What is your department's progress to date on the Waste Management Strategy? I am wondering how many total dump sites have been closed throughout the Province.

MR. JACKMAN: A number of years back there were something like 250. It is below 200 at this particular point. You would probably have a better handle on the number, or maybe - would you have the answer to that one?

OFFICIAL: I do not have the answer right now.

MR. JACKMAN: We can certainly get you that one, but I know that – and I will just speak to my particular area - there are towns that are looking more and more to consolidate and close out their dump sites, but we will certainly get that number for you.

MR. BUTLER: What is the status of the Mealy Mountains National Park negotiations? I know it was ongoing some time ago, and it was in the media, but I was just wondering.

MR. JACKMAN: Bill, do you want to speak to that one?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

There is a recommendation from the Mealy Mountains Steering Committee that is in to government. It was a joint committee of stakeholders and federal and provincial governments. The recommendations are now being reviewed by the provincial government on the final recommendation on the park.

MR. BUTLER: We know that the T'Rails was dramatically expanded over the past year and I know there were dozens of different groups who were in opposition to that. I was just wondering what has transpired since then.

Is there still negative feedback from the general public, or is it more or less settling down now with regard to that issue with regard to the T'Railway sticker policy that was put in place?

MR. JACKMAN: You are talking more specifically as it relates to the snowmobile sticker policy and so on?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that was the one.

MR. JACKMAN: Well, it all relates to the people who ride these trails in particular areas wanting to have good trails.

This policy came in, in 2004. It was at the request of the people who ride these trails and, as such, a federation was established to manage that. I think that probably comes under the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation more than it comes under Environment.

I know there are a number of people out there who resist it, but it seems that the majority are much in favour of it. As a result, they are having improved trails, with safety being one of the issues, so the thing is certainly still in place and moving along.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler, if you want to take a break, you may do so.

MR. BUTLER: That is fine, yes.

CHAIR: Ms Michael?

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will bring us now to the budget lines, and do some of that. What I will be doing is going according to the budget lines and then putting questions in the midst of that.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: The first one, then, 1.2.01, Executive Support, I notice that in the revision in last year's Budget – I guess mid-year revision – there was a $70,000 underspending, but now in the Estimate for next year it is $111,000 over the Estimate, so if we could just have an explanation of that variance, please.

MR. JACKMAN: My understanding, it has to do with the extra pay period that will exist this year, plus the 4 per cent salary increase and the executive assistant pay difference for the previous candidate. That is my understanding.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so there is a higher rate for the executive assistant? Is that what you mean?

MR. JACKMAN: I do believe.

OFFICIAL: It is a different spot on the scale.

MR. JACKMAN: Pardon?

OFFICIAL: It is a different level on the scale.

MR. JACKMAN: It is a different level on the scale.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so there has been a movement.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I knew it had to be more than just one pay period and the –

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Down to 1.2.02.02., Employee Benefits, it is not a lot but you did have $16,500 more than what you budgeted for last year. What was that for?

MR. JACKMAN: This is an unanticipated cost to cover an injury on duty (inaudible) related to the worker's health and compensation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under 06, Purchased Services, you under spent by quite a bit last year, by $107,000, but it looks like you do expect that figure to be higher. What happened last year? What caused the under spending?

MR. JACKMAN: Do you want to speak to that?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: That budget is for leased agreements for rental space. Several years ago we were notified by Transportation and Works that they were expecting leased accommodations to go up, so we got an increase in budget. A lot of those are being implemented sporadically. We do expect the leased accommodations to go up, but it will be over time.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under 10, Grants and Subsidies, could we have a breakdown of who exactly those grants and subsidies are for? Is it one place, or more than that?

MR. PARROTT: Three hundred and fifty thousand of that is the Pippy Park Commission that was transferred into the Department of Environment and Conservation this year. Last year that would have been reported in the Department of Finance, and $50,000 is grants that are normally within the department.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Obviously those grants are pretty small.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Subhead 1.2.03, Policy Development and Planning, in 01, Salaries, there was an over expenditure last year of $289,000 but that does not seem to be reflected in this year's estimate. What happened there?

MR. JACKMAN: Again, I will ask Colleen to speak to that one.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: That is severance pay for two retired employees.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Now, it is interesting; are you losing a salary? Because, even with the extra pay period this year, and with things going up, the estimate for this year is $16,900 below last year's.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: There is one temporary position that funding expired March 31, so that reduction in cost is offset by the twenty-seventh pay period.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under 05, Professional Services, you have quite an increase coming in this year over last year's estimate. What plan fits in here? Obviously there is something going on.

MR. JACKMAN: This speaks to the climate change adaptation strategy. I will get Bill to speak to that.

MR. PARROTT: That is $500,000 for a climate change adaptation strategy that the provincial government is partnering with the other three Atlantic Provinces and the Government of Canada -

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. PARROTT: - to develop climate change mitigation factors for Atlantic Canada.

MS MICHAEL: We will see that reflected, will we, when we get to revenue, their contributions from federal and provincial to that, or is it just the provincial money going into that in this -

MR. PARROTT: Just provincial.

MS MICHAEL: Just provincial.

It is my understanding, Mr. Parrott - if I may speak directly to Mr. Parrott – that you had an update on the Climate Change Action Plan in 2007, but we have looked for an update in 2008 and have not seen one. Are we correct in saying that your last update was 2007? And, when do you have another update planned?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, you are correct, it was 2007, and there is an update being prepared right now.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under Purchased Services we have a jump there, too. Is that part of the climate change action that you just described?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so $450,000 in one category and $410,000 in the other category.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under Grants and Subsidies, you under spent last year by over $6 million but this coming year under Grants and Subsidies it is over estimated by almost $7 million.

