Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Mr. Pollard, MHA for Baie Verte-Springdale, replaces Mr. Verge, MHA for Lewisporte.

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Harding): Good morning everyone.

We are ready to begin the Estimates debate for the Department of Environment and Conservation. First of all, we begin in our usual way and have the Committee members to introduce themselves beginning with Mr. Pollard.

MR. POLLARD: Kevin Pollard, MHA, Baie Verte-Springdale.

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

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Labrador West.

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

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

CHAIR: I would just like to have the observers identify themselves as well, please.

MS CAMPBELL: Lori-Ann Campbell, Researcher.

MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan, Researcher.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

When the Clerk calls the first subhead the minister may take up to fifteen minutes to introduce the officials that you have here this morning, as well as give a brief overview of her department's Estimates for the year.

I ask the officials, if you have to call on any of them to answer any question, if they would identify themselves prior to speaking each time.

First of all, we will deal with the minutes of the previous meeting that we had and that was the Department of Business. So, a motion to accept these minutes as circulated.

MR. DALLEY: So moved.

MR. CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Dalley, seconded by Mr. Butler, that the minutes of the Department of Business Estimates Committee meeting be accepted as circulated.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I ask the Clerk now to call the first subhead.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01.

Shall that carry?

Minister Johnson.

MS JOHNSON: Good morning everybody. We are here to discuss the Estimates for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

I would like to introduce the group with me. To my left is Bill Parrott, Deputy Minister. Next to Bill is Ross Firth, the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Natural Heritage branch. Then we have Martin Goebel, the Assistant Deputy Minister in the Environment branch. Behind me we have Scott Jones who is our Director of Financial and General Operations. Next to Scott is Shane Mahoney; Shane is the Executive Director of Sustainable Development and Strategic Science. Then we have Peter Howe; Peter Howe is the Director in Lands. In the back is John Drover; John is the Director of Policy and Planning. Next to John is Denise Woodman, my Executive Assistant. Next to Denise is Melony O'Neill, my Communications Director.

Just a little bit of background about the department and the Estimates this year. For the 2010-2011 fiscal years we have a gross budget of $63,884,000 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, water, Crown Lands resources and several other issues. To offset a portion of these costs, the related revenue of approximately $11 million is budgeted which results in a net expenditure of $52,776,500.

As you will see as we review the Estimates - because I am sure there will be a lot of line-by-line questions - we have placed a significant focus this year on reallocating our departmental allotments, basically, to better reflect the priorities of the department and to put those values in the lines where they should actually be. So, you will see some moving around from purchased services, supplies and things like that.

The gross budget for the department's four main programs: We have approximately $24 million for Executive and Support Services; approximately $17 million for Environmental Management and Control; a little over $7 million for Lands; and around $15 million for Wildlife, Parks and Natural Heritage.

We have three branches and two divisions in Environment and Conservation. We have the Environment Branch. This includes Pollution Prevention, Water Resources Management, and Environmental Assessment. In addition to the head office here in St. John's, we also have offices in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor. As I said, Martin Goebel is the ADM for that branch.

In the Lands Branch we have Crown Lands, we have surveys, mapping and land management. The Lands Division has satellite offices in Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville and Labrador. The ADM position is currently vacant. It is being temporarily covered by Bill Parrott. Peter Howe, as I said, is the Director of Crown Lands. He is here today to provide technical support.

We also have 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. There is a satellite office in Labrador. Ross is the ADM responsible for that branch.

Sustainable Development and Strategic Science Division manages sustainable development issues and the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science in Corner Brook. Shane is the Director of that division.

Policy and Planning Division provides the design and implementation of a program of research and analysis pertaining to policy and program issues across the department including climate change, legislation and policies and accountability requirements. John Drover is the Director of that division.

I am pleased to report that we have several significant initiatives funded this year which are aimed at remediating contaminated sites in the Province and enhancing infrastructure pertaining to our natural heritage.

In Budget 2010-2011, we committed $5 million for contaminated sites in the Province; $4 million of that will go to Buchans and $1 million will go to Hopedale. Of course, the Buchans $4 million is on the former Abitibi ASARCO mine site there in Buchans. The $1 million to Hopedale is for cleanup of the former US military station.

As part of our continued focus on our natural environment, we have allocated approximately $1.6 million for enhancements to Salmonier Nature Park; truly a gem in our Province. Additionally, we have allocated $3.6 million for the replacement of Crabbes River bridge; that is a structure in St. Fintan's. We certainly understand the significance of the T'Railway Provincial Park in the Province. Replacement of this structure is an important part of our parks infrastructure.

We also have $500,000 for a capacity funding program to enable meaningful Aboriginal participation during the environmental assessment of Labrador-Island Transmission project. I am pleased to report that the department is continuing with its ongoing support of our five-year Caribou Strategy.

There are many others, these are but a few of the significant investments we are making toward 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 very best to answer your questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister.

Before we begin questioning, I would like welcome Committee member Mr. Ray Hunter to the meeting

I guess we begin with Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I would like to welcome you and your staff here this morning. Just to say from the outset from time to time, we do have to call members of your staff and I must say we get a good response. It is not always what we want to hear, but they are very courteous in getting back to us.

A couple of question before I really get into the gist of it, I guess, with regard to the Summary 2010-2011 Salary Funding where it lists the Permanent Employees, Temporary & Other Employees. The figure there this year is $6,758,500 - it is on page 79. That is down by $548,200. That is less than it was last year and I was just wondering if you can explain the reasoning for that. Compared to last year it was $7,306,700.

MS JOHNSON: I do not see last year's figure, do you?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: I see this year's figure, but I do not see where the $7 million is -

MR. BUTLER: No, I just found that in the book from last year.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: I have a copy of last year's here if you want it, maybe that will help.

MR. JONES: Scott Jones.

We can get back to you on that. The Salary Details is a document that is prepared by the Budgeting Division, and it is based on information that is provided by the departments. What I can do is I can contact the analyst that we deal with in the Budgeting Division and we can reconcile our numbers to get a better answer for you, if that is okay.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. I know it was $7.3 million last year. I have a copy if you want it. This year's, I was wondering if it was employees let go or –

MS JOHNSON: I think - and I will let Scott verify it - there were some temporary positions in past years that have ended this year or some that we said we will find within. I know in the Natural Areas Systems Plan, there were two positions there, which we said we will not seek in the budget this we will find it with savings within. There was also one in Crown Lands in the collections, which we did not continue to fund this year, but there are still two people in Crown Lands. So, it might be something around that, Scott.

MR JONES: Yes, it is that type of situation that leads to variances in the numbers from year to year. I just would not be able to speak to the actual specifics to reconcile to the actual numbers without consultation.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. In the same document it shows that your total employees are 248 and that is up one over last year if you compare the two documents. I was just wondering how many temporary employees are there, say thirteen weeks, that you have within your system now or are there any?

MS JOHNSON: We will have to get that information for you. I do not have all of that here.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, okay.

The other one we received in the House recently, I guess the tenders that go out – I do not see the date on it. Anyway, it has to do with the Public Tender Act. There was one where the Department of Environment and Conservation went to tender due to the only available source - that is not the issue. I was just wondering what it was for, or to explain whoever this was for and what type of fish. Was it tags for fish with sensors attached? I was just wondering what project or where that would have been? It was for $59,000.

MS JOHNSON: That was for a project that Rob Perry, one of our biologists, is working on in Labrador. There is a lot of work around climate change and the impact and so on.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. So, it is in Labrador?

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: 1.2.03., the line by lines

MS JOHNSON: Policy Development and Planning?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Under 10. Grants and Subsidies, I know it went from $16 million to $11 million for clean air and climate change initiatives and only $9 million out of $16 million was spent last year. I was wondering why the grants were under spent.

MS JOHNSON: This is the $23 million that we received from the federal government for the EcoTrust; we call it the Green Fund. We also put $2 million of our own money into it over three years. If we have a lot of applications in and the applications were fully subscribed, we know that this is all going out the door; it is just a matter of timing and getting out. What we did not get out last year, the roughly $7 million less than what we had budgeted for, will go out this year. The $11 million that you see, that is how much we have left in the fund.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This year you have estimated $500,000 there. Is that from the federal government, the revenues there, whereas last year it was $16 million from them?

MS JOHNSON: Yes. Well, that $23 million fund is complete now.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: But that $500,000 is money we are receiving for climate change adaptation that we are partnering with the federal government and the four Atlantic Provinces on. That is separate than the Green Fund, but it is a grant.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

2.1.01. Pollution Prevention, under 06. I know you mentioned in your opening comments that there was juggling of figures from one area to the other. I know this one there, it shows $1.7 million and Revised is $72,000.

Number 06. Purchased Services.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, I am finding it now. You are asking why it is $5.1 million this year as opposed to $1.7 million last year?

MR. BUTLER: No, there was $1.7 million budgeted last year and the Revised is $72,000.

MS JOHNSON: We only spent $72,000. Okay.

That was for the clean up of contaminated sites and the expenditures for that were less than what we projected as we are still in the very early stages of the projects.

Also, the Professional Services you see would have increased. So it is kind of a moving around of money. If you look in the line above that, we had $718,200 budgeted for Professional Services but we actually spent $1.7 million. That is what I talked about in the opening remarks about moving money around.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: And the $5 million for this year, that is the money for Buchans and Hopedale.

MR. BUTLER: 2.2.01. Water Resources Management, under 01. Yes, under 01. Salaries; I know there was only $2.3 million and $2 million. I was wondering why it was under spent there by approximately $300,000?

MS JOHNSON: Those would be vacant positions that were not filled, and there was some delay in the water use study we were doing. So we did not fill those positions yet.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. I guess the one under 06. Purchased Services is similar to what you responded to about the other ones above, I guess a juggling around of the figures there, is it?

MS JOHNSON: Just let me verify for you. Well, that one there actually – the reduction of $400,000 was actually some savings that we had with the drinking water projects. So we did not actually move around that one; that was actually savings that we had.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, 02., I was just wondering, the $558,000, how is this determined, this revenue?

MS JOHNSON: 2.2.02?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, that is correct, under the Provincial Revenue.

MS JOHNSON: The $71,000 Revenue?

MR. BUTLER: No, $558,200, 2.2.01.

MS JOHNSON: Oh, the $528,000.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the Provincial Revenue there.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. This is an increase. That Revenue is from revenue we get from industry for water quality, measuring the water quality and the water quality monitoring stations that we have. The industry pays some money towards the department to operate those. So there are two more, I believe, coming on this year. That is why you see the increase of $82,000 roughly from last year.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

2.3.01., with regards to 01. I know last year the Budget was $1 million for Salaries, it went to $1.1 million, and this year it is down to $991,000. I was wondering why the reduction there?

MS JOHNSON: We have a certain budget for Salaries in the department, so each year we have to live within that budget. We move positions around sometimes. So that is a matter of there is going to be a vacant position there that we may have needed say in Crown lands or somewhere else. Again, it is moving money around, but there is no less staff. It is just that we have identified vacant positions and we are going to keep them vacant.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, 05., Professional Services; I know budgeted last year was nothing, Revised to $195,000 and this year it is $690,000. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on that for me.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. The $195,000 that we spent that we had not budgeted for, this is contracts for the Lower Churchill joint panel. That would have been moved around from Purchased Services. You see underneath it, Purchased Services were less than we planned. So that is, again, a matter of moving money around. The increase, the $690,000 this year, is the money I mentioned we are having for the Lower Churchill initiative this year.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The last one under that heading - under Revenue again, right at the bottom, Provincial - under 2.3.01.02. Revenue – Provincial.

