Pursuant to Standing Order 68, George Murphy, MHA for St. John's East, substitutes for Lorraine Michael, MHA for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

The Committee met at 9:20 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

MR. BRAZIL: I would like to get started. I first would like to welcome everybody.

Before we get into the protocol of introductions, I am going to turn it over to the Clerk for the election of the Chair.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Is there a nomination for Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: I nominate the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

CLERK: Are there any other nominations?

Any other nominations?

Mr. Brazil is acclaimed Chair.

CHAIR (Brazil): Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The next item we need to deal with is the nomination for Vice-Chair. Do I have any nominations for Vice-Chair?

Nominations for Vice-Chair?

AN HON. MEMBER: I nominate the Member for Torngat Mountains.

CHAIR: The Member for Torngat Mountains for Vice-Chair. Are there any other nominations? A third and final call for nominations.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains is the Vice-Chair.

I would like to welcome everybody. I think we have had a change in the original agenda regarding which department would be presenting right now. We have the Minister of Environment and Conservation and his staff here.

I would first like to start by asking the Committee if they would introduce themselves and any staff members or advisors they may have with them.

MS PERRY: Tracey Perry, Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MR. RUSSELL: Keith Russell, Member for Lake Melville.

MR. CROSS: Eli Cross, Bonavista North.

MS ENGLISH: Dana English, researcher with the Liberal Opposition.

MR. EDMUNDS: Randy Edmunds, Torngat Mountains.

MR. MURPHY: George Murphy, Member of the House of Assembly for St. John's East, NDP.

MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith, I am researcher with the NDP.

CHAIR: I thank all the members.

Before I ask the minister to introduce his staff or have his staff introduce themselves, I just want to outline the protocol that we will use here. For those who have not been through it, the normal process is that the minister will be given fifteen minutes to do an introduction to the Estimates. Then we will go back to the Opposition and then the Third Party to ask any questions or keep relevance to it.

I do ask that we are going to probably move it around a bit. We will spend fifteen minutes here. Unless you are close to concluding one of the key items, we will go on to the Third Party and vice versa. We will move back and forth. If you are close to ending one of the areas that you want to ask probably a question or two, I have no problems with giving you a few extra minutes if that is the leave of everybody here. We will go back and forth.

I do ask that you direct all your questions to the minister. The minister then can in turn direct whichever member of his staff to answer that question. I do ask the members of the staff, when you do go to answer your question if you can just say your name again, only because they need to note the microphone so that you can respond and it gets recorded in Hansard for us.

Without further ado, Minister French, introduce your staff.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much.

Good morning everyone. The reason I have all these people here is so I do not have to answer any questions this morning. I am going to leave it all to them.

Before we begin and get into it too much, I will start on my left and we will just go through the order there and everybody can introduce themselves. For the gentleman operating the lights, he can – there you go.

MR. PARROTT: Good morning, Bill Parrott, Deputy Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MS COCHRANE: Good morning, Rachelle Cochrane, CEO of Labour Relations Agency.

MR. GOEBEL: Good morning, I am Martin Goebel, ADM, Environment.

MR. HOWE: Good morning, my name is Peter Howe, I am the ADM of Lands.

MR. FIRTH: Good morning, Ross Firth, ADM for Natural Heritage.

MR. BEATON: Good morning, Gary Beaton, Senior Policy Analyst.

MR. GRAHAM: Good morning, Tom Graham, ADM, Labour Relations Agency.

MR. PETTEN: Barry Petten, Executive Assistant to the Minister.

MR. DROVER: I am John Drover, Director of Policy and Planning with the Department of Environment and Conservation.

MR. JONES: Good morning, Scott Jones, Departmental Comptroller.

MS O'NEILL: Good morning, Melony O'Neill, Director of Communications with Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: All right.

Well, thank you very much, folks.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

Before you start, I just want to call for the subhead that we will start with before you get into it.

Subhead 1.1.01 Minister's Office.

The floor is yours, Mr. Minister.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, and good morning everyone.

Thanks for coming out and battling the snow. I am not going to take up too much time in the beginning. Just to give you a few things, the department that we have now is quite diverse. We have the Environment and Conservation, and of course we have the Labour Relations Agency, we have MMSB, we have the Climate Change Office. Am I forgetting anything? No, I think that is everything.

So, it is quite diverse. We cover a wide range of topics for discussion. Feel free to ask whatever you want, certainly I know you will.

Most of the line item pieces I will probably refer to staff, talk about the variances unless I am particularly familiar with it or responsible for it. I guess I am responsible for it all but if I am responsible for the overrun or the under run I will speak up. All of the general questions on the department, well I look forward to taking them as well.

The department has a budget of about $55.8 million. We received revenue of $8.5 million which offsets it to about $47.3 million. Executive and Support Services are $11.5 million; Environmental Management and Control is $15.8 million; Lands is $7.5 million; Wildlife, Parks and Natural Heritage is $14.6 million; and the Labour Relations Agency is $3.4 million.

The Environment branch includes pollution prevention, water resource management, and environmental assessment. We have offices located in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor. The Lands branch includes Crown lands, surveys, mapping and land management. We have satellite offices in Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville and Labrador.

The Natural Heritage branch includes parks, protected areas and wildlife. The Parks division is located in Deer Lake, and Wildlife division is located in Corner Brook. We have a satellite office in Labrador.

Sustainable Development and Strategic Science manages the Institute for Biodiversity, Ecosystem Science in Corner Brook. As well, right now of course they are responsible for the caribou strategy here on the Island portion. Wildlife is responsible for the caribou strategy in Labrador. We have the Labour Relations Agency which tries to do what it can to help employers and employees through difficult times or with advice and so on.

I just want to mention upfront, there are a couple of major initiatives happening right now. For one in this Budget, $2.5 million as part of a $5 million plan has been allocated to remediate the residential areas of Buchans. That is the tail end of a bigger picture. We have already done a significant piece of work there. Now we are into the residential piece, which over the next two years hopefully it will clean that up.

As well, we have committed $6.29 million to support the ongoing remediation of the former military site in Hopedale – which I am sure Mr. Edmunds would be very happy to hear, I am sure he is aware of it – $2.23 million last year and an allocation of $2.03 million this year and the next fiscal year. We have been working closely with the stakeholder advisory committee, the Nunatsiavut Government and the Hopedale Inuit Community Government. These are two major initiatives that are happening right now.

Without further ado I will turn it over to – Mr. Edmunds, we will start with you, or it is up to you guys who starts and we will go from there.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

The process – we will give it to Mr. Edmunds first, and then we will do fifteen minutes and I will ask if there is a point of order or an extra few minutes you may need on a particular area. If not, then we will go to Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Edmunds.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to Minister French and his staff for showing up today. This is a process that is new to me, so one of two things is going to happen here. One is that I will nitpick every little item, or I will be a little general. This is the only opportunity that I will probably get to ask questions of the department. I will have a few questions over the course of the next few sessions of this department.

I will start off right from the start in terms of going through the budget report itself. When we look at Executive and Support Services, Minister's Office, 1.1.01, the first question and then probably a list of questions: How many employees are currently within the department? How many are full-time, part-time? Is there a list that can be provided? Of the temporary positions in the budget cuts that are coming, will some of these positions be part of that cut?

MR. FRENCH: There are 244 people currently today working permanent positions. There are 254, so there are ten currently vacant. We have sixty-three temporary positions, temporary employees, and we have nine seasonal right now, but that will ramp up to about 124 over the next several weeks.

There are some vacancies, and when it comes to the temporary positions there are a number of temporary positions that have been on the books for quite some time that have not been filled for I would think probably years, that were in and out. That is the total number, and the budget last year was about $22.3 million in salaries.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, can you repeat the number of vacancies?

MR. FRENCH: Number of vacancies? There are 254 permanent positions, in which 244 are currently filled. So there are ten vacant there. There are nine seasonal positions that are currently filled, but there will be 124 as the summer ramps up, Salmonier Line, the various parks throughout the Province and so on. There are sixty-three temporary positions that are currently filled. There have been as many as 136 temporary positions over time. Like I said, many of those have not been filled for a couple of years.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

Let us move on to General Administration, Executive Support, section 1.2. Just looking at the expenditures for last year and actual in the 2011 numbers, there is a $32,400 expenditure less than what was budgeted.

MR. FRENCH: Can you tell me which line that was again? Sorry, I (inaudible).

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, section 1.2.01.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, I have you. Which line item again? I could not quite hear you, sorry.

MR. EDMUNDS: It is under the Salaries.

MR. FRENCH: Okay.

MR. EDMUNDS: It is $32,400 less than what was budgeted.

MR. FRENCH: That is because of a vacant position for part of the year. It was filled but part of the year it was vacant, hence the $32,000 difference.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thanks.

You may have answered the second question there, but when you look at Employee Benefits, only half the money was actually spent than what was budgeted for in 2011.

MR. FRENCH: That is the Employee Benefits piece?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: Basically we went to fewer conferences last year, so there was $700 less in the kitty.

MR. EDMUNDS: Just further on down under Supplies, it shows the amount spent on supplies was double what was budgeted. Did you use that extra funding by not going to conferences to buy supplies?

MR. FRENCH: Is that the Purchased Services? Or Supplies?

MR. EDMUNDS: Supplies.

MR. FRENCH: The $7,600 increase there is basically it is just associated with Environment Week and staff development day. That fluctuates from year to year depending on how many supplies you have left in the previous year. That is a common trend they tell me. The $7,600 relates to Environment Week and staff development day mainly. I do not know if anybody else has anything to add to that? No, that is it.