MR. JACKMAN: This is the final year of monies under the EcoTrust, so they have to be spent this year, but officials indicate that the number of applications that are in exceeds even the amount that we have budgeted here.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, really?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, so that is a good sign.

MS MICHAEL: It is a good sign.

When do you hope to have all of the money allotted?

MR. JACKMAN: We have to have it spent before this year is out.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Well, you have to have it given out before this year is out. Do those getting the money have to have it spent before this year is out? Because you would have to make the decision soon if that is the case.

MR PARROTT: No, we enter into contracts with anybody who has one of these grants. Then we would transfer the money over and then they would have reporting back to government but it does not have to be exactly spent in this fiscal year.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

I wonder: would you be able to give us a list of the grants, of those who received the grants, please?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I think I have the answer to the revenue in this same section, the federal revenue. That is the EcoAction Trust, right?

MR. JACKMAN: What was that again? Sorry about that.

MS MICHAEL: That's okay.

The revenue, then, under this head, the federal revenue, that would be the final money of the EcoAction Trust? Is that correct?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, that is correct.

MS MICHAEL: The provincial, is that the provincial Green Fund?

MR PARROTT: Yes, that is correct.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under 1.2.04., Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, under Transportation and Communications you had an over expenditure; the revision upward was by almost $362,000. What caused that?

MR. JACKMAN: That is what Mr. Butler was asking about earlier under money expended for the caribou strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Yes, of course.

MR. JACKMAN: So you are looking at helicopter costs and so on and so forth.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much. I did not recognize that it was the same thing.

With regard to this section, 1.2.04., I understand that you were setting up a sustainable development advisory committee but I do not think that has been set up yet, has it?

MR. JACKMAN: No, to the best of my understanding it is not. It is still before government for consideration but I cannot give you an exact time frame when that will be set up.

MS MICHAEL: So when you say for consideration, is it the concept or you have actually submitted names to government?

MR. JACKMAN: No, the concept at this point.

MS MICHAEL: The concept. Can you give us any details about the concept? Would it involve public consultation or will it just be a round table that is unto itself or – I am just trying to get a sense -

MR. JACKMAN: Well, the last document that came out there were some consultations held across the Province around that.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. JACKMAN: And I think people are realizing more and more, you know finding that balance is a lot easier said than done. So I cannot give you an exact update on it right now as to the details, but as a government we have to enter into more discussions around that.

MS MICHAEL: I see. Okay.

Subhead 1.2.05. Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science; provide for the operation of the Institute at the Sir Wilfred Grenfell. What are the major research projects that they are involved in right now?

MR. JACKMAN: I think we have a list of them here that I can provide to you. There are twenty-two projects that are ongoing. So we can - we have additional copies?

OFFICIAL: No, but we can certainly get them.

MS MICHAEL: You will get that to us, please?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, we will.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

In Salaries 01., the budget last year of course was $301,600 but it was under spent by quite a bit, by $121,600. What happened there? Did they lose staff, or what went on?

MR. JACKMAN: There was a delay in recruiting there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Are they up to par now?

MR. PARROTT: No, there are still two positions to be recruited and they are ongoing right now. We hope to have them filled shortly.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you. Shortly, okay.

Under Transportation and Communications there was an over expenditure of $250,000. That is quite a bit. What was that about?

MR. PARROTT: That expenditure is related to transportation costs, things like helicopter, road travel and things for the graduate students that are hired on to do the research projects. The institute supports the graduate students not only with stipends for salary but also for access to the remote areas of the Province to do their research.

MS MICHAEL: But you are going back to $230,000 as the budget. So was there a special project that made that have greater expenses with regard to transportation?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, they were projects related to the start of the caribou strategy that has been focused in the first year.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay. Of course, first they are working on that. Yes, thank you.

Under 06. Purchased Services; again, the Purchased Services was $90,000 more than expected. So just about double of what had been budgeted.

MR. JACKMAN: I wanted to –

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: I can speak to that.

We have some agreements with some of the universities for some graduate student programs. That cost was higher this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under Grants and Subsidies, is that $100,000 just a blanket grant that goes to the institute, or is that (inaudible) –

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: No, that is a variety of grants.

MS MICHAEL: That is a variety of grants. Could we have a breakdown of that $100,000? Not here, but to give us afterwards?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

This is the Provincial Parks recapitalization strategy, and as we can all see –

MR. JACKMAN: Which number is that?

MS MICHAEL: Oh, I am sorry, 1.2.06. I am very sorry. The next section and it is: "Appropriations provide for the purchase of tangible capital assets and for a Provincial Parks recapitalization strategy."

There is no staffing here budgeted for and yet there was money – there is no staffing. Obviously, it seems to be a program, yet you did have transportation costs, supplies, professional services, and then for this upcoming year there is $1 million here. Just tell us what this is all about. Maybe you have already said this to Mr. Butler.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, this is the final year of our park recapitalization program.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. JACKMAN: We have been putting $1 million in it annually. Did you want some details around the types of things?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I would be interested.

MR. JACKMAN: What we have been doing with our parks, if you get a chance - have you visited any of our parks around the Province?

MS MICHAEL: I do sometimes, yes.

MR. JACKMAN: I think they are a wonderful asset. I have travelled to many of them. I think the staff that work there almost treat it like their own home, and they take pride it in.

So what we have been doing is doing some enlargements to campsites because the type of camper that we have now are not in little roll up tents anymore.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. JACKMAN: They are in huge campers and they want sites big enough that they are not going to scratch things or knock off their antenna when they go in through.

Secondly, we have been putting in comfort stations, improved washroom and shower facilities. We have also been putting electricity into some of the parks. So we are into the final year of that right now.

MS MICHAEL: Right, okay. Yes, and I have heard a lot about that.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Under 2.1.01. Pollution Prevention, under subhead 01., Salaries; once again there was an under expenditure last year of $414,500. What was that?