MS JOHNSON: Everything we do in Environmental Assessment is cost recovery from the proponent. So this would be the increase in revenue we will get from industry for the recovery cost of the joint panel - money in and money out.

MR. BUTLER: It is up quite a bit from over last year. You estimated $200,000 and it went to $710,000, and this year close to $1.7 million.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. Well, we are going to have the hearings and those types of things are going to start in September. There is also the transmission onside now too. So there is a lot more activity that is going to be happening this year.

MR. BUTLER: A couple of questions now, minister – I do not know what my time is but I am sure the Chair will cut me off. A couple of questions, I guess a follow-up from last year with regard to the caribou advisory committee that was put in place. I was just wondering who sits on this committee and how is it functioning at this time?

MS JOHNSON: Okay. I will leave it to Shane to give you all of the member's names, but they meet quite frequently for a group and I have been to several of the meetings. The whole purpose of the Caribou Resource Committee is for us to give information to the groups so they can then bring that information back to their organization. I know we have the Outfitters Association, the Trappers Association.

I will defer to Shane now to give you the list because I just do not remember all the names right now.

MR. MAHONEY: We have Wayne Holloway who represents the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association; Brad Leyte who represents the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation; Wade Bowers from Sir Wilfred Grenfell College; Dr. David Schneider from Memorial University campus here in St. John's; Ken White from the Trappers Association; and of course, Ross Firth from the Department of Environment and Conservation, as well as myself. Yes, the Director of the Rural Secretariat, Barbara Case; and Keith Deering from Natural Resources also sits on it.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible).

MR. MAHONEY: Mary Taylor-Ash, yes.

MS JOHNSON: Between the two of us, we will remember them all.

MR. BUTLER: The other question – a lot of these questions are coming that we get calls from people, concerns about this and that and the other thing. I know the caribou licences has been reduced again this year and people are wondering - like the outfitters, if they have less numbers this year is there any compensation package in place to assist them if their caribou numbers are reduced and their business is down for that reason?

MS JOHNSON: In our department we are responsible for doing the population estimates and then determining the number of licences. We have a certain allocation that goes to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and then they allocate to the outfitters. So really, it is the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation who is responsible for the outfitters. It is down by eighty-five this year, which is good because in the past the decline was much sharper. So we are seeing that that is slowing down now. Even though it is a reduction, it is a good thing.

MR. BUTLER: We have heard a lot about the moose through the House and outside of the House, I guess. I was just wondering - with the new moose licensing system, the work that the department has done and I guess again in conjunction with other departments as well to reduce the moose vehicle accidents in the Province. I was just wondering, have you heard many concerns about whether an increased cull may create a backlog? I know a lot of people are calling in and saying if there is a cull the meat is not going to be - the butchers cannot look after the meat and all this. I was just wondering what you are hearing on that, or have you heard anything along those lines?

MS JOHNSON: Can you explain about the meat and the butchers, I am not sure -

MR. BUTLER: People are calling in and they are saying if there is going to be a cull on the moose and I guess they can increase -

MS JOHNSON: Oh, a cull. I am sorry.

MR. BUTLER: - a longer season and they are saying that there is going to be a problem with regard to the butchers, from their perspective, being able to handle the meat and that. Have you heard anything on that?

MS JOHNSON: I have heard a lot on this issue; that is the first time I have heard that one. I get struck up about questions for the moose wherever I go, whether it is in a grocery store or on a plane or whatever.

The extension to the season by three weeks is really to assist hunters to gain access to the interior parts of the Province. The majority of people hunt within one kilometre of the road and we know that is the easiest and so on, but we are really trying to encourage people to get into the interior parts because this is where the population of moose are exploding. Then there is competition for food, so then those moose have to leave and they move out toward the road.

I do not know if the extension of three weeks will have a major impact. I guess it will help in terms of if people did not get their moose earlier in the season it is an extra chance for them over the Christmas holidays. It also will help us in terms of habitat degradation. That is where you see a lot of the degradation to trees and habitat because of the over browsing. So we are hoping it will help there.

In terms of loading up the butcher shops, I do not see that happening. I know the crowd out my way; they are in the first day moose hunting. So it is really a second opportunity or a third opportunity for people to get in the woods with the extension of the season.

MR. BUTLER: Still on the moose licences - I am wondering if you can explain this and maybe we are looking at it wrong. I think it was in a release that you put out that there were 590 new licences.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: We see 365, based on the figures that are in last year's guide. Can you explain where we are wrong there or –

MS JOHNSON: It is actually 590 new licences, plus, as I said in a press conference, there are 2,154 more licences made available to residents. The reason being for that is there were 1,513 - I think is the number - that was not used by outfitters last year and there were 1,200 that were not used by outfitters the year before. So, what we have done is we have reallocated those to residents, because if you look at the map, half of them at least were right along the Trans-Canada Highway. If outfitters were not selling the licences, those moose did not have a chance to be hunted at all. So now, at least, there is an opportunity for residents to hunt them. As to the -

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with all due respect, I think that is where we are coming from with the 365. It is probably licences that were not used last year. We did not calculate into getting the 590, is that right?

MS JOHNSON: No, I think it is 590 showing in the guide, isn't it? Yes.

Do you have the guide there?

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

MS JOHNSON: Do you have the guide?

MR. BUTLER: No, I do not. No.

MS JOHNSON: No, it is 590. If you look on page 18 of the guide -

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Yes, but he is talking about this year, right?

MR. BUTLER: Yes. Where we came up with the figures is when we had the two guides, looking at one with the other.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and that is because after the guides go out we always put a little disclaimer there, that sometimes the numbers can change after the guide goes out because we do not have all of our surveys done. Last year you would have seen a decrease in the number of licences due to the surveys. You will not see that this year because it is too complicated. I just said what it is this year it is. So, you see the 590 on page 18 of the guide?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: That is the true number. Plus, there are fifty additional to the charities. If you add the 590, the fifty, and the 1,513, I think it is, it comes to 2,154 additional to residents.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. I know there was a gentleman from Ontario who provided some information about active signage that they use in some part of another Province, I do not know if it is Ontario or B.C. somewhere -

MS JOHNSON: In B.C.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering, has your department or anyone within the system looked at that technology?

MS JOHNSON: I am not sure if it was that specific one, but we have been doing a lot of work looking at other jurisdictions in terms of signs and devices you could put on vehicles and flashing lights and so on. At this point in time, none of it is actually proven technology. We are still continuing to work with the other jurisdictions and with Transportation and Works, because a lot of this falls in their department, but I would be really hesitant, and I get asked all the time about these sorts of whistles that you can put on the front of the car. I would never endorse any of that because I do not want to give anybody a false sense of security. It is not proven. If people want to try some of this on their own they can, but until we see some proven technology – we would certainly be willing to look at it at that point. At this point, there are lots of things out there that are tried but not proven to be true.

MR. BUTLER: Seeing as you mentioned the whistles, I will tell you now: When I was up on the Northern Peninsula during the by-election, there is a lot of moose up there so I said I am going to try everything I can. So I put those cheap whistles – they are only $4 or $5 – and I travelled back and forth from Roddickton up to Main Brook every night and did not see a moose. I said: I do not know if the whistles are working are not; I hope I see a moose before I come back out of it.

The day we left, there was a moose on the side of the highway, up ahead of us quite a distance, and when we got closer you should have seen that moose take off and run back into the woods. Now, I think it was my whistles, but I would not recommend to everyone that this is going to be a cure-all.

One of the things – and I think government is looking at this, not only your department but other departments as well - the big thing, I think, is the cutting back of the brush from the sides of the road. I know over in your district going to Green's Harbour, one side of the road is cleaned off perfect and the other side is still a bit close. It makes some difference if you have a good sight distance.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it does, particularly in the daytime. I drove to Clarenville this week and it is amazing you can see, but that is not going to help you at night and that is where the majority of our accidents happen, from dusk until dawn.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

I will take one other question, Mr. Chair, and then we can move on to Ms Michael.

New Harbour dump - I know it is somewhere within the system with the federal people investigating something there. I am just wondering if you could give me an update on it, please.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. Oh gosh, we have spent almost $1 million on New Harbour dump now, and I am pleased to say that the community have moved on and they are bringing their waste to Robin Hood Bay. We have removed 120 or 140 tonnes of PCB material. We have put in monitoring wells and we do testing there and everything has come back fine in terms of those monitoring wells. We have purchased a liner to cap off the dump - landfill - but that cannot be put down yet until the soil compacts, and you need to wait a year or two I am told by the engineers to do that so that it is done properly.

We are still continuing with the monitoring wells and so on this year, but we cannot put that liner on until all of that soil is really compacted.

MR. BUTLER: Any word on the federal end of it, where they are supposed to be investigating something there? I do not know what.

MS JOHNSON: I do not know. Martin, have you heard anything? All I know is that it is under review.

MR. GOEBEL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Yes, they have asked us for information which we have provided, but I have not heard anything other than that.

MR. BUTLER: So the committee that was looking after that dump, they are still in charge of the site over there, are they? I am going to tell you, I drove by there Saturday –

MS JOHNSON: I did, too, and it was the first thing I had to tell Bill this morning.

MR. BUTLER: Outside the fence, they are creating a dump on the outside of the dump, and it is terrible.

MS JOHNSON: They are.

MR. BUTLER: It is a beautiful area. A lot of tourists go over there to the parks, and I travel over there all the time. The tires and mattresses and washers and everything is being built up now outside the fence. I do not know how you control it, but I guess someone has to get after them.

They could be coming from my end of the district bringing that over there, which is something we do not know.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Whoever it is, I am just wondering who is in charge of that there now. Would it be the same group that was looking after the site, or where it is closed, is that directly with the department?

MS JOHNSON: I will have to check on that. I really do not know if that committee - I do not see that committee being in charge any more; they did their piece. It is our role now to get the site cleaned up, but as I said we cannot put the liner there. My experience is once these are cleaned up, because we have had some: Burnt Point dump, Western Bay dump. There was one other one that I know of close by. Once they are greened up and cleaned up, you do not see, typically, people dumping there.

So I will have to check into that, Roland, and get back to you and see what the next phase is.

MR. BUTLER: I do not think there is any signage there now and the other thing, the enforcement -

MS JOHNSON: It was. I think they tore it down and threw it in the dump. We fenced it, we gated it and we put signs up but -

MR. BUTLER: I would say the law is not enforcing it either, not your department but when it goes to the system. I know people who have caught people in my area dumping, their addresses were in the garbage bags, their mail was there but when it went to court: Did you see them put it there? No.

MS JOHNSON: It is really hard to get a conviction.

MR. BUTLER: People just go in and do the same thing again.