MR. EDMUNDS: I am going through pretty much every category. When we look at Purchased Services, under this department, the department spent twice what it was budgeted for. Just to carry on a little bit when we look at Property, Furnishings and Equipment, last year we spent eight times what was budgeted for. Can you answer those questions?

MR. FRENCH: The property and furnishings – let me tell you if you see the furniture I have over there, there is none of it in my office, I can tell you. Bill has a TV over there I think come across with Noah on the Ark. It says here we bought an overhead projector. I am sure it was not an overhead projector; I am sure it was some other kind of projector we had there in the boardroom. It was mainly to replace Blackberrys for the Executive, as well as some minor equipment. I think they put a new projector system in the boardroom, when it comes to the property and furnishings.

The Purchased Services, that $13,000 increase was because of advertising costs for Environment Week. That included speaker fees, room rentals, and catering costs. Again, these are the type of expenditures that fluctuate year to year depending on where you hold the various events for Environmental Week.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thanks.

Let us move on to General Administration, section 1.2.02. I am looking at the Salaries here. It is a notable difference from the budget proposed for last year. Does this mean that there is another vacant position?

MR. FRENCH: No, the decrease reflects the reallocation. Basically we used to pay students from there or some of the students that we had. We moved the students to another area. You will see an increase somewhere else for the students.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

Under Supplies, they spent an extra $10,000 above the $15,000 that was budgeted for.

MR. FRENCH: Again, Randy, that is just an increase in the supply costs that fluctuates from year to year. There was $10,000 in the difference.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay. Like I said, there are times I could be picky and there are times I will be pretty general.

MR. FRENCH: No, fair enough.

MR. EDMUNDS: Again, I keep going back to Purchased Services and this thing has kind of jumped out at me as I was going through the report. Last year the department spent $19,000 less than the $57,000 budgeted. What were the services purchased, and are there any changes on the purchasing plan for this year?

MR. FRENCH: The $19,000 decrease is basically less expenditures than expected. This is an area that would fluctuate from year to year. I do not know if we could ask somebody to speak directly to what the purchased services would be, what the nature of them would be.

MR. JONES: Under Administrative Support, the Purchased Services tend to be for printing services, equipment leases, equipment repairs and maintenance, and others for general purchased services.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay. I am just going to ask one more question and then turn it over to my colleagues there.

Under Grants and Subsidies, in respect to the Pippy Park Commission, what exactly does the grant cover? I notice there is a little bit of a difference, almost $30,000 in the difference with the budget from last year.

MR. FRENCH: That is under Grants and Subsidies?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: No, I guess I will refer that one out. Bill, do you want to…

MR. PARROTT: Grants and Subsidies, the grants are the monies that the department pays out to organizations. Sometimes it is to support youth travel to environmental events, money that goes to various non-profit organizations to support their programming.

MR. FRENCH: The Conservation Corps for example, would that be funded under that? Does the Conservation Corps fall under that?

OFFICIAL: I think the Conservation Corps (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Okay. No, I cannot tell you that. It is the wrong information, the wrong heading.

MR. EDMUNDS: This is all relative to Pippy Park, the whole grant and subsidy?

MR. FRENCH: Scott, is that all related to Pippy Park?

MR. JONES: The grant for Pippy Park is about $508,000.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible) that is for Pippy Park.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

What would the remainder be to make up the $629,000, the use for it?

MR. FRENCH: Scott, can you fill in that?

MR. JONES: It includes the Pippy Park Commission; there is an association of Newfoundland lands, the Canadian Council of Ministers, and the Canadian Parks Council.

MR. FRENCH: Am I deaf or am I having – I am having real trouble hearing people. Is anybody else having the same problem? Can we turn up the microphones, the volume on this place or what? I am having real trouble hearing people. I do not know if I have wax in my ears or what.

CHAIR: There seems to be a little bit of a muffle, particularly in the back of the room. If we could get the Broadcast Centre to turn it up a little bit. There, perfect. I appreciate that.

Mr. Edmunds, did you conclude that section?

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it over to my colleagues here now and resume when you –

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Murphy, I do want to reiterate too, if you could announce who you are as you do it for Hansard itself. I know sometimes they will pick up if it is the same person, but just very quickly announce who is speaking at the time. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the minister's staff particularly for being here today to answer a lot of these questions we are going to have. This is the first year for me actually asking questions in Estimates, so you may be here for a while. I hope you will forgive me in advance.

We do have some questions as regards to some of the ongoing policies of the government. For that, we are thankful that you are here. We would like to thank you in advance for your hard work that you are doing. I know when you are talking environment and conservation you could be talking about a whole lot of things, anything from global warming down to moose management and caribou management, strategies and the like. Again, thanks for your hard work.

Mr. Minister, we will start off with a couple of things that I have noticed, I could not find anyway as regards to being in the Estimates. One of which was $100,000 that was set aside for the creation of the vulnerable coastal erosion management program. That involved mapping of areas subject to coastal erosion. Last year that was in the budget, and I cannot seem to find that. Last year it was under section 4.1.01.05. I think at the time a Mr. Liverman was dealing with that.

MR. FRENCH: I am going to refer this to staff. This one, it is either in Natural Resources now.

MR. MURPHY: Is it?

MR. FRENCH: My take is that is part of the work we do with the rest of Atlantic Canada, right?

MR. PARROTT: No, that is climate change (inaudible) Natural Resources.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, I am going to refer this one to Bill.

MR. PARROTT: That program you are referring to, Mr. Murphy, is in Natural Resources. They are doing a study on coastal erosion. It was announced in last year's Budget as part of the climate change initiative.

MR. MURPHY: Right, okay. I will make a quick note on that.

To carry on then, as regards to some of the – we will talk about the banned chemicals, the pesticide ban. There is a little bit of confusion over this one. We know that government last year introduced a ban on five chemicals. We would like to get some clarification on this one.

In Ontario, of course, they have banned any number of chemicals. The five chemicals particularly that we are talking about – again, just for some clarification, not only to us but the general public as well. Amongst that shopping list, if you will, that the Ontario government had, if you take the five banned chemicals that the Newfoundland and Labrador government has banned it would cover eighty-two of these chemicals that are out on the shelves now as regards to being in the retail situation.

Is that the way this ban is going to be working, or are we talking about a mass use say, for example, of that one chemical rather than a blending of with other chemicals?

MR. FRENCH: No, my understanding, if those five chemicals are in the spray then it is banned outright.

MR. MURPHY: Okay. That would be items as well that would be on the store shelves, so to speak?

MR. FRENCH: That is correct, yes.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, that is perfect. We have some clarification on that one.

As regards to government inspections to ensure that business complies with the new regulations, is that under Environment and Conservation or will that be under –

MR. FRENCH: Yes, we have – that falls under us, yes, that is us?

Yes, they have told us we can handle it with the current staff that we have. We obviously have to do a very strict – in fairness to the guys who do the spraying, they were very adamant that the inspections occur because obviously you are giving unfair advantage to one group over another group. You would think the inspections would be coming from the other side of the argument, but it is actually the guys who do the spraying. They want themselves policed because they do not want to give anybody an unfair advantage.

MR. MURPHY: Right.

MR. FRENCH: We have both sides keeping the heat on us, if you will, to make sure that we do as many inspections as we can, and we plan on doing that.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

That would be staff from Environment and Conservation who will be doing that, or Justice?

MR. FRENCH: No, from Environment and Conservation.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, all right.

Other matters here that came to mind; Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, I am going to ask you some questions on that.

How much have we spent to see these tires shipped out of the Province, the tires that are stockpiled right now in Argentia? It is my understanding that it was a considerable amount of money. I think at the time about $6 million. Is that still going to be an ongoing thing or do we have plans?

MR. FRENCH: No, the cost of holding the tires in Argentia, I think it is, cost about $1 million a year just to hold them there.

MR. MURPHY: Rental for the land and –

MR. FRENCH: Yes. We have started the moving of the tires now. The tires have started to leave the yard. You have not seen me out doing any jigs about it because there have been a number of initiatives tried and they fell by the wayside.

Now there are 400,000 tires a year we are shipping to Quebec that we normally collect, plus we have started the process of getting rid of the tires.

In a year-and-a-half's time, hopefully, we will have all the tires in Argentia gone, and we will just be using then the 400,000 annually that will be collected like we normally collect them and ship them to our current – there are two places in Quebec that we ship them that have these – what is the name – cement kilns and they use them.

So, that is where they are going now. Like I have said we have started the process of moving them out of Argentia. Hopefully, in a year-and-a-half's time we will see a significant savings from that $1 million a year. I think to move the tires, the stockpile tires, it is going to cost, if I recall correctly, $1.9 million. I think that is the number, if I recall correctly, to move them from there. Then we will be looking at a savings of $1 million a year because we will not have any stockpiled. That is the hope.

MR. MURPHY: Did the government consider any other use for these tires besides seeing the end use that we are? It does not occur to me that the final burning of the tires is good use of the tires themselves at the end of the day. I can refer to some studies for example as regards to tire aggregate being used in road construction for example. Any studies or anything like that contemplated on government's behalf?

MR. FRENCH: There are a number of different things that people use tires for around the world, I am sure. They were talking about obviously burning them in Corner Brook for a while and there was a big public outcry for that for example. That was not the place that we wanted to go as a government with so many people who were totally against it. Even though it would have been a significant energy savings for Kruger at the time, but still, it would have been a pollutant into the air.