MR. JACKMAN: I will have one of the staff speak to it. Again, there is delayed recruitment for a vacant position, but I will have one of the staff speak to that to give you specific details.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, the minister is correct. That is still problems with recruitment. Recruiting scientists and environmental engineers is very difficult. It is a very competitive marketplace for them now. The skill set is much in demand and we have had tremendous difficulties recruiting those positions. As we recruit some, other ones become vacant. So there has been a tremendous turnover.

MS MICHAEL: What is the status now, Mr. Parrott?

MR. PARROTT: Well, I got good news and bad news. We just recruited three scientists. The three scientists, we recruited them from other areas of the department. So it was a net loss, there was no net gained. So we are back into it. We have to advertise three more positions to go with the two vacant that did not get filled.

MS MICHAEL: That is too bad.

MR. PARROTT: It is a treadmill.

MR. JACKMAN: It is amazing to see it from – I suppose the private sector are becoming so much involved in environmental issues that the staff are saying that we are seeing people coming in, they are young, they are finding ours as a training ground. Because the wages outside are much more competitive and higher, they are opting to go there, or as openings become available in the department they are transferring within. So it is a very fluid situation all the time.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it is hard to be competitive with the private sector.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: There are many, many more environmental companies now in the Province than there ever were, even when I was the voice of the environmental assessment panel. There was a handful then, that is ten years ago.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, and to see how many are being recruited from outside the Province as well.

MS MICHAEL: Right, yes.

I think other stuff in here has to do with the New Harbour dump, so I am not going to ask that. We have heard all of that. I promise not to repeat where I recognize it might be repetition. I had a number of questions that Mr. Butler has already asked under that section. I have one, though, that he did not.

I was just wondering about the used beverage container recycling program, because the recovery rate has been reduced from 80 per cent to 70 per cent. I would like to have an explanation of why you did reduce the targeted recovery rate.

MR. PARROTT: I am not aware if there was a reduction in the recovery rate.

MS MICHAEL: Now that was a while ago. That is back in 2003, not yesterday.

MR. PARROTT: Okay, I really cannot speak to that. I do know the recovery rate is just under 70 per cent.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. PARROTT: We are striving. The MMSB, I know, is going through some major changes; some major changes to their green depots to actually enhance the recycling experience and make them more customer-friendly. It is anticipated that these major changes that are ongoing now will certainly increase the number of recyclables that come in.

As well, as the Waste Management Strategy kicks in place and the major waste sites will have MRFs, which are recycling facilities, then a lot of the cans and bottles and things like that, that are actually bypassing the MMSB system will be picked up there. So the rates will go up.

Across the country, most of the provinces that have the higher rates have the MRFs in place and then you pick up a lot of that material through that process.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Through the MMSB itself, if you did not have the other program in there, the Auditor General reported that if recovery rates go beyond 75 per cent the program will not be financially viable unless you put up the deposit. If you had to do that, are you open to putting up the deposit if that were necessary? Because they have done it in Nova Scotia, I think.

MR. JACKMAN: Personally, I think if we can get it to that rate it would be a wonderful thing. Everyone being more environmentally conscious now, I think the onus would be to do what we would have to do to ensure that the program continues and that it is successful.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, because we would not want it to go lower.

MR. JACKMAN: No, certainly not. It would not be much point to reach the target and then hope that it drops back to 70 per cent so we can keep getting the funds from it.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, exactly.

With the hazardous waste program, now I know that Robin Hood Bay is going to have a hazardous waste facility out there. What is the date for that being finished? I know I have heard it because Mr. Puddister has told me, but I cannot remember.

MR. PARROTT: Do not quote me.

MS MICHAEL: I will not quote you, you are only going to be on Hansard, that is all.

MR. PARROTT: The city is working diligently to put their MRF and their system in place, and I do believe they are aiming for early next year, early 2010.

MS MICHAEL: Right, I think that maybe is the date.

Mr. Puddister hopes to do a tour with the regional committee I think in June, so I am going to get in on that.

MR. JACKMAN: I think they are doing – they are doing great work.

MS MICHAEL: It sounds spectacular, actually, what is happening out there.

MR. JACKMAN: It is. I was at the East Coast Trail there one time last year and a gentleman who was on the East Coast Trail said to me that last year when you looked across there were gulls everywhere. This year you see a brown spot, and within a year or two you are going to see a green spot there.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. JACKMAN: So that is pretty pleasing to hear.

MS MICHAEL: It is amazing what they have done.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: One thing I am not aware of, that is basically the Avalon region that is going to benefit from that. What happens for the rest of the Province?

MR. JACKMAN: No, in actual fact, it very well could be that the waste from the Burin Peninsula will be travelling to that site as well.

MS MICHAEL: Right, because we discussed that last year.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, and probably the Bonavista Peninsula.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. JACKMAN: Right at this particular point, the Central Waste Management Committee are well on their way, I would say well ahead of many other jurisdictions in the Province, to the point that they were awarded $500,000 this year, I believe, from the MMSB to move on with further work around this.

So that is progressing quite well, and likewise, that will be one of the major sites; not as large as Robin Hood Bay, but will be comparable in terms of the environmental standards that have to be met, and thus all of the measures that will be in effect out here will be in place in there as well.

MS MICHAEL: So the recyclables, the hazardous waste, everything?

MR. JACKMAN: Certainly. Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is good to hear.

Mentioning the MMSB and their having given $500,000 to Central, I am glad to see that MMSB does seem to be giving out some money recently.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Do you have a breakdown of what some of the grants are that they have done?

MR. JACKMAN: No, we would not have them here but we could certainly provide that.

MS MICHAEL: That would be good.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, definitely.