MS JOHNSON: Unless you have it on video I am told, because this is all around the Province that we get calls about people dumping stuff. Really, Justice says unless you have them on video, you do not have much of a case - unfortunate.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

We will give Ms Michael an opportunity now, fifteen or twenty minutes, and then we can switch back and forth.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with all your officials.

I will not be repeating questions, but I might go back to a topic that has been covered simply because I want to go more deeply into or have more questions to ask.

The first one will be 1.2.03.05. Under Professional Services, you talked about the $500,000 that is part of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy that we are in partnership with the Atlantic Provinces and the Government of Canada. We were told that last year as well at Estimates, so it would look like nothing has really happened in that area. Could you give more detail on what is going on with that strategy?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, there was a delay in the adaptation strategy for last year, so that is why the monies were not spent. There was an official press release that was put out April 23 actually where the feds announced it in partnership with us. Now that we have the money, we already have plans to spend it. We have the letters ready to go. We were just waiting for the money. A lot of it will be around working with the municipalities in terms of adaptation, also a big piece of work in Labrador. I do not think we have sent those letters out yet, have we, John?

MR. DROVER: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: No, but very soon?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: They are ready for my signature, so it will be spent this year.

MS MICHAEL: When you say adaptations, what are the specific adaptations that you are looking at?

MS JOHNSON: We would look at communities that would have potential for sea level rise or flooding, things like that and how to adapt to those situations. Also, in terms of municipalities, if they are putting in infrastructure, things like that, we are going to work with them. Particularly in Labrador, being a Northern climate, adaptation studies there in conjunction with the university and so on.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Then, in the same budget section, under 10. Grants and Subsidies, you did speak to that but in response to Roland's question. I wonder could we have a current list of the grants and subsidies, what the projects are and to whom the money is going.

MS JOHNSON: I think I have them here.

MS MICHAEL: I am satisfied to receive it later on.

MS JOHNSON: Okay. I do have them because I knew you were going to ask.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, any grants and subsidies list I am probably going to ask.

If I could just make a point, Mr. Chair, that we usually make that we did not upfront this morning, with the understanding that if anybody requests information on the Committee that everybody on the Committee would receive that information when it is sent out, please.

CHAIR: Yes, I just want to comment too that any answers you provide after this meeting is over, if you would send them to me and I will distribute it to the Committee members.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

Yes, it is really a large list and it varies from wood waste to coffee beans to Browning Harvey to Stella Burry, so it is really good. We have spread it around. We tried to spread it around the Province and we tried to do different projects that can be used in other – say if we funded one fish plant for information on cooling then that can be transferred to other fish plants. It has been great. Unfortunately, the feds are not continuing with the funding, so that will come to and end this year, unfortunately.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

So, there are no plans by the Province to put money in to make up for the money that is not coming from the feds?

MS JOHNSON: We put $2 million in three years ago which was to be spent over three years to leverage that fund. Our portion is still in there this year and we will review it next year for next year's budget.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

1.2.04.01., Salaries, there was quite a difference between the Budget and the revision - $197,000. Could you give an explanation, please?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we temporarily hired some more staff there to work on the Caribou Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Once we were in the field we realized that we needed some more field support. We did hire two wildlife biologists and a wildlife research biologist, all temporary on a six-month basis.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Are you back to the same number now as you would have been before then?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we are. You see a slight reduction. Again, that is what I explained to Roland about you have so many salary dollars so you move it around.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Thank you.

Under the same heading, I am going to go through a number of line items here. There are a number of over expenditures. In 03. Transportation and Communications, there is a difference of $745,000 between the Budget and the revision last year.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and that is mainly again for the Caribou Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: All of that is for the Caribou Strategy?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, you will see most of it in the section. A lot of it is additional helicopter time and things like that.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Then, I imagine you are keeping it up this year by quite a bit, $638,700. That would be the continued work on that or is that something new?

MS JOHNSON: It is continued work. It is a five-year strategy -

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: Also, when you see how it was spread out over five years, there is actually a bump up of about $700,000 this year in the budget for it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. What about the over expenditure in Supplies because that is quite high, $639,000? Is that related to the work on the Caribou Strategy as well?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, that was an increase due to – we needed more radio collars. We had some that were not working that well. We wanted to put some more collars on than we had originally planned. That is strictly radio collars, they are not cheap.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Sophisticated pieces of equipment.

MS MICHAEL: Under Professional Services, you had a difference downwards of $364,400. Why so much less than what had been anticipated? Was there a reallocation going on there?

MS JOHNSON: There would be some reallocation with the Professional Services, but there was also a reduced need for some contracts under that line.

MS MICHAEL: For what?

MS JOHNSON: A reduced need for some contracts.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 07., nothing was budgeted and $111,500 was spent. What was that?

MS JOHNSON: Again, this is equipment we needed for the Caribou Strategy. This is scanners, darting equipment, net guns, repairs to some vehicles, and some equipment rentals.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. You do not anticipate at this moment –

MS JOHNSON: At this moment.

MS MICHAEL: Great. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: There is always a reallocation that goes on during the year once you see the need.

MS MICHAEL: I realize that, yes.

Under 1.2.05., again under Grants and Subsidies, if we could have a current list of the Grants and Subsidies under the Institute for Biodiversity.

MS JOHNSON: Shane, correct me if I am wrong but that would be for students, right?

MR. MAHONEY: Yes, Minister, that is correct.

MS JOHNSON: Could we give out the list of names of those graduate students – sorry, we can give the projects out for sure, right?

MR. MAHONEY: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: Students working on particular projects?

MR. MAHONEY: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I would be very interested in seeing that information.

MR. MAHONEY: Absolutely.

MS JOHNSON: Master students primarily.

MS MICHAEL: Master students, yes. That would be very good.

In the same heading there, 1.2.05.03., $230,000 had been allocated under Transportation and Communications, but very little of that got spent. I am just curious, had something been planned that did not happen?

MS JOHNSON: No, that was reallocated down to Grants and Subsidies.

MS MICHAEL: Reallocation, okay.

MS JOHNSON: You see it was $100,000.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: So, it is a reallocation of money. We thought it would be best to put any field support, flying time, all of that under the heading of Grants whereas before it was in Transportation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I am sorry if this sounds like it is repetitive, but I cannot guess that it is reallocation, so I need go through –

MS JOHNSON: I know. There is a lot of it here. It is a lot of reallocation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Just to make more sense so next year it will make it a lot easier when you ask the question that they are in the right spots.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

Under 2.1.01., the Pollution Prevention, 01. Salaries, you do have a jump this year in Salaries of $206,300. Obviously, there must be new positions. Are these permanent or temporary?

MS JOHNSON: This is the result of the reallocation of salaries. There are going to be some vacant positions that we expect to fill in this one. Whereas in other divisions we are keeping them vacant so we can move the money toward this area, but there is a greater need in this department this year. So that will be some hiring of vacant positions.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I just want to check something up above. Yes, if we could go up to 1.2.06. Just back one section - sorry about that - under subhead 07., there is quite a bit more money spent under that, $315,000 more spent than had been budgeted.

MS JOHNSON: This was for replacement vehicles, also particularly around water quality monitoring and air monitoring. If you recall, in Buchans we said that we would be monitoring the air for dust when the work is going on.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: So the federal government provided us with some of the equipment to do it but we had to buy the vehicles to move that equipment. Also the same thing for water quality monitoring, it is vehicles for that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under Purchased Services 06., just up above, we have quite a difference between last year's Budget and this year $4 million. Is that the Buchans – that is the $4 million, I just realized now, for the Buchans -

MS JOHNSON: That is the Crabbes River Bridge. No, Crabbes River Bridge.

MS MICHAEL: The Crabbes River Bridge?

MS JOHNSON: $3.6 million for the Crabbes River Bridge.

MS MICHAEL: That is under Administration, right.

Okay, thank you.

MS JOHNSON: Also, for the Salmonier Nature Park.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Yes, the reallocation for (inaudible) Hopedale was in the next section. This is where I will not repeat. I just have to go through my own notes now.

Under 2.2.02. Water Quality Agreement, under Supplies 04., there was a revision of $102,900 over the Budget last year. Could we have an explanation for that, because obviously it is a one-time thing? This year we are back down to $87,800.

MS JOHNSON: This is for some Real Time Water Quality stations that we purchased. We also had to purchase a flow probe model, camera equipment and a chain-link fence.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: That was for the Humber River project.

MS MICHAEL: Had that project already been planned? I am just curious as to why that was not budgeted for.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, there is an issue in the Humber River area. We had not planned on doing this piece of work but when we saw there were some savings in other departments we wanted to try and get it in last year. It was always on the radar plan. We would have liked to do it in the future but the opportunity was there to do it last year.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask what the issue there is around water quality?

MS JOHNSON: It is more around quantity in terms of flooding. It is a potential flood zone area.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: So again, it is related to climate change. We are looking at it from that aspect, but if you see the work that we do in Buchans, the people of Buchans really appreciate that we have those monitors there to give them some warning in terms of floods. So this is another area we see that could have potential.

Sorry, I said Buchans; it is Badger. I have Buchans on the brain.

MS MICHAEL: I was going to say, I think you may mean Badger. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: Buchans has the metals in the water.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. I was picturing Buchans. Now, where in Buchans would they have that problem?

MS JOHNSON: Sorry.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Okay, you have answered that one.

2.3.02., the Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board. No, this one is not straightforward. This is a place where we were told last year that no more money would have to be spent in this area, the appropriations provided for the support of the management board. Yet, nothing was budgeted last year but now this year there is $500,000 in there.

MS JOHNSON: This is for Aboriginal Participant Funding.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: 2.3.02.?

MS MICHAEL: 2.3.02., yes.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, that is for the transmission link project.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: Originally, the federal government were going to do a screening assessment. If they do a screening there would be no federal participant funding required. It is only when there is a comp study that that kicks in on the federal level, but we put this in there anyway for participant funding so that the Aboriginals can have some funding to hire consultants throughout the transmission project. Since that time the feds have made a decision that they are going forward with a comp study. So now they will have to have monies there as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: I do not know if we will have to use this entire amount now because when this was put there it was done on the premise that they were doing a screening and had no money, the feds that is.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: It may all be used. It is budgeted for, but it is part of the environmental assessment process. When you are doing big projects like that, the Aboriginals need to have this participant funding.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, no, I am well aware of that. I am just wondering why it is under what is called the appropriations for the support of the environmental management board, because that management board does not exist any more.

MS JOHNSON: Where are you –

MS MICHAEL: 2.3.02 is the Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board.

MS JOHNSON: No. Are you looking at last year's?

MS MICHAEL: Well, I am looking at what is in front of me. Do we have -

MS JOHNSON: That does not exist any more.

MS MICHAEL: I know, that is why I am asking.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. I can give you –

MS MICHAEL: I think I have a mistake by researchers happening here.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: I can show you the sheet.

MS MICHAEL: No, no, it is okay. I think –

MS JOHNSON: We may have reused the subhead number but it is Aboriginal Participant Funding.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, but the description is not there now. The subhead number is there but not the description. I have the description in front of me but I think I know what happened, sorry about that.

MS JOHNSON: 2.3.02. is Aboriginal Participant Funding. "Appropriations provide for support in coordination with the Federal Participant Funding Program..."