There are a number of places around the world that they use it, say, in asphalt for example. I believe they use it (inaudible). There are studies out there, but it is not defined enough to bring it here to this Province. There is no one in private enterprise that has really showed up with the plan.

If they do, we still collect 400,000 tires a year which we would be more than willing to negotiate and work with them on. At $1 million a year now for holding these tires, we thought we had an opportunity to get rid of them. We have been stockpiling them for a long, long time and we thought it best now while we had the opportunity to start moving them.

If we continue to stockpile, it may be years before we develop something or private enterprise shows up with some kind of technology that makes it a viable operation. There have been numerous things floated in the general public, but no one has knocked on my doors since I have been there with a grand plan.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do not know, maybe government might be able to come up with a little bit of grant money for this one. I just keep thinking that with the increased cost of asphalt – and of course we do know that there is a lot of work out there needed on roads right now – that there might be some green jobs that might be able to be brought in or kept here in the Province when it comes to the recycling of these tires.

I do not know if government will see its way probably to put out a request for proposals to see if we cannot find some use for these tires. I think that we are sitting on a little bit of a gold mine when it comes to road construction actually. I think it might be government's benefit and the consumers' benefit that we consider that.

I guess we will move on here when it comes to other matters. What is the status right now of the Ecotrust fund? Maybe you give me some background on that.

MR. FRENCH: I will ask staff to speak to it in a minute now. The Ecotrust fund has all but been committed. It was a three-year program. I should let you speak to this right off the bat because I am going to probably say a number that is inaccurate. I know it is over $1 million now. We have a couple of dozen applications in that we have not made final decisions on. Basically the fund has been utilized but the announcements – I know I have a couple that we have signed off on just recently that have not been publicly announced yet.

John, if you could speak to that.

MR. DROVER: We have about $3.3 million left to spend this year and that will be the end of the fund. Most of that, as the minister said, there are applications in place and we could probably expend most of that money as it is. There might be some small amounts left.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, we will flick over a little bit now to some of the waste water treatment standards that have to come in by the year 2020. I know it is going to be an uphill fight with the federal government to get any changes made as regards to that. The department is starting to make steps as regards to the treatment of waste water, that sort of thing. I think it is something in the order of 600 communities between Newfoundland and Labrador that have to get some sort of waste water measures put in place by that year.

MR. FRENCH: The Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment, this was on their agenda. Minister Johnson was there at the time, I am thinking three years ago maybe –

OFFICIAL: Two years ago.

MR. FRENCH: Two years ago. The way it works at these FPT meetings is that all provincial ministers sign on to the new regulations once they come up.

I will tell you that the only province that did not sign on to that at the time was Newfoundland and Labrador. Not that we did not believe in the regulations or that it was a step in the right direction, but to look after that nationally would certainly take several billion dollars to bring in these financially. In this Province it would cause, I am thinking, several hundreds of millions of dollars. The federal government at the time were not willing to sign on with a dollar figure to contribute or to do anything with.

The minister of the day refused to sign the agreement, to sign for these regulations. Now they tell us that there may be funds coming, but we have not seen them yet. We believe if they want to make those regulations and make it work, somebody is going to have to come up with the cash to at least subsidize the municipalities.

If you go out to the municipalities – I know my own in particular, and we are a little bit fortunate in that we just build a new waste water treatment facility, but a lot of the places around the Province have not. If they brought in those regulations, it would cost an awful lot of money. Like I said, it is not that I am against them, but if you are going to make those regulations, you have to have the ability to be able to pay for it.

MR. MURPHY: It is a few dollars, that there is no doubt. Has government been – well they have obviously been looking at it, but have they anticipated any costs for municipalities that sort of thing, as regards to what the overall cost is going to be? Do you have a final number on that?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, they are studying it right now. It would be something I am sure that Municipal Affairs would be very much up on, the cost of bringing in this stuff. Yes, we are studying it right now as a government.

MR. MURPHY: All right, I will probably fire out a couple of line items.

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Then I will digress and pass it back to the Official Opposition.

Section 1.2.04, Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, page 9.5, there is a difference there in Salaries. Salaries were up this year compared to last year; $909,300 last year against the actual of $1.196 million. I wonder if you can give me some clarification as regards to that one. As well as that, the Salaries this year would be projected to be over and above what they were last year as well.

MR. FRENCH: First of all, the increase from last year is $286,000. That is an increase in the number of temporary positions that we had on and that is related to the Caribou Strategy. The increase of $107,000 on next year's is two wildlife positions. We have taken from wildlife and moved into the Caribou Strategy for next year to help clue up because that is cluing up in the next fiscal year.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Further to this section, 03 Transportation and Communications, $1,261,500 for last year budgeted. The actual that came in was $1,076,200. Next year, or for this year, the projection is to be up to $1.5 million basically. Is there any explanation there?

MR. FRENCH: The decrease basically is less helicopter time this year, the decrease from the budgeted to what it was. The increase is a forecast adjustment under the long-term care Caribou Strategy.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

That would be extra helicopter use, that sort of thing is it?

MR. FRENCH: Helicopter and fixed-wing. We use planes, too.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

MR. FRENCH: What is after happening, basically, over the last five years there have been a significant number of animals tagged. Caribou calves have been tagged, bears, coyotes, and lynx. This is a way you can actually pick them up and find out what they are up to. Particularly during the calving season, what they do is they go down on the kill sites and determine what killed the animal. It is interesting stuff.

MR. MURPHY: Right. Further to this section as well, 05 Professional Services, $607,500 for last year and $326,500 for this year.

MR. FRENCH: There was talk of becoming a member of the IUCN – I have to remember what that stands for – International Union for Conservation of Nature. I should have made it up. We were thinking about doing it. It was budgeted last year, it was flicked around a bit, and we decided against it. That would have brought an office here and it would have been an annual cost of that amount of money. We thought we could be players because of our strategy on the international and national stage without having that $250,000 expenditure annually. So we did not go through with it.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Further to this section as well, line 06, Purchased Services went from $142,000 to $301,800 for this year. I would take it, that is probably the caribou management strategy, but I will let you answer the question.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, it is. What that is for is the increase in the cost of leased accommodations in the Middle Ridge area, on the Northern Peninsula, and on the West Coast. We have three study areas happening at once. The increased cost is when we bring in different people and a number of scientists. We have eight scientists basically working throughout the year at different times, back and forth. That would be for cabins that we have leased out, some right in the study area and some on the outskirts of the study areas.

The other thing was we had the closure of Building 810. We had mould in the walls there, Building 810 down in Pleasantville.

MR. MURPHY: Down in Pleasantville?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Can you give us a little bit more detail on that one?

MR. FRENCH: First when I became minister, it was brought to my attention that there could be mould in the buildings. We had a number of tests done and determined there was mould in the building. I said immediately that we were going to move the staff, and that is what we did. We moved them instantly.

MR. MURPHY: Are there any other buildings, to your knowledge, down there that are government owned that would have a mould problem?

MR. FRENCH: We did not own that one is my understanding – oh, the provincial government did own it, yes. I did not realize we owned it.

Wildlife had moved out of it years ago. There were a small number of offices there, maybe ten offices down in one area of the building. Actually, the mould that was discovered, I do not think was even in the end they were end. One end of the building they had the mould. Without any hesitation, we immediately moved them.

MR. MURPHY: Is that building being used now?

MR. FRENCH: No, not by our staff.

MR. MURPHY: It is not being refitted or anything?

MR. FRENCH: I do not know if there is anybody using it now, but our staff is not.

MR. MURPHY: I guess that will be coming down in the long run then.

I will pass it over to Mr. Edmunds for the next little while.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Edmunds.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions on waste water once we get to the category.

Going back to Policy Development and Planning, looking at Salaries, last year the department spent $42,500 less than what was budgeted. This year the budget has increased to $125,300. Are these added positions? What would they be?

MR. FRENCH: Go ahead, Bill.

MR. PARROTT: The addition this year is money that has been put in the budget in anticipation of an agreement with the federal government on climate change adaptation. If that agreement is signed off and federal funding flows, then we would have to hire a couple of people.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

Going a little further down under Professional Services, I would imagine this would be relative to your statement there. Last year the department spent $212,000 less than what was budgeted for. Would this be the increase that you are talking about coming this year, or would this be a different purchase that goes back to Professional Services?

MR. PARROTT: Are you referring to the drop last year from $512,000 budgeted to $300,000 as actual?

MR. EDMUNDS: I am talking about the $85,000 actual up to $356,900 under Purchased Services, or Professional Services, sorry. Yes, I am getting lost in the lines here.

Yes, $300,000 actual down to $152,800 this year under Professional Services.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, that refers to an existing federal-provincial agreement that ended in fiscal year 2011-2012 which was for an Atlantic climate change adaptation agreement. There was not as much money needed for printing and producing reports as anticipated.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thank you.

Under Grants and Subsidies, last year the department spent $3.6 million less than what was budgeted. It is a considerable amount. This year the budget is $3.2 million less than last year under Grants and Subsidies.

MR. FRENCH: That is the money that is left from the Ecotrust, the green fund. It was $6 million, $3 million was put out and the remaining $3 million will be out this fiscal year. It is the Ecotrust we are talking about here.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay. It is going to be costed over two years.

MR. FRENCH: That was over a two-year program?

OFFICIAL: A three-year program.

MR. FRENCH: A three-year program. It is a $22 million program in total. That is the last of it.

I am saying $22 million, is that right John?