MS MICHAEL: Are either one of those sites, or is the department dealing with the e-waste issue?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, the department is dealing with it. The issue with e-waste is having the economy of scales. One of the things that is being looked at is how we can partner with the other Atlantic provinces to move that agenda forward.

MS MICHAEL: Well that is good to hear. I agree with you, I think you do have to have economy of scale considered there.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that will be good.

I know the answer to those. Even though one of my staff put the question down, I know the answer.

One of the big bugbears, of course, is the tire recycling.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Any good news to report on that at all?

MR. JACKMAN: We have discussed that as recently as this evening. I know you have heard it before, but hopefully within the very next short while we will have something positive to report there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, we will keep watching.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Do you want me to take a break now? Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler, do you want to carry on?

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I think your last question was with regard to tires.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes. You have another tire question.

MR. BUTLER: Basically it is the same thing.

MR. JACKMAN: I am going to give you the response that Mr. Parrot did: Don't quote me on this.

MR. BUTLER: I know May 15 was when we had the Estimates last year, and these were the minister's comments at that time. She said she was meeting with a particular organization and confident we were going to get a solution, but she wanted to be cautiously optimistic, getting weekly updates probably in the next couple of months, hopefully sooner, and I will be able to do an announcement.

I was going to ask you: What is the status? Really, it is the same thing again this year that we are hopefully going to hear something in a very short period of time.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, and hopefully you will, but the thing on this is that we are reviewing now some unsolicited submissions. Again, the tires at this point are stored in what we believe to be a very secure location, high security.

I was very impressed at one point last year when the CBC decided they wanted to go out and have a look at it and the lady on site would not allow them in because they did not have the proper authority. She was the only one they confronted, so we feel confident in the security that exists.

Secondly, if we are going to move with something, we want to ensure that it is going to be successful. The year before last we moved the 450,000 tires that were in Stephenville. They are gone.

Again, I hope that you will not be back here next year at Estimates hearing that hopefully we will have an announcement for you very soon.

MR. BUTLER: I have been advised - I do not know if this is 100 per cent accurate, but it came from a fairly reliable source - that in Manitoba they take their tires and crush them or grind them up and use them in the asphalt. Was that ever considered here? Has anybody ever put that proposal forward to be considered here in the Province?

MR. JACKMAN: We have heard it, certainly. Bill might be able to speak to it a little bit more recently than I, but I know that we have met with jurisdictions - we have met with Maine, for example - that use their tires in what we call TDA, Tire Derived Aggregate. Instead of using stone, you use chopped up tires and use them in civil engineering projects such as roads, or seepage around buildings, and so on and so forth. I do not know specifically about using it in asphalt. I have not come across that one myself.

MR. PARROTT: I understand use in asphalt is an option in some jurisdictions in North America. There are engineering challenges, and I think one of the bigger challenges is removing the fluff and the metal from the tires to prepare them to use in asphalt, and I think that is a very expensive proposition. That could be one of the drawbacks to using it like that.

MR. BUTLER: The Lower Churchill environmental assessment has been responded to by many people, we know that, but we were interested in the letter that was sent to the panel by Hydro Quebec, in which they criticized the level of detail for the fishery habitat portion.

I was just wondering: Did your department respond to those concerns in, I guess, any drafting for the final document or in responding to their concerns?

MR. PARROTT: The panel that is in place, the joint federal-provincial panel, is an independent panel and the department would not be responding. It would be a response by the panel themselves.

MR. BUTLER: On the issue of water quality, we know that your department - or I was under the impression that your department - did not sign on to the federal government agreement for water quality as the other provinces in Canada. I was wondering if you could give us some detail as to why you did not feel confident in signing onto this, and what is the progress of your commitment to reduce the number of boil water advisories in the Province?

MR. PARROTT: The water quality issue you are referring to is the Wastewater Effluent Regulations that the federal government is looking at.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: The provincial government was one of three jurisdictions in the country that did not sign on - there was Quebec, Nunatsiavut, and Newfoundland and Labrador - and the main reason was the fact that the federal government had no funding in place to assist the provinces with implementing this strategy. There was no secure source of funding.

MR. BUTLER: The people in Barachois Brook - I will put it in my terms - are still reeling from the presence of, I guess, a soil treatment facility in the community. They state that they were not consulted on this facility and feel that it is illegal because it was only approved in principle by the Town of Stephenville Crossing.

I was wondering: Has your department had any discussions with these concerned citizens and will you reconsider the way in which soil treatment facilities are approved, or is this the only one that has been, I guess, done in this particular manner?

MR. JACKMAN: My understanding of it is that this was treated through a soil treatment facility that met every standard and, as such, I do not see where we would do anything drastically different.

Is there anything you want to add to it, (inaudible)?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: We put in place environmental standards, and soil treatment facilities have to meet those stringent standards, and in this particular case we felt that all due diligence was done.

MR. BUTLER: The Cancer Society has been calling for a ban on cosmetic pesticide use. We are wondering what your department's response has been to those recommendations.

MR. PARROTT: Minister Johnson is actively looking at the issue of cosmetic pesticides, and all types of pesticides, and she is gathering information from all sources. She has met with a variety of groups, including, I believe, the Cancer Society and other groups that support a ban, as well as groups that use pesticides and support their continued use.

MR. BUTLER: We know there are quite a few - I think there are fifty - residences in the Province now that are classified as Tier 2 risk classifications for soil contamination. I know there is one gentleman – and we have been in contact with officials within your department - a gentleman in Gander, and I do not want to use his name, he bought this property and he finds himself in a very difficult position.

Are there many others in similar situations like that now, who purchase properties and find themselves with contaminated soil on their sites, and is there any funding available through your department that might help people who find themselves in those positions?

MR. PARROTT: There are contaminated sites throughout the Province. I guess what you are referring to is probably a residential site that has been contaminated by a furnace oil spill.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: There is no funding source within our department to clean these up. These are private matters between the individuals, the vendors and the purchasers, or between the neighbours if the spill originates off people's property.