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, a mistake has been made. It must have been done for me. The $500,000 remains the same. Now it makes sense.

Thank you very much.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Down to section 3.1.01. Crown Land, under Transportation and Communications subhead 03. Quite a bit had been budgeted, $648,300 but only $260,000 had been spent, so a difference of $388,300. Yet, this year you are back up to over $600,000 again. So what happened?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we just used less helicopter time last year than what we had anticipated.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under the same section but subhead 05., once again, much less money spent under Professional Services. A difference of $315,000 from what was budgeted and what was spent, and this year down to more of what actually was spent last year. What had been anticipated there or was there reallocation?

MS JOHNSON: No, it was what was anticipated. We were trying to gather more information from Abitibi on their files for Crown land. We had hoped to get access to some of their deeds and documents. We did not get that. It is in their vault and we did not get it. So that is a piece of work that did not get done because we did not have that information.

MS MICHAEL: That is why there was less helicopter time than had been anticipated maybe?

MS JOHNSON: That is right.

MS MICHAEL: It is related.

Since you mention Abitibi, and it is sort of related to that, I have a specific question that I would like to ask. It has to do with, last year in Estimates it was indicated that work was being done at looking at what the cost of the environmental clean up with regard to the Abitibi, the areas that they had used, that some estimation was going to be going on inside the department with regard to what the cost to Abitibi would be. Has that work been done?

MS JOHNSON: We have done some preliminary work just to find out where the areas of concern were. We identified Botwood, Stephenville, Grand Falls-Windsor, Buchans and some logging camps.

In terms of the actual cost, the only thing that we would have details on would be around Buchans because that was a health and safety issue, so that came to the forefront for our department. When there is an issue of health and safety we made that our top priority. The others, we will not have the actual costs until Abitibi submits a remediation plan. We sign off on the remediation plan, only then will we know the costs.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

My next question, I really do not mean it politically, but will the mill then be part of that? Because if they are not going to submit a remediation or anything to do with the mill than whose responsibility is it going to be to look at the cost of the environmental clean up that is going to have to happen with regard to the mill?

MS JOHNSON: Well, as you know, it is going through a process now. We currently sought leave to appeal the Quebec Judge Gascon's decision. That is going to be heard on May 12. So, we are not giving up. We are continuing to argue that Abitibi should clean up those environmental issues. I mean they came here, they used our resources, and they reaped the benefits of it. All we are asking is that they bring the land back to the state that they found it in.

MS MICHAEL: I realize that. I guess the only purpose of my question in terms of in the budget is it looks like we are down the road in terms of any determination that might be there of what the cost of that might be, no matter who it is that has to do it. If you are saying that you are waiting for the remediation plans with regard to clean up from Abitibi and until you get the remediation plans you cannot plan costs, you cannot do estimates of costs, then when it comes to the mill it looks like until everything is over, with regard to the legal stuff, there will be no work done on trying to figure out what the remediation around that will cost.

MS JOHNSON: No, the mill was in the orders, as were all the other sites that I just mentioned, Botwood, Stephenville, Buchans and the logging camps. So, it would not be us planning costs. It would be Abitibi that would determine the cost because they would submit the remediation plan; we would sign off on it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I understand.

MS JOHNSON: It is their cost, not ours.

MS MICHAEL: Unless you lose the battle.

MS JOHNSON: Well, we will cross that bridge when we come to it but we -

MS MICHAEL: I guess that is my question, we will not be doing any estimating until you find out?

MS JOHNSON: We have not been doing any estimating on any of them.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Down under 3.1.02., then the Revenue section, the Provincial Revenue is down a bit I guess, but that is determined by probably sales of land, is it? You estimated getting $7.5 million in but you were actually $1.2 million less than anticipated in Provincial Revenue.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, exactly. We had planned to take more in and we did not.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

In section 3.1.03., Surveying and Mapping, you were $156,800 below what had been budgeted for Salaries. Could we have an explanation of that, please?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we had a director leave us last year, retired, and we had two senior engineers who retired last year as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. This year we are back up to $740,000. So I presume you are going to be filling all of these positions this year?

MS JOHNSON: We filled one already and we are in process of filling the other two.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

In the same section, but subhead 05., Professional Services, a difference of $120,000 between the Budget and the revision.

MS JOHNSON: Under 3.1.03?

MS MICHAEL: 3.1.04., I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: Under Professional Services.

MS MICHAEL: Do you normally just keep $230,000 as your line? Because sometimes it goes up that high or –

MS JOHNSON: There was a reduction in the number of projects that staff took on last year but we are hoping to have those projects back on the books this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, a lot of these are federal-provincial cost-shared projects.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That would explain the Revenue differences. That is what I figured. This is a joint agreement and you have the changes.

MS JOHNSON: Right.

MS MICHAEL: The two things go together, the federal and the provincial funding differences there.

MS JOHNSON: That is right.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 4.1.01.01, again it is Salaries, there was a difference between the Budget and the revision of $250,000, which is a fair bit.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. We had some overtime, we had severance pay and also we extended the seasonal staff in some of the parks by a week or two.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, but now this year there is a drop. It is down to $2,977,000. So are you losing a position or anything there?

MS JOHNSON: No, we are keeping the positions. There are two positions that were in the Natural Areas System Plan. When I went through the budget this year I just said we would keep the positions but I will find the money within the budget in terms of savings to fund them. We are all doing our part to tighten the belt.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 05., there was quite a bit in there for Professional Services that obviously did not get spent and now it is not there. Has that money been relocated, or has it just disappeared?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it was reallocated, just underneath it there. That was for the T'Railway funds, and if you see, it is just underneath there in Purchased Services.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, where you have the $2.5 million underneath.

I guess just more curiosity; it is not a huge sum, but under 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was an expenditure that obviously had not been anticipated, $15,500.

MS JOHNSON: That was an ATV we purchased. Was it one or two? One ATV - three for $15,000. Where did they buy them? I want to get one.

MS MICHAEL: What was it again?

MS JOHNSON: It was for ATVs.

MS MICHAEL: There must be more than one.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, but not three.

MS MICHAEL: I have never bought one though, so I have no idea how much they cost.

In this section, what is the Grants and Subsidies line? Is that money that goes directly to one group?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, that goes to the T'Railway council.

MS MICHAEL: It goes to the council.

MS JOHNSON: Is it all of this for the T'Railway council or is there one other one in that?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: That's right; $190,000 of it goes to the T'Railway council and then they use those funds to leverage from ITRD, ACOA and so on. There is also $100,000 that is going to the Nature Conservancy Council of Canada. That is a three-year project we signed on with them, $100,000 each year, and that is do to some eco-region, eco-district work for us in Labrador on the Natural Areas System Plan.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just to give you an update, I just have a couple of more line items, if I could finish those and then save some more general questions for my next time.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Obviously, as you can see, it is only major things that I look at, major differences.

Under 4.2.03., under the Salaries, there was a big jump from the Budget to the revision, a jump of $269,600.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, that was for overtime and we extended some of the seasonal staff, and it was also for students. This is mainly for the operations of the Salmonier Nature Park.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: There are also a couple of contractual positions as well.

MS MICHAEL: I notice that this year the salary budget is up to over $1 million. Did any of those positions become permanent because you have a difference of $139,200?

MS JOHNSON: We are increasing the number of temporary positions.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Do you have the numbers?

MS JOHNSON: Would you know, Ross?

I will have to get them for you.

MS MICHAEL: I can look it up in the salary book; so temporary is going up.

What area would they be going – that is work in the park itself, in the parks themselves, the temporary positions?

MS JOHNSON: I will have to check but I am pretty sure this comes under the Salmonier Nature Park, right?

MS MICHAEL: Well, you have the training public awareness programs. I am wondering if it is in the training and public awareness programs or if you have more of that going on this year?

MS JOHNSON: I will find out where they are and get the details.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, because that would be good if that is where that money is being spent.

Under the same section, subhead 06., a big difference in Purchased Services. The budget is going up $603,000. What is being anticipated here?

MS JOHNSON: This was actually a reallocation of funds. It did not come from 4.2.03. It actually came underneath from 4.2.04.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. What would that have been? Why was it moved? What is the actual action or the service that is –

MS JOHNSON: It is just better to reflect the needs of that particular division. We can get you some more details on it. I did know where it was moved from.

Scott, do you recall where that was moved from?

MR. JONES: It was moved -

MS MICHAEL: Is it both the reallocation of the money as well as of the service itself, if you get what I mean, or just moving money –

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it is a reallocation from Habitat, Game and Fur, but I should also mention too that about $560,000 of that is for the current work under the Salmonier Nature Park. Some of it is Capital; some of it is Current, the work being done at the Salmonier Nature Park. It is $1.6 million in total. There was $1 million over in a previous section under Capital. There is about $600,000 of that is for the work to be done at the Salmonier Nature Park and then there is a small reallocation from Habitat, Game and Fur.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Even though it is work that is related to Habitat, Game and Fur, it is specifically happening under the Nature Park in this year's Budget, I take it?

MS JOHNSON: I can verify it, but I suspect that is why it is, just to better reflect the needs there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 4.2.04.01.; once again, a big variance between the Budget for Salaries and what was spent.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, there was a delayed recruitment in some of the vacant positions we had there, but we plan to continue trying to fill them.

MS MICHAEL: Are these permanent positions?

MS JOHNSON: It would be a combination probably of permanent and temporary.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. May I ask is there a problem in recruitment in this area?

MS JOHNSON: It depends on the position. If it is more of the senior biologist's positions, it has been tough to fill those for sure.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under 4.2.04.06., Purchased Services are going up. I guess just a question: Why? Is there something new coming in or are services getting more expensive? It sort of went up from the Budget to the revision and now again to the new Budget, to the Estimates.

MS JOHNSON: It is a reallocation of funds, but it is specifically going to downloading information from satellite callers. The program is called Argos. I thought it was an actual Argo at first, but it is not, it is a program.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

Under 4.2.06.03. Transportation and Communications, there was a variance upward of $100,600, so an over expenditure $100,000.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, this was for more required air travel time, as well as other travel. Again, a lot of these are cost-shared projects.

MS MICHAEL: Right, and then I notice this year it is down by about $39,400 from the Budget. It is the kind of thing you cannot anticipate, I guess.

MS JOHNSON: Well, we try our best.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

The only other one then under the lines is 06. Purchased Services, there is a big decrease from last year's Budget to this year's estimate, a difference of $228,000. What is making the difference there or is that a reallocation issue?

MS JOHNSON: I think I am looking at the wrong one.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Purchased Services 06.

MS JOHNSON: Sorry, I was looking under the wrong heading. Give me a second. It was not making sense.

The additional $40,000-odd was for the increased cost of printing. The reduction this year is the removal of one-time funding. It is some study that we are not going to do this year or maybe several studies that we are not going to do this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, right.

I am just curious; under 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment, last year the Budget was $100,400 of which none was spent and revised down to zero. This year there is just $1,000 in there. Was there something anticipated last year that did not get purchased?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it was equipment that we thought we were going to need and did not. The Budget there this year is – again, it is a project or two or three that will not proceed.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

That is all the line items.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Michael.

Are there any questions over here?