MR. DROVER: The total is $25 million over the last five years.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

While we are on Policy Development and Planning and clean air, climate change initiatives, I commend the government on this last standard of reducing emissions that they met earlier. I am just wondering, are there any new initiatives in response to federal-provincial targets on a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? Is there any involvement through the Northern Strategic Plan on climate change initiatives in Labrador?

MR. FRENCH: We are currently out now through the Climate Change Office doing consultation with the industrial sector. If I recall correctly, I think 50 per cent of our emissions comes from the industrial sector. Unless we do something in the industrial sector, we are probably not going to reach our goals.

We have been clear, and I think it was the Eastern governors actually who set the bar that we be 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 2050 we would be so much more again. I cannot remember the number.

MR. EDMUNDS: I think you met your first target by 2006.

MR. FRENCH: For this year, we met the target. We were hoping to be down 9.2 per cent and we are down 8.9 per cent. We have done a number of initiatives but, again, we are out now meeting with the industrial sector. We have also started an ad campaign you will see coming out very soon that will play to the households on how you can reduce emissions and get people starting to think about it.

I recently went to an elementary school and read a little book on emissions and so on. The kids were more in tune to this stuff than the adults were. As they are with recycling, they are just as wise about emissions and greenhouse gases. I was totally floored by it, actually. The younger generation are in the right place. It is us old fogies that have to get our heads around energy efficiency and emissions.

MR. EDMUNDS: The reason I ask that is because our government has come under the gun in terms of introducing initiatives or doing action on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Just to go back to the lines here, when we look at the cost sharing, what exactly is the cost share between federal and provincial governments under section 01?

MR. FRENCH: What page is that on?

MR. EDMUNDS: That is on page 9.4, section 1.2.03, Policy Development and Planning –

MR. FRENCH: Under Salaries?

MR. EDMUNDS: Under Revenue – Federal.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, I got it.

MR. EDMUNDS: It talks about the cost-share program on greenhouse gas reductions. I am just wondering what the cost-sharing mechanism would be with the federal government.

MR. FRENCH: Fifty per cent is my understanding. Is that right?

OFFICIAL: Fifty per cent, yes.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, 50 per cent funded.

MR. EDMUNDS: Still on General Administration – my colleague has asked a number of questions there – I would just like to go down to Salaries there.

My question would be: What type of salary positions would exist under Sustainable Development and Strategic Science? There is a huge number there.

MR. FRENCH: What types of salary positions?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, because you are looking at a major increase – well, not a major increase. I am just wondering: Under Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, what type of salary positions would exist there?

MR. FRENCH: You would see everything from biologists, mainly. You see Ph.D. students, doctorates, and people doing their masters very much involved. I think they may have some statistics people there as well. They would also have, I guess, mostly biologists, but I do not know if our staff want to speak to that.

Does anyone want to add anything to that?

MR. BEATON: The majority of the positions would be biology related at various levels, masters and Ph.D. related. We would also have support staff in GIS-type positions, researchers, analysts, and general administrative support positions also in the branch.

MR. EDMUNDS: The reason I asked that question is so I could ask this one: Once you are looking at priorities, science and planning, I am assuming this portion of the department would look at all strategies with regard to data collection in different sized projects relative to a whole avenue of listing throughout the department?

MR. FRENCH: No, not currently. There is a group within Environment who will do the statistical stuff in Environment. Wildlife does another piece of work. The Sustainable Development and Strategic Science part right now, their main focus is the Caribou Strategy, that $15.3 million over the last five years. They have been controlling their own science, if you will, for that project, but they do not control science for the whole department – not right now, anyway.

MR. EDMUNDS: I am just trying to get everything set up here with respect to caribou, with the herds on the Island portion of the Province, and I think there are four in Labrador.

I am just wondering: What process of strategy would be used to direct research into the different caribou herds?

MR. FRENCH: Right now, the $1.9 million three-year plan for George River, for example – and we have other partners in that as well, as I am sure you are aware. That is being done through our Wildlife Division. They are doing a number of things with that.

Ross, you could probably speak to it. I saw a list of the various things we are doing. I know they are doing file classifications, for example, would be one thing. Ross, if you could speak to photo something, where they take pictures of the herd and determine the number, the variety – whether they are males, females, calves and so on.

MR. FIRTH: Sure.

As the minister said, we have a three-year Labrador caribou initiative funded at $1.9 million over that three-year period. The intent of that particular initiative is to gain a greater understanding of the biology, distribution, seasonal movements, mortality causes, and mortality rates of in particular the George River caribou herd.

We are putting on a considerable number of collars for example – a greater understanding of where those animals are going. We are also looking at predators, looking at the role of predators with regard to population dynamics in the herd as well. There is also a piece around stewardship and education with regard to that particular initiative.

MR. EDMUNDS: I did plan to have a series of questions on the census of the different caribou herds in the Province. I am not sure if this is the same strategy, maybe I will wait until we get to wildlife. I am actually quite aware, having served on the board with Mr. Firth in the recent past.

Just to carry on through the questioning, under the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science, section 1.2.05, under Transportation and Communications this year the budget is less than one-third of what it was last year. How do you expect to save here?

MR. PARROTT: Transportation, that relates to travel costs for staff and travel costs the last fiscal year were less than anticipated. The budget in 2012-2013 has been changed to reflect those actual costs.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay. The budget now as I said is a lot less than last year. Is there some reason why the budget is way, way down from the budget projections for 2011?

MR. PARROTT: Which subhead are you referring to?

MR. EDMUNDS: I am under Transportation and Communications.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, there was much less travel for the staff and they found that they have been able to do a lot more with video conferencing and telephone, things like that.

MR. EDMUNDS: I am assuming you answered my next question as well through Property, Furnishings, and Equipment. Last year you spent ten times what was budgeted for. I am assuming this is due to all of the telecommunication equipment for video conferencing?

MR. FRENCH: Maybe I can just speak to that for a second. I do not know if you are familiar with what IBES does. IBES basically partners with students and academics throughout the world as it relates to things in Newfoundland that could make a difference, and they publish reports. It is a science piece.

Let us just say we could have a student here doing their masters on something to do with the forestry. They will come here and they will do their piece of work. We always try to get, obviously, their university to come pay for it. MUN as well, of course, we have our own students.

This money was actually used to buy equipments to get these people out into the country. We bring them here. They are doing a piece of work for us. They end up getting their masters or their Ph.D. from it and we provide them with the (inaudible) – in this case here, we bought two snowmobiles for one of the studies that were happening.

The whole thing about IBES is research as it relates to Newfoundland. We have to provide them with the ability to get where they need to go.

MR. EDMUNDS: All this allocation is to Grenfell College. It is $73,000 less than what was spent last year.

Those are my next two questions: Is it all relative to Sir Wilfred Grenfell College and why is it $73,000 less than what was budgeted for in 2011?

MR. FRENCH: Again, that would fluctuate depending on the interest we have. That is exactly what it was, a decrease with the number of contracts we had with students last year.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Chair, I will hand it over to my hon. colleague.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.

Mr. Murphy.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will carry on with a few more line items, just coming back to section 1.2.02, under Administrative Support, as well as section 1.2.03, Policy and Development and Planning, both lines for Grants and Subsidies.

I wonder: Is it possible if we could get a list of those grants and subsidies that were issued for those particular sections?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, we can provide you with that.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, that is great.

Just carrying on with a couple other line items here now, in section 2.1.01, in Environmental Management on page 9.7, Purchased Services is shown as $1.484 million against $3.094 million that was budgeted, and this year projected to increase to $5.536 million.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, that basically relates to the Hopedale project. The increase of $2.4 million reflects the forecasted adjustment of the $1.8 million, reprofiling of $900,000 of Hopedale, offset by decreases resulting from cost-saving measures. It is a carryover from one year to the next.

The decrease of $1.6 million is due to the decrease in the amount of work that could be completed at contaminated sites in that fiscal year. Basically it was announced, and could not get it done; the winter set in, and moved it out to the following year.

MR. MURPHY: That was the old US radar site. Am I right on that?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, I think so. It was a US base.

MR. MURPHY: Is there any hope of recouping some of that money from the US government?

MR. FRENCH: A previous Administration, I will say ten years ago but it may be longer –

OFFICIAL: Twenty-five.

MR. FRENCH: It was not twenty-five years ago, is it? Twenty-five years ago, long before my time, they made some kind of deal at the time and they took a chunk of cash and said: We will look after it. Actually, that went through the federal government, didn't it?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: It was a federal government initiative some twenty-five years ago where they took a chunk of cash.

Wasn't there a deal, too, between the Province and the feds? That was twenty-five years ago?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I did not think it was that long ago. The money has been taken and we were left with –

MR. MURPHY: It has already been done?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, and obviously by today's standards – I am sure Randy can speak to that – it was not even close.

MR. MURPHY: Let us hope we come in on budget with that one. It sounds like an awful lot of money having to go toward cleanup for something that was done over the years.

Carrying on, section 2.2.01, Water Resources Management, line 06 on page 9.7, $411,000 budgeted against the $550,600 actual for the year.

MR. FRENCH: The increase of the $139,000 or almost $140,000 is increased cost for water sampling and other purchased services that were under budgeted, mainly due, though, to the water sampling.

MR. MURPHY: Increased cost from water sampling?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions as regards water sampling.

What chemicals are being tested for right now? Are we looking at a particular group of chemicals, or any new chemicals they are looking for?