MR. BUTLER: On the issue of Crown lands, we have received several phone calls over a period of time about illegal cabins being burned down in the Baie Verte area.

I was wondering: Can you confirm this action was taken, and did you provide notice to those cabin owners that this action would be taken, and did you give cabin owners who built on Crown lands without a permit an option to apply for a lease? Is that possible?

MR. JACKMAN: I will have Allister speak to that.

There is one thing about it: I think we are recognizing more and more in Newfoundland and Labrador that people are taking the liberty to construct when and where they want; and, of course, the department is moving diligently on amending some of those things. I will say to you that due diligence is carried out here, that notifications are given before actions are taken.

If there is anything further, Allister, that you want to add to it, you certainly can.

MR. TAYLOR: On the Baie Verte Peninsula two years ago we posted roughly 118 illegal cabins. All 118 were notified, as per the Crown Lands Act, with a sixty-day removal notice. Ninety-eight came forward to be legitimized, and I believe at the end of the day there were seven that did not come forward. After the sixty-day notice we also gave a thirty-day notice which is attached to the cabin. After that thirty days, which basically says we are coming in, we basically went in and burned those cabins because they are not accessible and the costs of removing them were just too prohibitive.

MR. BUTLER: The ones that came forward, were they given an option, then, to get a lease for that?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, they were.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. TAYLOR: We legitimized, I think, ninety-eight

MR. BUTLER: So it was not an issue that they were in a watershed area or anything like that?

MR. PARROTT: In some cases - not in this particular case but there are certain cases – where we cannot legitimize the cabin, and in some cases people will actually either remove them themselves or ask us if they can have another piece of property somewhere else where it is acceptable and they will move the cabin there.

MR. BUTLER: There is a similar situation in Long Harbour that was only in the media recently, and I think the residents there thought that they did not have to apply for land through Crown Lands because they thought it was on property or land that was owned by ERCO. I was just wondering: How is that unfolding now? Have all of those people been removed?

MR. JACKMAN: I think Allister can answer that one, yes.

MR. TAYLOR: One person has removed his own cabin. The week we posted it, he actually removed it himself. Six are basically in the process now of requiring an LTO in another area away from the site itself, so that one is pretty well unfolding.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Probably most of this is under federal jurisdiction, but I know recently the Mayor of Placentia was in the news and had concerns about oil spills in the area. I was just wondering, through your department - even though maybe most of that is federal jurisdiction, I am not quite sure - I was wondering if you have had any consultations with the Town of Placentia or with the federal people on the concerns that have been expressed.

MR. JACKMAN: (Inaudible) around the SmartBay project that has been ongoing, we have had input into that. I mean, with the increased amount of traffic, there is just no doubt about it, there is genuine need to have work carried on there.

I do not know if within the last recent while, Bill, if you want to give an update.

MR. PARROTT: I cannot speak specifically to the Town of Placentia but we have members of the department sit on some advisory committees and some working committees and working groups related to Placentia Bay.

As well, we have a great concern ourselves because of the Cape St. Mary's Bird Sanctuary that falls within this department. It is one of the jewels of the provincial natural areas, and any type of boating activity, especially tankers, in Placentia Bay is of concern. So, we have staff dedicated to ensure that the department is up to date on what is going on with all of the projects in the bay that are being studied.

MR. BUTLER: We had a call recently from a gentleman, I think it was in the Bauline Line area, with regards to Crown land draws for different pieces of property when they go up for a draw. He was saying that some of the people got it under a rural price while others who were fairly close to each other, was rural residential rates, which is apparently higher.

I was just wondering, if that should happen, and when they purchase the land if it is not used for what it was meant to be, what procedures does your department follow? Do they take this back again if it is not used for what the draw was for, that type of thing?

MR. JACKMAN: Allister.

MR. TAYLOR: I know the case you are talking about. There are two different situations here. One came after – the public draw came after the fact.

The one we are talking about before the fact, when the land was actually allocated as rural land. I think that was done probably back in the 1980s or the early 1990s when prices were relatively low in that whole area. Then when that area opened up and it was no longer considered to be agricultural land, then it was sold at fair market value based on current-day prices for that type of land.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

The Auditor General released a negative report on MMSB in January 2009, with particular reference to the MMSB Trust Fund and the Tire Recovery Program.

I know I asked you about that a little while ago, but I was just wondering, has anything been done in response to the recommendations that he put forward in the January report?

MR. JACKMAN: I think the MMSB is re-examining its role.

Ms Michael mentioned a few minutes ago seeing, and pleased to see the MMSB issuing more grants, so on and so forth. So, addressing the particular issues that were raised would be one thing but I expect that you are going to see changes of the MMSB being much more pronounced and prevalent. I think they have done marvellous work around their ads, get to fifty campaign. You can practically ask anyone in the Province, if you talk about get to fifty, what does it mean? Also, they are addressing other issues about outreach programs as well.

MR. BUTLER: Spokespersons with the MMSB were in attendance at Dominion when they commenced their plastic bag policy. The question I have is why has your department not developed a plastic bag policy that could see the cost of reducing plastic bags used fall back on your department rather than the individual consumer? Save money.

MR. PARROTT: Yes. The MMSB, along with the department, are reviewing the issue of plastic bags and the use of plastic in packaging, as well as looking at the whole issue of packaging consumer good products throughout the whole chain from actual creation of these to the actual final disposal. So the plastic bags are just one part of the whole process, which is under active consideration.

MR. JACKMAN: As well, under active consideration is the extended producer responsibility that would extend to everything from the Tim Hortons, that these people that produce as a business have some responsibility and accountability for their products being blown around the streets and everything else. So that is another thing that is being explored.