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have just one with regard to the one-liners. I guess it is not a question in relation to any figures or anything but 4.2.05., just an explanation, if you could explain. What is the difference with that division than the Sustainable Development, or Policy Development and Planning, or Habitat, Game and Fur Management? Is there a difference in that particular one than the other headings that I mentioned? It is just a general question.

MS JOHNSON: Ross, can you speak specifically to that?

Okay, I will pass it on to Ross.

MR. FIRTH: The research section within the Wildlife division looks at a variety of different areas really, and that includes the inland fish section as well. You mentioned earlier about fish telemetry purchases. So that includes the work through the Northern Strategic Plan for looking at lake trout, brook trout and providing advice and guidance to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on fish management issues, but it also includes research related to moose. The application of moose collars onto animals such as that. We are also looking at the installation, purchase and maintenance of collars related to caribou research as well in some areas of the Province. Also, we are looking at things such as aerial surveys for beavers, an example, that falls under it as well.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Minister, your department is directing the closure of many, I suppose hundreds of landfills throughout the Province, I do not know about hundreds but quite a few. What is your plan to remediate those sites in the future? I know there must be quite a bit of work and a good dollar value attached to that.

MS JOHNSON: The only thing that we are directing is the incinerators, which there are twelve of those left. Between ourselves, Municipal Affairs and MMSB we assist in the cost of cleaning up those sites once the incinerators are gone, but the remainder of the Waste Management Strategy comes under the Department of Municipal Affairs. We are just responsible for the standards when it comes to incinerators. We have come a long way. We are from fifty-two down to twelve. So that is really good for the people of the Province.

MR. BUTLER: That number twelve, does that include the incinerator on Mount Scio Road?

MS JOHNSON: I do not think so. I have never seen that come up in any of ours.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Does MUN own that?

MR. BUTLER: I am not sure. It is a good possibility but I was just wondering is that one that is being considered as well.

MS JOHNSON: We are looking at the teepee or conical incinerators. So that one in relation to municipal waste, I do not have any details on that one. I do not know if it is more of a better sophisticated – because sophisticated, high burning incinerators, there is no issue with that when you have them burned at high temperatures, it is when you burn at low temperatures in these, what we call teepee incinerators, that is where the issues lie. So, I do not have any details on that one on Mount Scio Road.

MR. BUTLER: What we have heard is this one is operating with no certification. Maybe the certification does not come from your department either, it could be through someone else I do not know, that is why I asked the question.

MS JOHNSON: Do you know, Martin? Do you know off the top of your head?

MR. GOEBEL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: No, it is not a landfill incinerator. We will have to check, it is the first I have heard of it.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Minister, with regard to the waste management plan on the Avalon - I know this is tied to the MMSB and probably Municipal Affairs as well - from time to time we hear different groups saying it is off the rails and so on. With your department, how do you see it all coming together and hopefully getting back on the rails that we are going to see the masterful plan that is trying to be put in place.

MS JOHNSON: Well yes, there are funds that come from the MMSB in terms of capacity funding for the regions to try to build up the capacity so that when there are three landfills in the Province they will have the people in the area, hopefully, onside.

It is a question for the Department of Municipal Affairs. I can only speak to my own district because I do many meetings with them. It certainly not off the rails out there; they are really moving. In fact, they just signed a tender to bring the waste now from New Chelsea all the way down to Old Perlican and up to Small Point into St. John's. Also, from Whiteway to Heart's Desire they have gotten together and they are doing work to close down the landfills in their areas and bring it to Robin Hood Bay.

So, I would not be able to speak to it provincially because it is under the Department of Municipal Affairs, but it is certainly not off the rails out in my area. They are doing a great job in moving this forward.

MR. BUTLER: I go back to the AG's report with regard to Crown lands and some 4,000 people with illegal structures. I was just wondering - I know there is work done in some areas and I know there have been environmental issues, no doubt about that - what are your plans with the enforcement with regard to all the other structures that are throughout the Province now that have not been dealt with.

I know you said you were trying to deal with the people at the Whisky Pit, which is the one that usually comes up. I was just wondering, will you be consulting with those people at any point in time and try to come up with other options that hopefully everybody can be satisfied at the end of the day.

MS JOHNSON: Well, really the onus is on the individuals, just as it is on you or I if we want to go in and buy a piece of Crown land for a cottage or a residence or whatever. The onus is on the people if they want to form an association, come in and find a piece of land. We can assist them, we cannot find the piece of land for them. However, in the Whiskey Pit we have been going a little bit above and beyond what we normally do, but there are great examples.

Down in Tracey Perry's district there were trailers posted there. They all came together, they formed an association, they went through the proper channels at the Government Services Centre and they are well on their way now to being ready to open for this season. When it comes to the fact of the environment, now those trailers will be in a site where the septic is not an issue any more. They have the requirements in place for the septic. They will now own land, so it is theirs forever and a day for not very much cost.

In terms of the 4,000 structures, I know the AG went into a lot of detail. He even cited all of the wharves and boathouses now. We are not at the point right now where we are going to go around the Province and start posting all the boathouses and wharves because we have to prioritize and deal with the cottages and the trailers first.

We dealt with the bigger issues in terms of the environmental issues in Howley. Whiskey Pit was an area of concern. They are right on the side of the road, and if you look at the Highway Traffic Act there are issues there in terms of them being that close to the road. We have also looked at other areas. A lot of these reasons why we go in and inspect are as a result of calls that come to our department, complaints about trailers, cabins or so on. So, when we get the calls that is when we go inspect. It is also part of our regular routines, or when there are enforcement officers out from the Department of Natural Resources, they may see something and report to us.

So, it is a combination of reasons why we go. We prioritize the areas. There is a lot more to be done, but we are trying to deal with the ones that we have posted so far before we continue on with any others because there are a lot that we have already posted that we are trying to get those sites cleaned up first.

MR. BUTLER: I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you said one day I mentioned the issue of Wolf Pond, and you said that happened, it should never have happened and it would not happen again.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The end result is really almost the same as what you are trying to do with the other people. They are paying a fee now and probably the department or government went in there and did more than they should have done.

Where do you see the difference if you are trying to work with people than what happened there?

MS JOHNSON: I think the difference with Wolf Pond – Bill, I think was around at the time – is that we owned Wolf Pond and really it raised a lot of issues in terms of other private park owners, and Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador had some things to say about it in that it was direct competition for these private park owners who are investing a lot of time, money and effort into trying to get their parks full.

Take the Whiskey Pit for example, if you look at the Whiskey Pit, there are two other parks on the Salmonier Line within five minutes of the Whiskey Pit. There is the Pine Line - or it may be a new name now - and the other one is called Pee Wee Park. Those sites are not filled.

For government to go out and create an area that government owns, we are getting directly involved with, and the competition, of these other parks. So, we made a commitment at that time - I was not here but a previous minister made a commitment that we would not be doing that any more. If an association, if a group of owners, or a development association, or a town council, or anybody like that wanted to form an association and get the land, go ahead, but government cannot do it because we are going to be in direct competition with the parks and that is really not fair to those parks.

MR. BUTLER: The end result would be the same; they would be in competition with the other parks.

MS JOHNSON: If they want to do that on their own, that is up to themselves, but government is not going to put them in a position to do that, it is not fair. There are parks there, there are lots of vacancies and if people are fine to pay the money for a piece of land, then they can pay the $12 or $15 a night to go into Pee Wee Park.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Has schedule two been completed with regard to Sandy Pond? I think schedule two references Sandy Pond out in Long Harbour.

MS JOHNSON: Is that a federal thing? Yes, that is the federal -

MR. BUTLER: Oh, that is totally federal, was it?

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: The MMER regulations I think it was – MMER – the feds.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to guide licences, I know there has been some issue with regard to guides here in the Province versus those in other provinces being able to come in here and they do not think they have the same, I guess, whereabouts of going somewhere else if they have to. Is that an issue that comes up from time to time?

MS JOHNSON: Somebody raised it with me and I checked on it - and Ross can correct if I am wrong - but I did not think there was any different - just part of internal trade and mobility issues, I thought that they could move around freely from one province to another when I checked it out.

MR. BUTLER: We were under the impression that the rules were not the same, but they are.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, somebody wrote me about that, but when I checked it out, there is no difference.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The climate change discussion paper - the strategy originally organized by your department stated that there would be updates on our emissions each year. I was just wondering if you could give me an update on that now.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we have a new Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Emissions Trading office led by Jackie Janes. She is in the process - she is already done some consultations with industry, but she is in the process of doing further consultations which will feed into updating our Climate Change Action Plan and also our greenhouse gas emissions predictions. That is a piece of work that is ongoing. She is after getting about $1 million now in the last two budgets to do her piece of work and hire staff to do that, so it is well underway.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, we finally received a copy of the greenhouse gas emissions report which came through, I guess, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There are three things that were apparent in the report. The three things that are apparent are: If approved projects came on-line, number one, we would still not meet the GHG targets by 2020, even if the Lower Churchill came on stream; Holyrood is the largest source of pollution in the Province and would not be fully displaced by the Lower Churchill infeed; and that Holyrood would not provide the power necessary to provide the identified projects on stream.

I was just wondering if you, or one of your officials, could elaborate on that.

MS JOHNSON: In terms of the greenhouse gas targets - and these are targets that we have signed onto with NEG/ECP, which are on a regional basis. They are not specific to each province, they are on a regional basis. So, as a whole, we hope to achieve these. We will have to see what comes from that, but we are trying to do this in such a balance so as not to be detrimental to economic development in the Province, but at the same time trying to protect the environment.

The Lower Churchill - I should defer this to John, but my understanding is there will be enough greenhouse gas reductions come out of the Lower Churchill to offset all of our greenhouse gases in the Province and that there will be more besides for other provinces. Can you speak to that some more? John, do you want to go ahead?

MR. DROVER: Yes, Minister.

The total emissions in the Province are in the order of ten megatons. What can be gotten from the Lower Churchill is in the order of sixteen megatons of displacement, if it is displacing coal, for example. So the Lower Churchill is a significant project for North America in that regard.

I think the emissions from Holyrood are something like a megaton, so they could be displaced from an infeed, depending on the size of the infeed.

MR. BUTLER: Would that be based on just the projects we have ongoing now, but if other projects came on stream, maybe that is what is throwing it off? Would that be –

MS JOHNSON: Other projects coming on stream were taken into account.

MR. BUTLER: They are taken into account.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, they are. Now, they may change. One of the things that were taken into account was the second refinery. As we know, that is on hold right now, but that was taken into consideration here too. So it is predictions, but they are our best guesses.

MR. BUTLER: I understand the office of Climate Change was put in Executive Council. I am wondering why that was not put in your department where you provide such leadership roles in that area.

MS JOHNSON: That is not a question I can answer. I only do as I am told.

I do know that the Premier has a very keen interest in climate change, and other provinces do have offices such as this fall under Executive Council, but again I would not want to put words in the mouth of the Premier.

MR. BUTLER: Last year, there was money announced for a climate change adaptation strategy. I was just wondering has this report been completed, or if you can give an update on that?