MR. FRENCH: In all public systems in the Province right now, twice a year we do it for inorganic parameters and four times a year we do it for disinfection by-products. We are the only jurisdiction in Canada by the way that does that. We visit every public system regularly throughout the year, six times a year, to test.

MR. MURPHY: As regards to water sampling, this is a little bit connected to it, there have been some concerns in the past with what is possibly getting into our water, for example from old sites, former gas stations, that sort of thing. With regard to gas station remediation, there are still some sites out there that, as far as I know, still have tanks in the ground and everything.

Is there any testing being done in regard to some of these sites, for example for leeching of gasoline chemicals?

MR. FRENCH: Well, the water systems are tested six times a year. Are you talking about soil now or are you talking about water samples?

MR. MURPHY: They would probably go hand in hand, but for any gas stations basically that were close to water. For that matter, you could be talking soil sample testing as well. I can think of a couple of sites, for example, in around St. John's, one at the top of Portugal Cove Place. This may be a municipal matter, I do not know, but there is an old gas station site up there that, as far as I know, still has tanks in the ground. There have been other sites, of course, in the past.

I am just wondering if government has made any steps with that, or what the steps were that they took in the past in regard to the remediation of these sites and their potential for soil and water testing in the immediate areas where there are any tank leakages that happened?

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

MR. PARROTT: I am going to get Martin to speak to that.

MR. FRENCH: Martin, would you speak to that, please?

MR. GOEBEL: The testing that is done in communities, the chemical analysis, covers a broad spectrum of elements, of metals, and things like colour, turbidity, and disinfection by-products. If there are any hydrocarbons in the drinking water, that would be detected through that kind of sampling.

Although we do not test specifically for gasoline, the threshold for gasoline is that taste and odour will be apparent even before you can detect it through chemical analysis. The chance of getting hydrocarbons in the drinking water, there is no chance of that through the testing we do.

Does that answer the question, essentially?

MR. MURPHY: Partially. I wanted to ask you about one chemical in particular, MTBE, which was sold in the Canadian markets some time ago before it faced a ban. I know some of these chemicals, of course, can actually get into the atmosphere and fall in the form of acid rain.

I am just wondering if there was any ongoing testing as regards to these chemicals that might be out there.

MR. GOEBEL: MTBE was a gasoline additive. There was some testing done a few years ago, if I recall correctly, on a case-by-case basis. It was not tested routinely in every single water supply. It was only tested where it was likely that it could show up or where it was a possibility it could show up, and it did not show up anywhere.

MR. MURPHY: Can we have a look at some of these studies? Are these studies readily available? Can we have a look at some?

MR. GOEBEL: Certainly.

MR. MURPHY: Great, thank you. I appreciate that.

In the Estimates booklet, section 2.2.02, the federal hydrometric water sampling program. Is there any drop in funding for this sampling program that we know of?

MR. GOEBEL: Sorry, I was just making a note to myself, could you –

MR. MURPHY: Section 2.2.02, the federal hydrometric water sampling program, I am not sure if it is in this – yes, "Water Quality Monitoring Agreement which is delivered jointly with the federal government." The funding looks like it might have been affected. I wonder if you might have a comment on that.

MR. GOEBEL: Yes, there has been an increase of $33,000 which is an increase of money which was basically allocated for a vehicle that the department purchased. We were given a mobile lab that is on a trailer, and that lab can be taken to anywhere in the Province to be on site for special water quality sampling. We needed a vehicle to tow it.

MR. MURPHY: Perfect, okay. I do not imagine you are going to have a hybrid vehicle doing that one. It might be a pretty big trailer.

Just a couple of line items, we will come back to the book. I still have a rafter of questions here though. I hope I do not tie you guys up too long with it.

Section 2.3.01, Environmental Assessment, line item 01, Salaries are down considerably. I just have a question about that to start off. Are we looking at a drop in federal funding here that might be the cause of that? Are our assessments going to be affected?

MR. FRENCH: The decrease there, if I could, is the removal of the Lower Churchill Joint Panel funding. With the cluing up of that, that is why the reduction.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

With regard to that, somebody asked me to ask about the effect of the change of the rules that the federal government are coming out with, with regard to the environmental assessment and regulations pertaining to the same. Is the government considering any changing or any, I guess, lightening of the rules when it comes to environmental assessments here in the Province?

MR. FRENCH: There are pieces of it that I am delighted with. If they are going to do something to shorten the process, if you will – they are telling me they are putting definitive timelines, and I have seen them, on the process, which I believe is a good thing. They are increasing Aboriginal consultation, which is a good thing. The actual things, we have not seen yet. We are still waiting for them to come out through – what are they called again?

OFFICIAL: CEAA, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

MR. FRENCH: These acronyms are unbelievable – CEAA, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. We will know more – as the fellow says, I know the devil is in the details. If they are talking about shortening the process instead of going on – there is one that somebody told me about recently that went on for five years doing an environmental assessment. Really, that was just crazy. I am glad that they put in the timelines; I really am.

MR. MURPHY: The only thing that would bother me about that is in some cases an environmental assessment period that takes five years might be a good thing. If we all knew, for example, the environmental assessment being done on a radar station in Hopedale is going to be worth anything, it might have been well advised to stay away, for example, considering the cleanup that we had. I guess there is a positive to it and there are certainly lots of negatives, but when you put something under scrutiny, it helps us in a lot of other things too.

With regard to section 03 on the same section, 2.3.01, Transportation and Communications, $288,500 that was budgeted in 2011-2012; the actual was only $30,000.

MR. FRENCH: Again, that was budgeted for the Lower Churchill Panel and when that clued up, of course, the funding was still there. That is why the decrease now, because the Joint Panel had finished up their work.

MR. MURPHY: They are finished the work now?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Just curious then on that end why there is $57,100 that is budgeted there in the 2012-2013 Estimates.

MR. FRENCH: That would be, I guess, for – I am going to have Bill speak to that.

MR. PARROTT: That is money in the Environmental Assessment Division of the department and that is to cover the cost of employees' travel and things. There are a lot of major assessments that have recently gone through the system, so there will be follow-up inspections and monitoring that goes on. A lot of that requires helicopter and remote travel in the field.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

The same section except line 05, under Professional Services, $690,000 budgeted, $127,500 actual that was spent in 2011-2012, and nothing budgeted for this year.

MR. FRENCH: Again, that is the panel.

MR. MURPHY: That is the panel as well.

Moving over then to the Lands division, 3.1.01, Crown Land, under 01, Salaries, it shows a market increase there from $3,562,400 spent in 2011-2012 upwards to $4.467 million basically.

MR. FRENCH: This was something that the Auditor General pointed out and it was something that we thought, as a department, we could do a better job at. So we have asked for an increase of $742,000 as a new initiative, the reorganization of the Crown Lands basically so we can expedite applications; people have been waiting a long time. We felt that they were understaffed and the processing of the Crown Lands cottage lot developments and so on was all but stalled, we will say. As well, of course, it is going to help us do some more enforcement for illegal cottages and illegal parking, illegal outhouses and everything that goes with it.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Section 06, Purchased Services, the same section, Crown Land, $114,000 budgeted and the actual was $296,000.

MR. FRENCH: That increase was for leased accommodations as well as banking fees, copier costs, vehicle repairs and we have opened a new office in Grand Falls – Windsor to help deal with the Lands issues in that area of the Province.

MR. MURPHY: Just a general question I guess when it comes to Crown Lands. I am dealing with an issue myself over in the Cupids area. A piece of land known as Point Beach where a yachting group is trying to get hold of this piece of land, they are trying to charge historical users fees for use of the area there that is quote, unquote, a marina, but while the group is incorporated they do not have title to the land, to my knowledge, that I have been able to find out.

I wonder if you might know a little bit more about this issue and whether this marina organization would have right to charge anybody fees for something like that. As far as I know, they do not own the lease on the land. I know that there has been some goings on about it.

During the Cupids 400 celebrations, there was quite a lot of government money that actually went into the area under the condition that the items that were put in there would be removed. Consequence to the permit that was issued, these items have not been removed; for example, electrical infrastructure, that sort of thing. I was just wondering if the department would know any further information about this issue.

MR. FRENCH: I was involved in that a fair bit when I was in Tourism because we were involved with it. I mean, government spent millions of dollars on that facility. I think it would be a shame to tear up the infrastructure that is put there and throw it in the garbage, as the fellow says. There was pavement put out there, the electrical infrastructure was put there, and so on.

I can tell you that we were asked to do a study for the town to see – because there have been numerous disputes over land out there – who owns what and what the Crown owns and so on. We are the better part of the way through that study. If it is not totally complete, it is certainly within, I would say, weeks of being complete. We are going to share that then with the town, let them know who owns what, who is responsible for what, what the Crown owns, what the Crown does not own. That is where we are to as a department.

MR. MURPHY: Can we have a copy of that study once it is done, those reports?

MR. FRENCH: Oh, yes. Once we share it with the town, I am sure it will be a public knowledge thing after that. We will share it with the town first.

MR. MURPHY: There has been some reluctance to share any information when it comes to what is going on.

MR. FRENCH: Having said that, we are doing it for the municipality.

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: I guess the municipality would be responsible to share it, but I cannot imagine why they would not want to share it because it would be straightforward stuff.

MR. MURPHY: Okay. There is going to be a report available shortly on that one.

Just coming back to a couple of line items now, Land Management and Development, section 3.1.02, under Professional Services, line 05, $170,000 budgeted against the $40,000 actual that was spent, yet $170,000 that was budgeted again. Perhaps we could get some clarification there.