MR. BUTLER: It is my understanding the Central Waste Management Authority is facing lawsuits from a contract they signed with a company for the AA engineered landfill in - I think it was Norris Arm. I was wondering, what happens here and how would it impact the amalgamation of the waste sites in that particular region?

MR. PARROTT: That is a private matter between the central waste and the - I believe it is the Town of Gander and the contractors that the provincial government has nothing to do with.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The species advisory council's annual report 2007-2008 noted that government has not made a public decision on several recommendations made by the committee in 2007. I was wondering what these, and why have you not made a decision on those recommendations?

MR. FIRTH: The recommendations of the SSAC are currently being considered within government at the moment.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I am good for now, sir. You can go over (inaudible).

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

A few questions now on Water Resources Management; with regard to the potable water dispensing units – I think that is what, $6 million targeted over three years, I think, for those?

MR. JACKMAN: That is what it is, yes.

MS MICHAEL: I understand that six communities had these units at the end of 2007-2008 but the target is about 120.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Are these seen to be permanent fixtures in these communities or are they short-term measures?

MR. PARROTT: In the drinking water, that particular drinking water strategy which is aimed at small communities, at this point the strategy is looking at communities under 500. That is not the main focus, these drinking water units. The main focus is, of course, if it is possible to put in a system that treats all water. It might be a case of you need a treatment facility, or you may need another well, or you may have to take one well out of service and do some piping. So those are the types of projects that are looked upon, and, of course, it depends on the cost.

The (inaudible) on which it does these small dispensing units, basically, they only produce freshwater for drinking purposes. The water that still goes to people's houses, really could be still under a boil order, or could still have impurities in it where it is not good to look at or things like that.

I guess the short answer is, it is a way to get out there and tackle a problem quick, but if it is a reasonable cost to fix a system or to install a system, that is the first choice.

MS MICHAEL: Right. I want to get you straight now. So you could have a community that has a boil water order and yet also has the potable units at the same time?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So there is a crossover there, but it would not be all the way a crossover. It would be for some communities, not for all of them. Not all the communities, for example, who have boil water orders also have the potable units?

MR. PARROTT: No, that is right. That is correct.

A lot of the boil orders are related to decisions that they take in the communities. Some communities do not like the taste of chlorine, so they do not chlorinate. If you do not chlorinate and if you do not have the UV light, which most people do not have, then you have a boil water order. Some water systems do not have a chlorination plant on it and communities will not put them on because residents would prefer to boil than to have chlorination and the taste of chlorine.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

There certainly has been a change in the number of communities with boil water orders in the last seven years, from 2001 to 2008, there is no doubt about that. Are we sort of static now because of the reasons that you just gave with regard to communities with boil water orders?

MR. JACKMAN: I do not think so. I think the majority of communities would prefer to have water that is drinkable coming out of their taps. This is an issue that gets dealt with through Municipal Affairs. With our new cost-share arrangements, we will certainly take a look at it. I speak from personal experience with some of the smaller communities that are in my district that have one of these potable units but at the same time, are looking at ways that they can partner with government and improve their drinking water supply so that it comes through your taps.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, because surely we know there are other ways in which they can purify their water that would work.

MR. JACKMAN: Sure. Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I just wanted to get a bit of a better handle on that one than I had.

Under 2.2.01., and this might have to do with the potable units, I am not sure. Under Professional Services 05, you have gone down in the budget there. What would be the professional services that you were covering under that?

MR. JACKMAN: Do you want to speak to that Bill?

MR. PARROTT: Professional Services, some of the things that we have funded under that professional services there has been a flood mapping study in Stephenville, the area at White's Brook. As well, we put some more equipment in at Badger to help predict the icing and flooding conditions there that were critical.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Okay.

Then the next one, 06.Purchased Services, you under spent last year but you are going up to $1.1 million this year. What comes in under the purchased services?

MR. PARROTT: That will be related to the new drinking water. There will be some consulting work done there. As well, there is some money there for an agriculture water use study project which is a cost-shared project. Well, it is 100 per cent federally funded. We have to budget it and claim the money back, and the revenue will show up.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under Environmental Assessment, does the – well, I would assume that the cost of any panel, for example, now you have the Lower Churchill panel would come under that, and would that be under the Purchased Services?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, it would.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Would the salaries – the salaries, you seem to maybe have a couple of new positions coming in there, maybe one?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, I – do you want to answer that, Colleen?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: We have two seconded members for the Lower Churchill Joint Panel that we have to cover their salary costs.

MS MICHAEL: Right, okay. I thought maybe that is what it was.

The Voisey's Bay environmental assessment management board, that is finished now, is it?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, it is.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Now everything is just, I guess, under the Nunatsiavut government and the Innu Nation?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, in examining the environmental management board, it seems that their work was done. We were covering administrative costs, and if things change there certainly I suppose we can look at putting the panel back into effect, but at this particular point it is finished.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, having been one of the people who recommended the board.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes. We knew that when we were talking about it today.

MS MICHAEL: Crown Land, 3.1.01. I am interested in finding out what is happening with regard to the provincial land use management plan. I mean, I have asked this every year now - this is my third year, I think, asking about the provincial land use management plan. Where are things?

MR. JACKMAN: Allister, do you want to –

MR. TAYLOR: One of things myself and the director started to work on last year was what we call a comprehensive land use management strategy. Part of that is just simply a review that we are doing internally and what other jurisdictions are doing. We hope to have that completed before the end of this year, and we will make a presentation then through our minister to Cabinet as to what we feel our direction should be.

We are working on some of the tools that we have had in place for the last twenty to twenty-five years, and we are also doing a review of current legislation in the Province. A lot of people do not realize, but there are about forty-odd pieces of legislation in this Province that actually govern to some degree what can take place on the land.