MS JOHNSON: That is what I explained earlier when I was talking to Lorraine.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: We did not get those projects up and running last year, but they are going to be up and running this year. In fact, I know the letters are before me to sign off. There are a bunch of individual different projects. It could be research with municipalities, it could be research with professors at the university, and so on. So we will have more to update – it is over two years, so there will be more of an update after the two years.

MR. BUTLER: I would like to make a comment on the 2007 Sustainable Development Act that never received Royal Assent?

MS JOHNSON: We are working through the different sustainability indicators, the makeup of the round table, trying to sort through all of those issues. So that work is currently ongoing in the department. Once we get some of those items dealt with, perhaps we will be in a position then to move forward, but there is a lot of work being done in terms of sustainability indicators or measures and so on.

MR. BUTLER: I know I mentioned this the other day, Minister, and I guess it comes up from time to time. It is not an issue that I just bring up for the sake of bringing it up; we do get calls from the people in that area. That is the tires that are stored in Dunville. I agree with you, the way they are laid out there, the way they are put down, separated and things like that, but the concern that we are getting from people – and I am serious about this, we do get them, and it is not just for the sake of bringing it up – is the protection of the tires.

I know there is a security guy there, and when you go to the site – and it is a wonderful site for it, but it is not protected there. My understanding is when they were in Bull Arm, they were fenced in or what have you and the whole bit, but out there it is open to the main highway. There is just one little swinging gate where you go into the construction site and the security guy is just inside of that. You go down the highway and there is another little road – I forget – goes out to Southeast Placentia or goes out there somewhere, anyway. There are trails going in on the back everywhere.

The concerns that the people have is that someone could get in there – God forbid, someone could get in there and you are going to have a major disaster if that should happen. I know probably talking about it only puts it into people's minds, but they do have that concern and they have asked us to bring it up several times.

I went out and visited the site myself. I agree with you how the tires are placed for fire protection, they are so far apart and there are huge bundles of them. The site itself, any of us here could go out under the cover of darkness and go in there and the security guy would never know you were on the site. I am not blaming him or anything like that, I am just wondering is there anything being considered that this site could be protected more until you come up with a plan that those tires are gone and taken care of.

MS JOHNSON: The tires are stored according to fire code and have been inspected by the fire commissioner. We pay for twenty-four-hour, seven-day-a-week security. It is a private site, so we pay them to secure those tires. There has never been an issue that has been brought to my attention in terms of people accessing those tires. It is private land. They secure that site for various reasons, not just for the tires. They have a lot of vested interest into that particular area for other things that may be going on there as well.

So, there has never been a concern in terms of somebody gaining access to that site that I am aware of. I have certainly asked in the past and they have told me that there has never a concern with people addressing the site.

MR. BUTLER: You will never go in there and take any equipment and get with it because that has to come out the road, but they are concerned about people going in around the tires and something happening before it is all gone (inaudible) –

MS JOHNSON: What I am told is that people do not access the site.

MR. BUTLER: Oh no, that is possible. It is a concern that people have, knowing what is stored there. I guess they hear of stories that happened on the mainland when the tires caught fire up there and so on.

MS JOHNSON: Well, we pay them to do the service, so we can only trust that they are doing the service. So far, there has never been an issue, and they tell us there is not access to the site, so we are satisfied with the service.

The tires in Bull Arm were not the case; they were not stored to fire code. That was raised by the AG, so we took action and moved those tires. We take the issues of fire and safety very seriously and that is why we acted on Bull Arm. We are satisfied with the way it is being run at Placentia.

Now, there are other things we are looking at doing there that would even lessen any chance of a fire, but we have not announced those yet.

MR. BUTLER: I hope it stays that way but -

MS JOHNSON: I should also mention - I do not know if you are aware of this yet - any ongoing tire generation in the Province we are shipping directly now to Quebec, so there are no more tires going into Placentia. There is enough there now for the proponents we are working with - or the proponent, the one that we, hopefully, have finally narrowed it down to. There are enough tires there to keep that proponent going for about five years. We do not need to take any more at this point, so they are going on to Quebec now.

MR. BUTLER: Very good. I hope nothing happens, seriously.

MS JOHNSON: We all do.

MR. BUTLER: I would not classify it as a secured site.

MS JOHNSON: If something happens, then we would certainly have to ask some serious questions of the people who are providing us with the security service for sure.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: We pay them good dollars to do that. As you know the $900,000 that people cite every year, that is not just for storing the tires, a lot of that is for security as well.

MR. BUTLER: Is there anything to do with the report with regard to the plastic bag policy or anything like that?

MS JOHNSON: It is something that we are looking at. When you look at plastic bags, I hate seeing them especially this time of year; you can see them more so now. When you look at it from a litter perspective it is certainly an issue, but when you look at it from a waste, in terms of tonnage of waste, it makes up less than 1 per cent of the total waste that goes into our landfill.

While from an aesthetic value it would be really good to rid our roadsides - you see down at Robin Hood Bay before, it looked like snow in the trees. It is terrible; it is shameful that people throw them out and so on. If you sit back now and watch at a grocery store – I was in Carbonear one day and I sat out in the parking lot. Out of twenty-eight people who came through the door, twenty-one of them were using the reusable bags. It is great that you are seeing more people do that.

We are considering it, we are looking at options. It is unfortunate that the company stopped charging the five cents for it because they told me themselves that they saw about an 85 per cent to 90 per cent reduction in the use of plastic bags. I guess for competitive reasons and whatever their reasons are, when all companies do not follow suit, I guess they change their policies.

It is something that we are looking at, but from a waste perspective it is only less than 1 per cent of our waste. It would be more for aesthetics that we would do it.

MR. BUTLER: I am wondering if you can give me a little update on the research on the coyote numbers or what the research to date has been telling us.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it is telling us that the coyotes are here and they are here to stay. They distribute fairly well in our Province in terms of the collaring we have seen, that they can travel quite a fair distance in the Province. In terms of estimates, Ross, do you know the estimates right now?

MR. FIRTH: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: The estimates are about 4,000 to 8,000 in the Province from the work that we have done so far. We also look at the hunter returns that come in, the information we get there. We do see, I think the year before last there was about 500-odd. Now this year that has been upped to 700 to 800. That would tell you that the population is doing fairly well here in the Province. They are here to stay, they came in - it is an issue that all of North America is dealing with. They can have up to ten, twelve pups at a time.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with regard to the issue with Viking Furs and Country Ribbon that was ongoing some time ago, I am wondering has that issue been resolved now to your satisfaction, and I am wondering where the compost from Country Ribbon is now taken. I understand - now maybe that is closed as well - the department allowed a road to be built to the Cavendish dump, now is that still ongoing?

MS JOHNSON: Well, in terms of your first question as to if I am satisfied I think there was some major progress in that we struck a committee. They meet monthly, and it is headed up Dan Michielsen in my department.

I think part of the problem was communications before. People in the community really did not know what was going on and when compost was being turned and so on. Then, last year topped all of that off with chicken offal being brought to the site to be composted. That was never allowed, and when we discovered that was being done we put a stop to it. So, a lot of the complaints dropped off fairly quickly because that was a terrible smell.

The committee meets monthly. I do not think there will ever be a day when the smell is completely eliminated. Mink do urinate and a lot of the smell is the ammonia that comes from the urine, so you are never going to fully eliminate it. There will never be chicken offal there for compost again not as long as I am here anyway because that was a terrible smell.

In terms of where the compost is going now from Country Ribbon, it is going to Sunnyside landfill. That is an approved, acceptable use for Sunnyside landfill is to landfill the compost there. They do it according to standards in terms of the layers of fill and the thickness of the fill that they put on it and so on.

Plans for composting of what is coming out of Sunnyside, as you probably know they have an application in now through the EA division to do a protein conversion plant, so that is to use the offal and all the inedible parts and convert it into animal feed. I just made a decision on that on Thursday and did some media interviews on Friday in that I will be requiring an EPR, an Environmental Preview Report, to provide me with further information on odour, odour control, effluent discharges and controlling that, looking at alternatives and so on. So, we will have to issue guidelines, they will have to submit an EPR and then there will be another thirty-day review period before I make my final decision on that. So in the meantime, it is going to Sunnyside.

I should also mention - you just asked a question on coyotes - that the Department of Wildlife have been doing a number of coyote hunting workshops throughout the Province. They have been very well attended. In fact, the one in Carbonear I went by and had a look and they had over a couple of hundred people there. They have been really well attended.

I do not hunt them myself, but I am told it is not very easy to hunt or trap a coyote, so we are doing these sessions around the Province, and the number of e-mails and comments I have received on it has been extremely well in terms of the work that is being done. Maybe that is why the number of coyotes that have been hunted and captured has gone up, I do not know.

MR. BUTLER: If time permits, sir, I will just go to one other topic and a couple of questions with it, then I can pass it over to my colleague. That is with regard to the site in Bay Bulls, I think the company is NLL.

I know we get numerous calls from individuals, as well as I think we had one call from an individual who worked there. I know, Minister, you have responded to some people saying that it is just solely a transfer station. From the pictures that we have – I was going to bring down my disk I have; we had a disk sent to us - I am just wondering is that what it is, they are licensed just as a transfer station, that site in Bay Bulls.

MS JOHNSON: That is my understanding. I know this has been inspected and checked on because we have gotten letters mostly from the same company, a particular company has wrote on it, and we have sent staff out and it has all been inspected. There are some minor issues, but nothing in terms of shutting them down. In terms of all of the inspections, they have certainly have been satisfactory, but specifically to Bay Bulls, that is supposed to be a transfer site, isn't it?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: So, really the material that is there is cleaned up in Robin Hood Bay somewhere and just transferred to that site to be sent out of the Province. Is that how it is done?

MS JOHNSON: That is my understanding. Now, I was sent a CD last week as well.

MR. BUTLER: Have you looked at it?

MS JOHNSON: I have not, no. It has been referred to staff to investigate again.

MR. BUTLER: Even one gentleman called us, apparently he worked there, and was complaining about it, about how he was working on fridges and cars and he felt that the oil was not put in containers properly that was being drained off and was seeping into the ground.

From the video that I saw - and that is what it looks like - I can tell you it is more than just a site that material is coming in, that is there, you can see that as well, but there is work being done there. There was a worker called and complained that he felt for his safety even and he was going to quit. I do not know if he did or not. It seems like it is beyond what it is listed as.

MS JOHNSON: Those accusations have been made, and that is why I have asked staff to go out and have it inspected again. It is Government Services who does the inspections on behalf of us, but I have asked that it been inspected again.

To date, each time that it was inspected, it has been satisfactory. That is not to say that they did not change or something has not changed, but that is why I have asked that it be done again.

MR. BUTLER: Even in the video when you look at it, it always seems like there is material pushed over the bank and probably filled in even. Whether that is correct or not I do not know, but it seems like it is an issue, and I am glad you are going to have your people check it out again.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, Mr. Chair, we will move to my colleague.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Ms Michael.

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

A lot of my questions have been covered you will be glad to know. A couple of things, Minister, from the Climate Change Action Plan and some of the goals that were set out there, one of the points in that action plan in the 2007 update was the thing around anti-idling campaigns. I have to say I have not seen much in terms of public campaigns on anti-idling. Yet, with the major, major increase in drive-throughs in particular throughout the whole Province, it would seem to me that the issue of idling and the emissions from idling is becoming a more serious issue. Are you anticipating doing any work with regard to an intense anti-idling campaign?