MR. FRENCH: This goes back to what I was just telling you about the extra money this year. Basically, what happened, there was $170,000 budgeted and there was no cottage planning being done. That is why we are ramping up this year, getting some extra staff – I think seven or nine extra staff. So that should be used, I would think, this fiscal year because we are going to be doing some cottage planning.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Just to carry on with that section, line 06, under Purchased Services, $211,000 budgeted, $51,000 actual that was spent, and $200,200 budgeted for this year.

MR. FRENCH: It is a delay in the finalizing of contracts – Peter, I do not know if you can add a little bit more meat to that?

MR. HOWE: That reduction in expenditure was a result coming back to the whole cottage lot development, where, as the minister previously said, we were unable to get some cottage developments out – and a lot of the stuff we do we contract out when it comes to survey work, septic system design, roadwork. So, by not being able to assign resources to get those developments up and running and operational, we could not get the contracts out.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, fine.

Next item – I will go through this section.

CHAIR: Mr. Murphy, to be fair, I have given you some leeway on that. I am going to go back to Mr. Edmunds now.

MR. MURPHY: That is what I was wondering about (inaudible).

CHAIR: If you have finished in 3.1.02 –

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

CHAIR: – then we can go back to Mr. Edmunds, and then we will go back again.

So Mr. Edmunds, I will give you some extra leeway on this because I gave Mr. Murphy some extra time. Go ahead.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

On section 2, and it was discussed a bit earlier in respect to waste management, and I know there is a federal initiative to have all communities at some point in time come under safe waste management. I think there is probably 180-odd communities that would be affected in our Province, and I think the numbers that I have heard is somewhere in the vicinity of $500 million to $600 million to get them all to come through.

Now, I am also aware that the Province did not sign on to this. I think the Yukon was another part of our country that did not sign on at the time. I am also aware that Environment Canada is still finalizing some of the regulations. It is something that is probably going to be coming. Do you plan to sign on to this initiative on waste management at some point, given that there is such a large financial burden that comes with it and given the fact that we have at least 180 high-risk communities that are looking at this?

MR. FRENCH: As you know, we are moving down the waste management and it is a thing we have to do for our environment, but there are different levels of waste management, if you will. Do you have lined landfills as one and then how big of a percentage do you want to get away from landfills, and that is tough call.

Obviously, when you are in remote areas – in 2002 there were fifty-five incinerators operating. I think we are down to nine now, and we have a plan for those nine to get us down to five. Some of these five are in remote areas, and that becomes a challenge. As you would know, in Labrador, that becomes a real challenge.

How you make it, how you get to that point is something – I mean, I recently met with somebody on the metals, for example, in communities down your way. How do you get to some of these places just to get the metals out of it: the old washers and dryers and wrecks and so on? It is a constant struggle, especially with the remote communities.

I am not quite sure what you are talking about when you say signing on to the federal regulations.

MR. EDMUNDS: It is probably my mistake there. I am thinking probably waste management as it refers to raw sewage dumping.

MR. FRENCH: I will ask Bill.

MR. PARROTT: That is waste water?

MR. EDMUNDS: Waste water, yes.

MR. PARROTT: You are referring to the federal changes to the Fisheries Act related to waste water?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: As Minister French has said, when Minister Johnson attended the CCME meetings because there was no plan for financing and a federal initiative to pay the cost of this – it is a tremendously expensive program – the Province did not sign the agreement to support it.

There has since been a considerable debate throughout the country at the cities, towns, and municipalities – especially with municipalities – about this huge extra cost that they could be brought to bear. The federal government has talked somewhat about funding, but there is nothing concrete and there is nothing on the horizon. We do not have the final outlay of what the changes would be. We just know that any changes would be significantly expensive because, for the most part, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, many of our systems discharge to the salt water.

MR. FRENCH: Just to add, I know the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has been raising the red flag about this as well and our provincial – ours, and many of the other ones across the country. I know the Canadian Federation are certainly on to it.

MR. EDMUNDS: The reason I am asking is because at some point in time this is going to become a federal law. I am just wondering: Have there been any discussions on cost sharing?

The reason I ask this is because I realize that it is a very expensive project; each community alone is going to be very expensive. At the end of the day, I think we are looking at sending treated effluence back into our ocean as opposed to raw sewerage.

MR. FRENCH: There is no money on the table yet. The federal government have not finalized the regulations and they have not put any money on the table. Whether they will, who knows? I certainly would not be able to comment on it.

MR. EDMUNDS: I am just wondering if there is going to be a point of time in the very near future, in the near future, or in the future where the federal government will pass a law saying that we have to abide with this. I am just wondering if there are any rumblings if this act may be passed.

MR. FRENCH: I would not be able to speak for what happened on the federal scene. I will tell you this Province did not sign on to it and it is because we would not have the resources to be able to comply with the current regulations the way they are. Somebody would have to step up with some kind of a funding arrangement to make it happen.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thanks.

I just have a couple of questions there as we move forward. I think my colleague for the NDP has asked a number of questions on it; he is moving ahead considerably faster than I am. In terms of waste management, what has been budgeted by the department this year in terms of addressing waste management?

MR. FRENCH: Residential waste management?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, residential and industrial.

MR. FRENCH: Most of that funding would go through Municipal Affairs.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

MR. FRENCH: We kind of own some of the regulations on it, but Municipal Affairs has been the lead department on all of that. They get the cash to deal with it. Bill just reminded me, we do the standards. You have to be up to a certain standard, but Municipal Affairs actually delivers on the goods.

MR. EDMUNDS: I keep going back to a waste management trust fund. I am not seeing it here, and if there is a balance that someone could outline.

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

MR. PARROTT: There is no waste management trust fund in our department. I assume if you are referring to a trust fund, then, to help municipalities pay for the cost of the implementation, anything such as that would be in the Department of Municipal Affairs.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

Just moving forward here on Water Resources Management, you are looking at major reductions from the actual to what you are projecting for this year. Supplies had an actual last year of $217,500 – section 2.2.01, by the way – to $94,200. You are looking at Purchased Services from $550,600 down to $420,200. A lot of the projections this year are way below the actual last year. The reason I question this is because you still have 230 boil water advisories within the Province in 154 communities.

I am just wondering: With the presence of E. coli and chloroform, you are a looking at a lot of reductions in Water Resources Management with a very high number of boil water advisories still in effect.

MR. FRENCH: We are doing a number of things to reduce these. There is a place in Ontario now that is modeling the work we have been doing here because of the boil water advisories and the work we have been doing on them.

An interesting thing I noticed is there are 200-plus boil waters currently in the Province and almost 92 per cent of them are for non-microbiological reasons. Eight per cent of them are because of biological reasons, which is down to about nineteen. It would be in single digits specifically due to E. coli. I think it is seven, actually, are because of E. coli.

There are a number of reasons we have boil water orders. Some people do not have systems. Some people do not like to turn on the chlorine in their community because they do not like the taste on it. There are an awful lot of them out there like that. Eight percent of them are for microbiological reasons, of which seven are specifically due to E. coli.

I do not know if that answers your question or not.

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, partially. My point is that there are boil water advisories and it is still a high number. I am looking at many sections under Water Resources Management where your projections are way, way below the actuals incurred last year.

I am just wondering: With the number of boil water advisories, why would your projections be way lower than your actual expenditures last year? I think you may have already answered that.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, do you want to speak to that, Bill? I do not think that budget line is with respect to that, is it? Do you want to speak to that?

MR. PARROTT: The budget lines here actually reflect the cost of operating the department, and doing the testing on municipal drinking water, as well as the hydrometric agreement we have with the federal government which is hydrometric stations that measure water flow and quantity. The budget this year in 2012-2013 has been adjusted to reflect the actual type of expenditures that we anticipate.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thank you.

I just have a one-line question there before we move on to section 3. I kept looking at revenue from the federal government, revenue from the provincial. I noticed that there is an additional $147,000 budgeted for this year under revenue for the Province. Where does this revenue come from? That is section 2.2.02.01.

MR. FRENCH: Is that the difference of $28,000, provincial revenue?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: That is a new initiative under the hydrometric agreement. It is for a new initiative; the feds were the partner there.

MR. EDMUNDS: Hydrometric.

Okay, moving on to Environmental Assessment, section 2.3.01. Going down to revenue, the department received $224,600 more than what was budgeted for last year. The question is: Why does the department only expect 12 per cent of what it received last year, according to the breakdowns there?

MR. FRENCH: If it is what I am looking at there, the decrease is because of the Lower Churchill Joint Panel.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, the Joint Panel.

I am just going to skip ahead there because some of the questions my colleague has asked already, and I do not want to ask the same questions.

Land Management and Development, section 3.1.02, again, under provincial, the department spent only 66 per cent of what it budgeted for last year. How did it arrive at the figure of $5.4 million in anticipated revenues for this year? There is a big, marked number there.

MR. FRENCH: Do you want to take that, Bill?

MR. PARROTT: The drop from $6.7 million to $4.5 million reflects a decrease in revenue from land sales.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

MR. PARROTT: The increase then in this fiscal year of 2012-2013 to $5.4 million, that reflects the increase that we expect based on the new initiative to create more cottage lots and process applications faster.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

On Surveying and Mapping, 3.1.03, under Salaries, last year there was $114,300 less than what was budgeted spent on Salaries. Can I have clarification there?

MR. FRENCH: It is just a delay in the recruitment of vacant positions.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

I keep going back to professional services there because under every headline I really have to look at what the professional services are. The question I have is: What professional services were purchased here last year, and what do you anticipate purchasing this year?