We are also looking at other tools that we have, which is a land use atlas that we have had in place for a number of years, and we have a variety of committees within government that we have had in place for a number of years.

We are looking at all of those attributes, and hopefully by the end of this fiscal year we will be able to go forward with a series of recommendations.

MS MICHAEL: The department, are you looking at the possibility of having public consultations on land use management?

MR. TAYLOR: That would be one of the series of recommendations that we go forward with, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Okay.

With regard to the budget lines - this gets repetitive sometimes but I will ask it anyway – under 01. Salaries you under spent. I am assuming that was recruitment problems again.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under Transportation and Communications there was a big under expenditure there as well; however, your estimate for this year is $150,000 more than last year's estimate. Why are you putting that up so much this year?

MR. JACKMAN: The reduction, certainly, if you did not have the staff then your travel and everything was less, but one of the things in this has to do with the Abitibi land holdings.

MS MICHAEL: In what way, Minister?

MR. JACKMAN: Allister or Bill?

MR. PARROTT: There has been extra money allocated this year for the department to carry out inspections on the former Abitibi lands to determine the extent of the holdings, how much is there and how much has been allocated by Abitibi before it came to the provincial government.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I do not know if this actually will be part of what you have to deal with or not, but it is my understanding that the power lines now that go directly into the mill - like I said, this is not really your field but you may have some knowledge of it - that before government could actually get into looking at new contracts with others with regard to the power there would have to be new power lines done. Is that correct?

MR. JACKMAN: I cannot speak to that at this particular point. I think that would be something where Natural Resources –

MS MICHAEL: Yes, right, okay. We will take that there.

Under 06.Purchased Services you did have an over expenditure last year of $88,600. Was that a one-time expense that caused that?

MR. JACKMAN: There were some things around advertising, and some leased accommodations.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under Professional Services you seem to be requiring less in the way of professional services under 3.1.02, Land Management and Development. Your budget last year was $245,000, you under spent by $120,000, and you are not going up to where you were in last year's estimate.

MR. JACKMAN: For what? Purchased Services?

MS MICHAEL: Professional Services.

MR. JACKMAN: Professional Services.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. JACKMAN: This is a reduction in the contractual services that we were using around the Salmonier lot developments.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, right.

Under Purchased Services you are estimating $100,000 more this year than last year. Why?

MR. TAYLOR: That is the additional money we are going to need this year for Salmonier. This is like building the roads, fixing the roads up, that type of thing.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under the provincial revenue, in which you have a $764,000 jump this year, what is the source of that revenue?

MR. TAYLOR: That is what we estimate our land sales to be this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, of course, because you are selling land.

This is a real curiosity; under 3.1.03.01 Salaries, basically you budgeted and stayed where you were last year and you are going down a slight bit. Understanding that you have to have an increase just because of attrition and, two, because of the extra pay period, are you going to have less staff in this area next year?

MR. TAYLOR: What we had last year was we had two retirees, and basing it on the fact of how long it is taking us to get replacements, that is where that comes from.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

You do not often see that, so my eye caught that.

Yes, 3.1.04 – I have written a note to myself: Ask for an overall description of this item - if you could just describe the Geomatics Agreements to me, please.

MR. TAYLOR: The Geomatics Agreements, it is a collage of different agreements that we have. For example, we do aerial photography.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. TAYLOR: We can do that in conjunction with Forestry, we sometimes do that in conjunction with municipalities, and we will also do it sometimes in conjunction with the federal government, so that is the barrage of these agreements that we have.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, and you do not have particular staff within divisions dealing with this.

MR. TAYLOR: No, the staff money is the top, surveys and mapping.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, yes.

MR. TAYLOR: Because we do a lot of this in terms of kind. Like, someone will pay for, say, the helicopter support, and we then take the digital photography that is generated. We then take it and use our staff to basically produce it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

The feds put in money and you put in money.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I do not have a lot more, actually.

In 4.1.01 - this is a salary question under Salaries – last year, you overspent by $610,000 and you are back down this year by almost $500,000.

What is happening with staffing there?

MR. JACKMAN: This was a requirement –

MS MICHAEL: Oh, no, I am sorry; you are back down by $170,000.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

You will recall that we had a huge rainstorm, and we had a lot of bridges and that, that were washed out on the T'Railway.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, yes, I remember.

MR. JACKMAN: Well, that necessitated us having to bring in additional staff.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Yes, we had a very bad fall when it came to the rain.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

I think any other question I would have there is actually probably covered by the same answer. I am sure it would be, actually.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Other things I have down here, Mr. Butler asked questions on.

Under 4.2.02, again a salary question, $116,200 over last year's estimate. Is all of that covered by the 8 per cent and the extra pay period?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 4.2.03, Stewardship and Education, it seems to me that is a larger number, though, of a variance between last year's estimate and this year's estimate. Is there is a new staff position involved there?

MR. JACKMAN: Around salaries?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, in salaries.

MR. JACKMAN: I will ask – yes, here we go.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Stewardship and Education in Salaries was under funded last year in error. We realized really early on. We found the money within the department. We corrected our mistake for 2009-2010 to ensure that we had enough money to cover the cost of all the required positions.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

That Stewardship and Education, is that internal to the department? The training that goes on, is that internal to the department? Is there training done outside of the department itself, in communities, or is it all within the department?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, that is internal to the department but, as well, external. As the minister mentioned earlier, this coyote hunter and education program is a part of this.

MS MICHAEL: That is a part of that.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I was curious in 4.2.04 about the fact that - this is Habitat, Game and Fur Management - several of the categories were under spent, by a fair bit actually. Was there less action in this whole area?

MR. JACKMAN: No, what happened is that some of the funds that we had allocated came and fell under the caribou management strategy. Therefore, they were offset there and taken under that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, and that is why the estimates this year are lower, correct?