MS JOHNSON: We have done a fair number of work and just in the past couple of weeks or so – basically, we do a lot of our work through the Lung Association and we provide them with grant money to do that. So, I know I was on the West Coast and announced anti-idling at a school out there and then that whole school district has taken that on, so they are to be commended for that. Of course, we have the signs up around here, but there has been a lot of work going on – how much is it we gave them, $40,000?

MR. DROVER: Yes, it was about $40,000 or $50,000 given to the Lung Association.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible) Lung Association to have them promote anti-idling. They often invite me to their events. I have attended numerous events where a particular school or organization has announced that they would not be allowing idling on their site any more.

MS MICHAEL: Have you thought about a major provincial campaign using media to get to the general public?

MS JOHNSON: I have done numerous media interviews on the issue.

MS MICHAEL: No, I realize that.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and we have our signs around government, of course, and certainly press releases we have put out in conjunction with the Lung Association when we announce the various sites. So, a lot of people are really, really stepping up to the plate, and I find it is the young people. Whenever I do talks at schools I tell the young people: When your parents are outside picking you up after school or at lunchtime tell them to turn the car off and in drive-throughs, those kinds of things.

Actually, it was a really unique project that we worked on with the Lung Association where they did up a ticket, like an actual parking violation type ticket, where the students could give the ticket to their parents if they were idling while they were picking them up. So it was a really neat project that we worked on with the Lung Association.

MS MICHAEL: I think more than that is needed, minister. I am just going to make that statement, and I would like your department to look at it.

MS JOHNSON: I have been known to be out in the parking lot where I walk to my car and I have seen people and I have tapped on windows. Now, most of the people I know, but I just kind of friendly point to the sign. It is a difficult one to enforce. We promote it as best we can, as often as we can, but -

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

With regard to methane and methane capture – and I must say, I really was quite impressed when I went to the Robin Hood waste management site about a year ago, last summer actually, and learned what was going on. As they gather the information with regard to methane capture there at the Robin Hood site, will the department be involved then in using that information with other sites? Other sites will not have to relearn what we are going to learn down in Robin Hood, I would take it.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and that was part of their contract, that they have to provide information to us.

Methane, as you know, is twenty-six times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, so any of this that we can capture in landfill sites would be a great thing. As you said, it is pretty sophisticated, all of the underground piping.

The next phase, I understand, that the City of St. John's is looking at now is using that methane to perhaps power maybe its vehicles or whatever around the site. So that is the next phase that they are looking at, but it was $1.6 million well spent. Part of their contract is they have to provide us with the reductions and we fully expect that they will do that.

MS MICHAEL: Then what would be the plan as the other major sites start getting put in place? Will the department be working with those sites as well to make sure that methane capture does happen?

MS JOHNSON: I am not aware of that at this point. The reason that the project is a good one is that we can determine if it will be applicable in other sites. So once that project is complete and we have the research, it is something that we can look at. Again, we will have to discuss that with Municipal Affairs because they are really responsible for the three landfill sites for the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: There is also a really neat one on methane capture that we announced for – what was the name of that farm? It is a cow farm, a dairy farm - New World Dairy. So they are going to be capturing the methane from the cow dung.

MS MICHAEL: I will not ask how.

MS JOHNSON: No, but expect to see major greenhouse gas reductions there. Their hope too down the road is to use that to power other things. So that was the $900,000 project that we funded there as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That is with a private enterprise. Will that information be shared with others in the same industry?

MS JOHNSON: That is the whole premise around this, is that it has to be given back to us so other industries, like industries, can use this if it is feasible for them to do so.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

That is good to hear.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Last year we did talk a bit about the beverage container recycling program. The number, of course, of beverage containers being returned has been going down. Do you know what the report was for 2009, or is the report from MMSB with regard to the returned containers, is the number moving up again?

MS JOHNSON: Actually, last year was the highest number of beverage containers ever recycled in the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Do we know why that happened last year, because up to last year they had gone down?

MS JOHNSON: Well, if you look at the AG's report it was really a play on words, if you look at it, and I do not have all the details here before me. I remember it clearly (inaudible) explaining it at the time, but it was definitely – if you read the detail, he was not comparing apples to apples. Last year it was the highest. I do not have the numbers before me. I do not know if anyone remembers the numbers because I just said it at a speech about a week ago, but it was the highest numbers ever recycled in the Province. The MMSB continues with their advertising.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, they do.

MS JOHNSON: We continue with the matching funds at the schools and so on, but it had something to do with the context he took the numbers in. It was not quite an accurate statement, actually.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Again, within the waste area, you know how serious e-waste is.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I am not seeing anything that is really dealing with e-waste in this Province in any kind of big way. What is the department doing in terms of researching this area?

MS JOHNSON: Before I answer that one, if I could just continue on with the depots and the recycling. We just also announced new standards for all of the Green Depots that all thirty-nine of them signed on to in terms of wait times. There can no longer be more than twenty minute wait times. There is certain space that needs to be required. There is a whole host of things. So that will certainly help improve people's experience when they go.

I know particularly out in my area, there were signs on the doors: we cannot accept because we do not have any bags. We have changed all of those standards now because really, if people went there and there were no bags then in all likelihood those beverage containers are probably going to end up in the waste.

MS MICHAEL: No, I am sorry. We are misunderstanding each other. I am talking about e-waste now.

MS JOHNSON: No, no, I said if I could answer to your previous one first.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, sure. I am sorry. Okay.

MS JOHNSON: You asked maybe why last year it might have improved. It might have improved because of the improved standards.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: If people had poor experiences before, there is a new standard now that everybody had to sign on to in a contract. So we have not had a complaint - and Paul Russell at the MMSB is very happy. We have not had a complaint about bags or tubs or transportation now since those have come into effect, so that might be part of the reason.

The e-waste: we did do an announcement around cell phones in partnership with a national company around cell phones. I was in Nova Scotia and visited all of their e-waste facilities. Was that March, February? It was a month or two ago, because Nova Scotia has been really, really progressive in their e-waste strategy. I looked at all of the other provinces and by far Nova Scotia is ahead of the rest. So that is why I wanted to go there. They have ACES – ACES is the name of the group that heads it up there – and they have just recently invited me to go to Montreal to see the second step in the e-waste recycling and how it all gets actually recycled and reused. So we are doing that in the month of June.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel, so we are looking closely at what they are doing. It is very interesting. It looks like it is very exciting stuff, and no reason why it could not be applied here. Now, that is a decision government will have to make but it is one that I am quite interested in. It was fascinating to see. The people who are employed at these facilities, too – it is just an amazing piece of work that we could definitely do here. So I am going to Montreal next month to look at what they are doing there.

MS MICHAEL: I am really, really glad to hear that as one person who has a storage area in her house that is developing more and more material, waiting for a place to send it. I would be very happy if we would move ahead with that here in this Province.

MS JOHNSON: There is one program here through – I believe the Department of Education funds it. It is the Computers for Schools. They do ship their e-waste to these facilities in Nova Scotia, actually. So there was a separate group there from Newfoundland, but there is a lot more of that that we can capture.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: When you look at the funds – I have the brochure over at my office, I do not know if you have it – it is really not a lot of money. I think an iPod was about forty cents, somewhere in that range. Some TVs were a couple of dollars. Now, anything fifty inches and over I think was $6.40, but any of the previous material that you brought to the site there was no charge. So a lot of people cleaned out their basements, their garages and so on.

It is only on a go-forward basis and it seems to go over really well. There were a couple of odd complaints that they dealt with along the way, in terms of somebody from Ontario buying a TV in Nova Scotia and had to pay the fee there but did not have to pay it in Ontario because Ontario did not have it, but for the most part, they have had really good success with it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Well, I will be looking forward to seeing what the result of all of this is. I hope this time next year maybe we will actually - could be right into it.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and we were trying to prioritize and we just did our consultations on the paint recycling.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: So the next one now to get off the list is e-waste.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I think that covers everything for me, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Mr. Butler, do you have any questions?

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have just a few more questions, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I know you mentioned you are going to Montreal, I thought you said, and you mentioned New Brunswick. Did you visit the site in New Brunswick where they have everything under the one roof, all types of waste?

I know I was to the Municipalities convention a couple of years ago, and even the waste, timber and wood – that is how they heat the facility – they look after everything under the one roof. We had a – it is the stick you put in your computer with the full thing on it. I know it was costly for them to get it started but they have everything there now, and they look after – I was just wondering if you saw that facility when you were in New Brunswick.

MS JOHNSON: I was not in New Brunswick, I was in Nova Scotia.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: But I was in P.E.I. and saw a similar type – I think you are talking about the one in Westmorland, near Moncton. I was not to that one, but there was one I visited in P.E.I. where they do district heating. They take all of the waste there and it is heated through pipes and it heats the hospital and the nearby communities.

We currently have a Green Fund application that we funded the first phase of similar – it is not waste, but it would be a district heating concept. That is with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, from the excess steam that comes off. We are looking at seeing if that can be used as a heat source for, say the courthouse or the nearby communities and so on. So that is underway.

There is a lot of different e-projects our there. Plasco is another one that I visited in Ottawa. Some of them would be applicable to here and some would not. So that is why we have to target what we can, but this Corner Brook one will be exciting if that goes through.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I understand the federal minister – Minister Prentice, I think it is – has entered into an MOU with the B.C. government on a strategy to attack climate change. I was just wondering where our government is hitting with an overall package on that?

MS JOHNSON: I am sorry, I missed the – entered an MOU with who?

MR. BUTLER: Minister Prentice, I think he has entered into an MOU with the B.C. government with regard to a strategy to attack climate change. I was just wondering, an overall review of how we here in this Province might be looking at something similar to that?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we have entered into, on an Atlantic provincial basis, an agreement with Minister Prentice on the climate change adaptation piece. That is $4 million shared by the provinces, and then the feds put in $4 million. That is more around the climate change adaptation side. We are not really a big producer of greenhouse gases here in this Province. In fact, Canada only produces 1.5 per cent of all of the world's greenhouse gases and of that 1.5 per cent of the world, as a Province we only provide less than 1.5 per cent of that 1.5 per cent. So, we are not a big contributor. We are going to get it on the receiving end in terms of the sea level rise and the flooding. So we focused our efforts on the adaptation piece and we did sign - I do not know if it was an MOU but it was certainly an agreement with the federal minister on the adaptation piece for an $8 million project.

MR. BUTLER: I understand there were twelve Red Wine caribou that were collared in Labrador. I was wondering if your department had any word if they survived the slaughter that we saw recently and, if so, is your department in consultation with other departments on how to help protect them?

MS JOHNSON: We do not know if they were part of that or not yet. That piece of work is being done. We have management plans in place for them. We know that there are less than 100 of them, so that is the reason why we have closed zones in the core habitat of the Red Wine herd.

If Ross wants to add to this he can.