MR. FRENCH: Peter or Bill, maybe want to speak to that.

MR. HOWE: Is that under 3.1.03?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes.

MR. HOWE: The professional services would be in relation to things such as any contracts we would partner with private industry for mapping. We would tender out our mapping projects whereby we take aerial photography that was completed under contract and we would tender that out through a regular tendering process, whereby that is bided upon to do mapping projects over various parts of the Island.

MR. EDMUNDS: I assume that the Province – you have your own GIS mapping equipment?

MR. HOWE: Yes, we do.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

Section 3.1.04, Geomatics Agreements – before I turn it back over to my colleague – Professional Services is probably along the same lines as you answered earlier but the actual spent last year was $70,000 and your budget is up to $210,000 again this year. Before you answer that, I just might couple it up with the next section, section 06, where there were actually no expenditures on Purchased Services last year and now we are up to $197,000 on projections again. That would be section 3.1.04.05 and 06.

MR. FRENCH: We had a contract to do aerial photography and in one case they did not actually get the weather to do it last year, so it was bumped over into this year. It was on a contract, the public tender that went out; they won the contract. They only had so many days of flying; they did not get the work done, so they are doing it this year. Hence, you will see the up and down.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.

We will go back to Mr. Murphy and go back to your Lands, Surveying and Mapping area.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just one more question I had with regard to section 3.1.03, Surveying and Mapping. The Salaries in this particular department was $777,300 last year. The actual that was spent was $663,000 and showing an increase this year to $779,500.

MR. FRENCH: That is just again a delay in recruiting positions. One position, I think, was a surveyor maybe – Peter, I remember that one coming to light. You are dealing with technical people of different skill sets and sometimes it is difficult to find them.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Moving ahead into the Wildlife, Parks and Natural Heritage section, 4.1.01. I know you have your challenges in that particular department from time to time and one of them, nonetheless, has been the park reservation system, the new system that was implemented. I know they had their challenges last year. Some of the inquiries we are getting, some of the problems some of the people are having, entail booking of park sites.

One person I know, it happened at Butter Pot, could not get a spot. They tried again at La Manche when that opened up and could not get a spot. They tried with any untold number of computers at hand. There seems to be an awful lot of competition for the spots.

Even the telephone booking of some sites at these parks has met its challenges. One person I did talk to phoned up and was one of the first people who were after being attended to by the person at the other end of the phone line, only to find there were forty-five or forty spots already gone.

I was just wondering if you could comment on some of the difficulties some people are having as regards to the booking of campsites and the reservation system in general.

MR. FRENCH: I will tell you this: At 7:02 on the morning that Butter Pot opened – because most of the other parks are not too bad. La Manche is another one. In our busiest campsites, Butter Pot being the busiest, at 7:02 a.m. there were sixty spots actively being worked on.

The complaints this year have been pretty good. People go on-line and they wait for 7:00 o'clock and it is just a mass of people. I know at 7:10 a.m. there were 360 or 370 sites in Butter Pot already booked. So when people say that they could not get on on-line that might be true, and I am not debating whether they did or they did not, but it must be problems within their own server or within the crowd that they deal with. I am not a computer expert by no means, but I know for a fact that they were up and running and open for business at that hour.

From the phone perspective, they had twenty-two people on at 7:00 o'clock waiting to take the calls. Now, of the 360 to 370 that were booked in the first ten minutes, the vast majority of them were done on-line, of course. By 11:00 o'clock that morning, there was only one site left for May 24 in Butter Pot, and that was a tent. So, if you know the right fellow, George, get your pup tent out, they might still have it left, but I doubt it.

So, it was just a huge demand. There are 170 lots there, forty are seasonal, and lot of people, of course, go for the seasonal sites. I think within the first thirty minutes there were thirty-five of them gone – maybe less than that. Do not quote me on that last number, because I am not quite sure, but I know they went, boom, immediately – and the high weekends, of course, and so on. It is just the demand is there big time for it.

MR. MURPHY: Do we have enough parks?

MR. FRENCH: Well, that is a good question. You go out and talk to some of the people who are in private industry and have been building them; they have been doing very well, especially on the Avalon Peninsula. The demand is there. It seems to be very, very good. Again, it is a delicate balance, because how far does government get involved in private industry? The government goes out and builds ten new parks and then kick the guts out of fellows who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and already developing private parks.

So, it is a balance. Once you get off the Avalon, you will find that there is very few provincial parks that you cannot pull into any time and find vacancies, whether it be long weekends or not. The demand on the Avalon for certain weekends, I do not know if you would ever have enough; but generally, across the Province, we have a vacancy rate, and I do not know what the vacancy rate would be. Places like Butter Pot you would not find it, but some of the other parks would be quite significant.

MR. MURPHY: I am just wondering: The thought occurs to me that there are an awful lot of trailers and everything being sold – you will never catch me in a pup tent, by the way; I will not fit.

MR. FRENCH: Me either. We will not share one.

MR. MURPHY: I am not even going there, but either way, if we are going camping together, Mr. Minister, we are going to have to go down to Newfoundland Sail Works and get outfitted.

MR. FRENCH: Make sure there is a wall between us.

MR. MURPHY: Just to come back to the park issue – and I am not big on camping myself. I used to be at one time, I guess, when I was a young fellow, and I guess mom and dad whenever they took the trailer around. Do we have a shortage of parks or is the government considering the addition of any more provincial parks?

I know that you mentioned that there are probably some private interests out there that are probably thinking about opening up campgrounds or something, or maybe the business idea is generally there. Do you get much as regards to the way of inquiry as regards to people who want to build their own park, that sort of thing? Is there a guideline for that? Does the Newfoundland and Labrador government have a guideline that they want to see as regards to the setting up of parks?

MR. FRENCH: No, there is no guideline as such. There are certain environmental pieces that they would have to meet, their water supplies, if they are going to get into sewage waste. We have regulations to control all that. Other than that no, they would have to go through the normal inspection process. If they own the land, if it was a Crown land issue then it would have to go through the normal application process to apply for Crown land and that sort of thing.

We are constantly investing in our parks. Whether it is with comfort stations or if we have room for another five or six sites in a year, we will put them there, or keep up T'Railways. We are constantly investing in and maintaining them.

As for building a new park, the one that currently comes to mind now is in Labrador, of course, the Mealy Mountains. I am sure that will come at some point and have some form of campsites in it at some point down life's road when it is up and running, but that will not be tomorrow. Outside of Mealy Mountains and the Waterway Park down through the Eagle River, which I do not project will be a campsite facility, no, we are not planning on building any more parks in the Province.

MR. MURPHY: Okay. So the government has no present proposals or anything like that from any private interests or anything? Is there any mechanism out there to encourage private development of parks like that?

MR. FRENCH: You would not see them probably coming to us outside of looking for the permitting, the environmental pieces. You would probably see them with INTRD – IBRD now, or one of the funding agency groups, they might be out looking for funding or something. Outside of that, we do not get involved in the actual recruiting of people to build parks – no, we do not.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, just figured I would plant that ear worm, and maybe government will probably consider some sort of a plan of action in that regard.

Carrying on to the line items then, some more line items here. Section 4.1.01, Parks and Natural Areas, Transportation and Communications, line 03, $243,100 in budget 2011-2012, and the actual there was $300,000.

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

MR. PARROTT: That increase is related to the extra cost of training to bring the people from the various parks together before the season opens, and there is a training program that goes on with all the people before it is open to the public.

MR. MURPHY: I guess he stepped out for a moment? I do not know if maybe he wants me to keep on asking the questions of you people over there.

Maybe we can get an explanation on line 10, Grants and Subsidies, or maybe we should hold off until the minister gets back in?

CHAIR: If you feel comfortable doing it –

MR. PARROTT: Oh, yes, no problem.

CHAIR: – we will give you leeway.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Line 10, Grants and Subsidies, I noticed $294,000 for last year, budgeted this year for $194,000.

MR. PARROTT: The $100,000 reduction was a cost-shared agreement we had with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. They were doing some research work in Labrador on the natural areas in the Labrador regions, and that contract ended in the fiscal year 2011-2012.

MR. MURPHY: That explains that one.

Section 4.1.02, Park Development, Salaries increased here in this area. While it was $136,500 budgeted for the year, the actual was $76,100.

MR. PARROTT: That was savings that occurred when there was a parks planner position that was vacant for the full year.

MR. MURPHY: In that section as well, line 04, Supplies were down from the actual budgeted but the actual budgeted for this year is the same as last year.

MR. PARROTT: In 2011-2012 the decrease reflected a planned reduction to address funding pressures in Purchased Services, so the money was moved into Purchased Services. It has been re-budgeted again for the same amount in 2012-2013.

MR. MURPHY: That was moved to Purchased Services, so that would explain that line as well.

Coming over to the Wildlife section, 4.2.01, Administration, Licensing and Operations. The Transportation and Communications budget: $189,500 budgeted for last year and the actual was $314,600. I wonder if we could get an explanation on that.

MR. PARROTT: The increase in Transportation and Communications was a result in increased travel costs for the Parks and Natural Areas Division. Their headquarters is in Deer Lake and sometimes there is additional travels coming to the East Coast and into Labrador.

MR. MURPHY: I am just wondering now while we are section of travel, Mr. Minister, I guess we might get a comment with regard to increased fuel costs when it comes to the operation of vehicles in the fleet for Environment and Conservation. I guess, secondly to that, there is a bit of an experiment that is ongoing as regards to the use of hybrid vehicles too in that department. Is that right?