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Now they are in the other area under the caribou strategy.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Just one question here. With regard to the inventory of the rare lichen on the Avalon Peninsula, I think there is $315,000 put into that inventory. Could we have an update on what happened with that? Is that inventory finished or is that an ongoing –

MR. JACKMAN: This is the one that Mr. McCarthy is carrying out. He is in the process right now of completing his report and then submitting it to government.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

I think that is all my questions.

MR. BUTLER: Maybe this one has been answered because I was chatting to one of the boys and maybe Ms Michael asked this one. It has to do with 4.1.01.05 Professional Services.

MR. JACKMAN: 4.1.01.?

MR. BUTLER: 4.1.01. Parks and Natural Areas.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Professional Services, last year it was $60,000, this year it is $2 million.

MR. JACKMAN: This has to do with the work that we are going to be doing with the T'Railway.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MR. JACKMAN: What has happened is Transport Canada has been involved in - as a result of the washouts and whatnot that we had last year, there are certain liabilities along the T'Railway now that have to be repaired. So, that is an investment of $2 million that we are putting into T'Railway upgrades.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

4.2.06.10. Grants and Subsidies, I know there was nothing budgeted. It is not a big lot of money, I know, but I would like to have it, $35,300 - which this year there is nothing budgeted again. I was just wondering -

MR. JACKMAN: Which one are you looking at?

MR. BUTLER: I am sorry. 4.2.06. Cooperative Wildlife Projects, under 10.Grants and Subsidies. There was nothing budgeted, it was revised at $35,300 and then there is nothing budgeted again this year. I am just wondering if you could explain that to me.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes. This is to do with a study of some - they had a note for me on file, geography is it? I had not heard it before, but it is the studying of brook trout in Labrador. So this is some work that is being undertaken to look at the various species and so on and so forth, of trout in Labrador.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. I do not have that many more. I will just skim through them here now.

I know through Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador they had some concerns about Crown land that are in their municipalities and wondering if they could be turned over to the towns so they could develop it and so on. I know that is probably also in conjunction with Municipal Affairs. I do not know if they are involved and you people are not on it. I was just wondering, has any consideration - I think they were supposed to provide additional information on this issue. I was just wondering, has that happened and what consideration has been given to that?

MR. JACKMAN: Land in the Province, whether individual or municipality, is being sold at fair market value, and as such – Allister, you can speak to it if there is anything further done than that, but that is I believe relatively where it stands.

Do you want to add a comment to it, Allister?

MR. TAYLOR: They were supposed to do some further study. We have not received anything back from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador. The position of government remains the same, is that Crown land within municipal boundaries belongs to the Crown and if you want to purchase it, it is at fair market value.

MR. PARROTT: Crown land within a municipal boundary – if the municipality requires that land for municipal purposes, like a road, a park, a municipal building, a playground, things like that, then that land is made available for $1. Any other use is fair market value.

MR. BUTLER: There are probably different departments involved here, but I was wondering your involvement with the Outdoor Bill of Rights and if you can report anything. I know there was supposed to be an Outdoor Bill of Rights, and I guess your department for sure would have been tied to it, with many other departments. I was wondering if you can just give me an update on that, what has transpired or what is in the works at the present time?

MR. JACKMAN: Well, under sustainable use of land and resources within the Province, we envision that the Outdoor Bill of Rights will be contained within that. That is what we have been alluding to and saying for the past year, and we still maintain that stance.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

What is the status of the schedule 2 application with the federal government for reclassifying Sandy Pond as a tailings management facility, or is there anything ongoing with that now?

MR. PARROTT: That is a federal process, and we have no update on the status of it.

MR. BUTLER: No update?

MR. PARROTT: No.

MR. BUTLER: Two more. The MMSB annual report identified difficulties in keeping waste management authorities operating. An interdepartmental waste management committee apparently was struck and new personnel hired to deal with the problem. I was wondering, how many waste management authorities are active today in the Province?

MR. JACKMAN: I cannot give you the exact number but we can provide you with that information.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, yes.

The last one that I have, the Horse Chops – I think it is the Horse Chops area, as known on the Northern Peninsula – has been identified for the natural systems plan and the environmental assessment for the forest management plan in that area. They stipulated that there be no cutting in what they call, I think, is the Tickles, I may have that wrong -

MR. JACKMAN: Tickles, yes.

MR. BUTLER: - until public consultation was done. Yet, we learned - I think through Estimates from the Minister of Natural Resources - that a logging road was built in the area, even though no consultations were held. I was wondering what accounted for that, or if you can give me an update on that?

MR. PARROTT: My understanding is Natural Resources had put out a contract for a logging road the previous year and the contractor had gone in and finished it. It was a very short piece he finished, but because those public consultations had not gone on, there has been no logging in the area and the road has been closed to restrict access to that area.

MR. BUTLER: That is all I have, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I want to thank your staff.

CHAIR: Any further questions?

MS MICHAEL: No, but just to say thank you to the minister and his staff.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, no further questions from the Committee.

I will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

CLERK: 1.1.01. to 4.2.06. inclusive.

CHAIR: 1.1.01. to 4.2.06. inclusive. Shall these 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.

CLERK: The total.

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 of the Department of Environment and Conservation carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: This is the last meeting for the Resource Committee. However, we do have the minutes of a previous meeting, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the Rural Secretariat and the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council.

I ask for a motion now to adopt these minutes.

Moved by Mr. Baker, seconded by Mr. Verge, that the minutes of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Rural Secretariat, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Council carry without amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I would like to take the opportunity to thank Acting Minister Jackman for doing an excellent job in filling in for Minister Johnson, as well as his officials, the House of Assembly staff, our Committee and observer, for your attendance.

Now, I guess I will ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Butler. This meeting is now adjourned.

On motion, Committee adjourned.