MR. FIRTH: As you said, we have a number of collars on Red Wine animals right now. We are very fortunate this year that we were able to isolate what we felt quite confident to be additional Red Wine animals. We were able to put on two more additional collars on there. So it is quite beneficial for us to have those additional collars on there to look at distribution and movement.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

Minister, I know there has been considerable lobbying in the Province with regard to pesticide bans. I am wondering - I notice there was one working group trying to meet with you. I am wondering if you have worked with them and what was the outcome of the meeting if you have met with them?

MS JOHNSON: Roland, on that other question –

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: Ross tells me that all of the twelve collared animals are still alive. Sometimes these tests take so long to get back but I guess they are still beeping and they are still moving around.

On the pesticides, I am not aware of any groups that have asked for a meeting and did not get one. I have met with the Landscape Newfoundland and Labrador, I have met with the Lung Association, I have met with the Canadian Cancer Society, and I have met with various specific individual companies who apply pesticides. There were members there of the medical association. So I am unaware of any one group who has asked me - I have met with a whole bunch of them. There are not any other requests in right now. I have also had discussions with my Atlantic counterparts. In fact, we have Atlantic Ministers' next month in New Brunswick, and one of the topics on the agenda is pesticides.

When you do a search around the provinces, you will see that different provinces have different bans in place; some provinces do not have any bans. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are trying to work – I do not think P.E.I. has announced their ban yet. I know that they are considering it as well. One of the things that we talk about is harmonization and it is more of an issue, really, for the other three Atlantic Provinces because they may ban something in New Brunswick and then they might just drive to Nova Scotia and get it. So, they are dealing with some separate issues there.

One of the things that came up in my research is that Quebec is currently – they are not going through a court case yet, but in all likelihood will end up in – well, there are some legal challenges in Quebec from a company called Dow Chemical. I have Justice doing a piece of work on that because we certainly do not want to end up in any legal challenges if we ban the pesticides. Now, some say: Oh well, do it and deal with it after. I just have to do the due diligence and put the right information before government before we make any decisions.

One thing I will say, and this is the time of year, is: If you look in your flyers that you get in your homes, every single flyer that I have received so far in my home that I have in here, one of the options you see from the companies is an environmentally friendly option for lawns. The companies themselves have been doing a lot more work in terms of integrated pest management in terms of educating the public.

Really, you should not need to use pesticides if you install and maintain your lawn properly. Even though the City of St. John's has a law that you have to put down six inches of topsoil, I know because I see the construction that goes on that is not often the case. That is where you are going to have issues. So if you have your six to eight inches of topsoil, if you test it, if you check the pH – because pH is really the issue – and you add the limestone that is required and you maintain it properly, you should not really need pesticides.

One of the other things that some companies are doing now is homeowners will sign up for a program, three times a year they want their lawn sprayed and that is it – spray the whole thing. Some companies – I will give them credit – are saying: Well, there is only a spot here, so rather than spraying the whole lawn let us just do this area. So I have to give them credit; they are doing better.

It is something that we definitely have under consideration. I have been in discussions with Health. I have read numerous reports from the College of Physicians of Ontario about some of the work that is being done. Now, none of it is proven scientific information; it is more test case results that have been studied over the years, but it is not proven in science. So I am reading all of that. It is interesting and it is something that we are looking at, but until I get all of the information, we have not made any decision yet.

Actually, I would be curious to see if you are in favour of a pesticide ban because I have not heard from the Opposition as to where they are on it.

MR. BUTLER: That is a good question. I do not know if we really went into it as detailed as that.

OFFICIAL: We had a resolution passed (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Okay. We did have a resolution, she said, passed at our convention on that.

MS JOHNSON: To ban them? Oh, that is good to know.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Pardon me?

MR. BUTLER: That was in June of last year.

OFFICIAL: May of 2009.

MR. BUTLER: May and June of 2009.

MS JOHNSON: Okay, that is good to know because I really did not know where you guys were on that.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: Was it specifically on – because you hear the word cosmetic pesticides and some people want to ban pesticides for pests in their homes, so if somebody has a mouse infestation, they want to ban that too. I have been looking at it really from the aspect of lawns because I am of the mind that if you choose to bring pesticides into your home that is your choice, but when you are looking at lawns and you have your lawn sprayed your neighbour did not have a whole lot of say in that. So, I have been looking at it from the lawns. I do not know where you guys (inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: She was telling me that is what it was - cosmetic.

MS JOHNSON: On lawns specifically?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

We have had several issues raised by salmon fishermen - whether it is correct, I was wondering if you people had any calls on it - considering pollution coming out of The Wilds golf course and they say they are seeing a lower quality of fish on the salmon river. I was just wondering, has your department had any issue with this, any testing been done and has any directive been given to the owners of the golf course?

MS JOHNSON: It is the first I have heard of it, but if there is an issue like that then DFO would have the jurisdiction over that. I have not heard of anything. I am not aware if there is any correspondence in our department on it? No.

MR. BUTLER: Really, that is where they are coming from. Similar to the lawns is the lawns at the golf course. Those people were saying that –

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: The lawns, where they spray the lawns, and they figure this is where it is coming from.

MS JOHNSON: I did do a media piece once on the swimming hole area in Holyrood. They asked if it was coming from the golf course there in Holyrood - The Wilds is on Salmonier Line.

OFFICIAL: A different issue.

MS JOHNSON: A different issue, okay. No, it is the first I have heard of it.

MR. BUTLER: This one comes right to your district, and I have not heard anything on it recently but I said I would ask today. There were some complaints, I think it was last year, with regard to the, I think it is chitin plant or the shells from the -

MS JOHNSON: The chitin plant.

MR. BUTLER: Chitin, is it? I guess I said that wrong. I was wondering, has anything become of that and is the facility still going ahead and everything resolved itself?

MS JOHNSON: I have not made any decisions. What I did was I wrote the proponent and required that before I do make any decisions they are to hold a public meeting to provide information to the public. To my knowledge, they have not done that yet. I would certainly know if they have because I would have certainly heard about it.

So, there was a lot of concern in the area about that, and that is why I asked them to hold a public meeting. I do not know if it is off the table or what, but they have not actioned it.

MR. BUTLER: Apparently, there is another proposal we received a copy of with regard to a shrimp waste facility in St. Anthony. I believe the facility was to collect all shrimp waste products and change into a clean effluent and generate energy for its own use. I was wondering have you heard anything on that one. It was the St. Anthony Basin Resources initiative fishing co-operative.

MS JOHNSON: Off the top of my head, it is not ringing a bell. I do know that there was an application I have heard of that I was submitted to the MMSB under the solid waste management fund. That is a fund that is up to $10,000 per applicant. It has not made its way to my desk, and I am not even sure if that is the proponent, but Lee did mention to me one day that there is a proposal coming in about shrimp waste. Now, that could be anything, but nothing has made my desk yet.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This one is only a short one: How many unregistered tanks still remain in the Province or would you have that figure available?

MS JOHNSON: A lot less than there were. I know since we said that there would not be any more extensions beyond July, provided you had a letter from the company or an appointment made, there has been, I am told, almost 10,000 that have registered since that time. So, the numbers of calls have dropped off. We hardly have any now. Of course, since HRLE provided the funds there to replace the tanks that have certainly helped too.

MR. BUTLER: My last question, I guess, goes back - it was tied to the issue with the Viking farm at the time. I do not know if this actually happened, but there was a possibility of a federal investigation with regard to the waste water that was entering the ocean over there. I was just wondering if that took place and what actions is your department taking to reduce the amount of waste water entering our oceans. I know that was an issue over there at that time and it was brought up.

MS JOHNSON: I know that some constituents asked to have the water tested down stream from that, which was going into the ocean. Our staff went out and did that and there were no issues, but I am not aware of any federal investigation at all.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: They also tested the swimming hole further up in Brook Cove, I believe it is called, and again there were no issues there.

MR. BUTLER: That was my last question, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Any further questions?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Just one more question, Minister.

I am wondering in Water Resources Management Division, has any thought gone into looking at the impact of bottling water, the impact both environmentally in terms of the source where water is coming from and the impact of bottled water producing then so much more waste when it comes to the bottles themselves, and if any research around that issue is happening in your department?

MS JOHNSON: We have not done any research into the bottling water in terms of the waste that is produced from it.

I know in our office we do not buy bottled water, we do not use it. We have our water coolers, everybody has their own mug and everyone has their own plate. We do not use paper towels. We have reusable cloths that you can wash and so on. That is certainly what you would expect of the Department of Environment, but in terms of the bottling, the standards around a company that bottles water, I will defer that one to Martin.

MR. GOEBEL: Yes, we do have a review that is undertaken whenever a new bottling plant is proposed. We look at the amount of water that it requires and what impact it would have on the area, if it is a ground water source. We also have bottlers who are using iceberg water –

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I realize that.

MR. GOEBEL: - which produces a very unique product. It is a marvellous product. The minister will probably speak more to that, but that is how we review applications for bottling.

MS MICHAEL: So every operation has had that study done.

MR. GOEBEL: That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, well if we want that information, we can seek it, I guess, through those reports.

Just to say, Minister, I would hope that, and I do not know how you work inside of government in terms of one department to another, but I would see the policy that you are using in your department to be a policy that should be a government policy for all public institutions.

We do the same thing in my office, but we have a very small office. We do not use bottled water in my office, and there was a complaint about the taste of water. I said: Fine, put a Brita filter on the tap, which is what we have done.

I think this should be government policy and I really urge you as minister to push that issue at the table when you are with your colleagues because I think this should be government policy, not just one department.

MS JOHNSON: Just to clarify too, because I do not want to leave the wrong impression, we do not purchase the individual small bottles of water for meetings or anything like that. We do have a large water cooler which is used – I guess it is bottled water in a sense, but it is not what I was thinking you were asking about the individual bottles. We do not provide those at all.

MS MICHAEL: Well both of it is bottled water.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Both the larger ones as well. I just passed a room outside when I went out of a minute and counted, I think, fourteen large empty coolers.

MS JOHNSON: On the pesticide piece, I know I am not supposed to be asking the questions, but I think I know where you guys are on that because this is good to hear where the Opposition is when I am going to report to my colleagues. I am pretty sure I know where you are because you supplied me with all of the Ontario College of Physicians documents, which I did read –

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: - which again is not peer reviewed, scientific studies; it was test cases that they watched individuals along the way, but still very good information.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, our policy is we are apposed to the use of cosmetic pesticides.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Michael.

Are there any further questions from the Committee?

Are there any concluding remarks by the minister?

MS JOHNSON: I would just like to thank the members for their questions. I know there are some concerns around e-waste and it is the next item on the agenda list for us that we are dealing with. It is an interesting area. It is one that can create some jobs and take jobs outside the cities. Actually, in Nova Scotia it is not right in the heart of Halifax, it is out in Dartmouth and Enfield areas. So it is something that we are really looking at and looking forward to making some announcements on in the near future.

CHAIR: Thank you, very much.

I will ask the Clerk now to call the subheads.

CLERK: 1.1.01 to 4.2.06 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 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 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 without amendment.

CHAIR: I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Committee, House of Assembly staff, as well as the minister and her officials.

Before the motion to adjourn, our next meeting for the Resource Committee is next Monday, May 10, in the evening and we will do the Fisheries and Aquaculture department.

Motion to adjourn?

MR. BUTLER: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Butler.

This meeting now stands adjourned.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.