MR. FRENCH: In the last several years – and I read this recently – the percentage of hybrid vehicles that have been bought by government has been increased by 50-plus per cent, or 60-plus per cent. The vast majority of government vehicles now are hybrid vehicles. In our department, I would not be able to speak to the exact number. I do not know if anybody else – John, would you have the exact number of vehicles we have bought?

MR. DROVER: No, but we do have several. Most of our new vehicles, we look at purchasing hybrids, where practical. We had a Prius now for about five years. We have had several Ford Escapes and vehicles like that. That is right across government as well. The Lieutenant Governor's office has the hybrid as well and several from Transportation and Works. I think it is almost common now to have a look at hybrid, if it is practical, and if you do not need the heavy-duty vehicles and those kind of things.

MR. MURPHY: How are those vehicles working out in general – any problems of concern?

MR. DROVER: My personal knowledge of the Prius, we have no problems with the Prius whatsoever. I have not heard of anyone having any practical problems any more so than you would with a normal vehicle.

Like I said, the Prius is about five years old now.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Just carrying on, how am I doing time wise?

CHAIR: You have another couple of minutes.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

I will carry on to section 4.2.02, Endangered Species and Biodiversity, line 01 again on Salaries. Salaries took a drop. The budget was $401,200, and the actual was $343,200.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, that was a vacant position.

MR. MURPHY: A vacant position. That is not going to be filled I take it according to the salary difference there for this year?

MR. FRENCH: I could not speak to it but, no, I do not think so. I do not think it is going to be filled.

MR. MURPHY: Which position was it? Is there any detail on exactly which kind of a job it was out there?

MR. FRENCH: Ross, can you speak to that?

MR. FIRTH: That particular position was a senior wildlife biologist position.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, so are we going to be losing anything as regards to the ongoing biology projects or anything when it comes to this particular department as a result of that loss of position?

MR. FRENCH: No, we will maintain our current level of service, if that is what you mean.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

That same section, line 03, Transportation and Communications, budgeted for $128,000, the actual was $63,000 and it is going to see an increase this year to $82,500. I wonder if we can get an explanation on that line.

MR. FRENCH: The decrease of $65,000 reflects less travel in helicopter time than anticipated. You are talking about the $128,000 that went to $63,000, correct –

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: – then why is it going back to $82,500?

MR. MURPHY: Right.

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

MR. PARROTT: For the fiscal year 2012-2013 the $82,500 is what is reflected as the estimated usage in that subhead. So it is reflected to be for accuracy.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Again in this section, line 06, Purchased Services, $72,000 against an actual $17,000 that was budgeted and that number is going to stay elevated this year up to $67,500.

MR. PARROTT: The increase of $55,000 last year was the increase in contracts for projects related to endangered species. The cost of these projects fluctuate from year to year, depending if they are doing research and are at the end of the research and the reports come in from the committees, there is the cost of printing and technical services. That was the cause of the increase last year.

MR. MURPHY: So the $67,500 again is going to be more printing and that sort of thing?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, well it is printing and it is the cost of services related to studying endangered species and putting a plan in place as to ensure that the species survival is maintained.

MR. MURPHY: I was just curious that might have been related to the lost biologist position here because it is pretty much up there as regards to what it was against last year. When it comes to accounting for the salary, did we lose the biologist position just to cover off some supplies or anything?

MR. PARROTT: No, this would not be related directly to the one biologist position less.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Could you tell us where that biologist position was centered? What part of the Province?

MR. PARROTT: It was in Corner Brook.

MR. MURPHY: It was in Corner Brook?

MR. PARROTT: It is Corner Brook.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

MR. FRENCH: That has not been filled for some time. That is not like it stopped yesterday and we are not replacing it. It has not been in play for some time.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, all right. I just noticed because, of course, it was budgeted for in last year and the difference is only showing up this year, so if it has not been around for a while, how long has it been gone for.

Are we doing okay?

CHAIR: I would like to move back to Mr. Edmunds now.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, I will digress.

CHAIR: Unless there is something on that section there that you have last-minute questions?

MR. MURPHY: No, I think we are fine there, so we will pass it off to Mr. Edmunds.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Edmunds.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just move right on to section 4 as well along; I think a lot of the line questions have been asked by Mr. Murphy. I have a series of questions on the different topics as we go through the Wildlife department with respect to Administration, Licensing and Operations.

I know there has been a reduction or an apparent reduction in the moose populations. Will this department be considering a reduction in the allocations of moose licences both as outfitters and as regular residents?

MR. FRENCH: Well, there is no secret that the moose population will have peaked at about 150,000 in the late 1990s. That was an awful lot of moose and some biologists make the case that the moose were basically eating themselves out of house and home in certain regions of the Province. Now we are down to 110,000 animals in the Province it is believed and about 5,400 in the national parks, which we do not control.

There is still a significant population in the Province. Having said that, there has been a significant decline over the last number of years. We break it up into fifty moose management areas. The idea of it is that you are able to adjust the ability to increase or decrease licences depending on the number of moose in the area, which we do through a number of ways, through census information, the report we get back from outfitters, and hunters and so on.

Every year this becomes a public debate in a big way. What we have decided to do is come up with a five-year strategy. That has already begun; we started in the early phases of it. Also included in that is a human dimensions piece, because there is a social carrying capacity. There is a belief out there that people believe that all the moose should be flattened, if you will. I do not personally believe that. You have to find that right level, that right carrying capacity, and that is not an easy job.

You have outfitters out there, and it is not lost on me the amount of revenue they bring into the Province. They are employing people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They are a big impact in some of these rural communities. They are a big game in town, they pay good money, and they bring a lot of tourism dollars to the area. So it is a balancing act.

We have the five-year strategy now started and hoping to have it in place for next hunting season. This year we did reduce the number of licences by, in total, about 630, if I recall correctly, Province-wide. Again, there were certain areas, like up on the Northern Peninsula, where we reduced them by almost 1,000 because of indications we have had that there is a decline in the population.

It is a constant balancing act. We do census work every year and we do population modelling based on a number of different factors. Although the moose population is declining, I do not want to give the impression there is neither one left because there is still a significant number.

MR. EDMUNDS: I know.

How many licences are issued, resident licences, for moose harvesting? I guess there is no base number now, but you have reduced it by over 1,600 licences just taking in the Northern Peninsula and the Avalon.

MR. FRENCH: No, let me correct you on that. There is a decrease of 630 Province-wide. It might have gone up in other areas of the Province, depending on the population. So 630 is the decrease Province-wide.

Ross, I think the guide says it is about 32,000 and change, maybe.

MR. FIRTH: Yes, overall there are 32,800 (inaudible) –

MR. FRENCH: Yes, 32,800 moose licences.

MR. EDMUNDS: That is how many are issued annually?

MR. FRENCH: Annually, right now.

MR. EDMUNDS: Approximately?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. EDMUNDS: That includes those used by outfitters?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, that includes the number of outfitters.

MR. EDMUNDS: I am just going ahead there now to section 4.2.02. I have quite a few questions on this, and, Mr. Chair, you can cut me off whenever you feel because I could stay here all day.

The first question is with respect to endangered species. I would like to single out polar bears right now because they are on the vulnerable list, if you may, the provincial vulnerable list. Our experience has told us that once you have landfast ice in Labrador extending way off that the pack ice comes down outside and that is when you get most of the polar bears coming ashore, either on the Northern Peninsula or in the northern portion of our Province. I know that there were at least two – there could have been more – that that had to be destroyed because of the human impact and the dangers involved.

I am just wondering if there were or if there are going to be any plans put in place in terms of darting and transporting, as opposed to destroying. Because I think that at one time – I do not know if it is the same now – you have a quota of twelve polar bears for the Nunatsiavut Government, any defence kills would come off of that quota. So, rather than having the bears destroyed, is there or will there be a plan for tranquilizing and transporting, as opposed to destroying the animal?

MR. FRENCH: That would always be the preference: to dart and remove, versus destroy. I can assure of that from my perspective, and I know that our people on the West Coast feel exactly the same way.

To dart and remove, of course, you have to have a chopper available in the area, and you have to have the people available to do it, obviously. In both those cases – one was for a safety reason in particular. I believe both of them were obviously for safety reasons, but we just did not have the ability to get a helicopter there in time to do it.

If this was out on the ice and you had a bit of time, you had a couple of hours, but in both these cases the bears were right in the community, so it was difficult then. Some people say it was even in the vicinity of a school, for example. So, it is not the time then to linger, you have to make a tough call, and no one likes to see the beautiful animals destroyed, but unfortunately that is the way it goes.

MR. EDMUNDS: I understand that completely. We have had situations in my hometown that are the same. The reason I bring this to your attention is because we can expect this. As global warming continues and climate change is upon us, the footprint area of the polar bear is changing; you are going to see more of this. At least it is something that could be put on the radar to have in place. Especially with climate change, the status of the polar bear may change at any given time.

Speaking of polar bears, I am just wondering: Within the Davis Strait now, what are the numbers in terms of population, and is there an increase or decrease since the 2005 census, I believe?

MR. FRENCH: My understanding is that the polar bear population that we see is on the increase, so much so that the Nunatsiavut Government and the Torngat Wildlife and –

MR. EDMUNDS: Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board

MR. FRENCH: There you go; they have the big, long name. They have been lobbying me for an increase in the number of licences. It is a belief that the population of the polar bear is –I do not know if strong is the correct word to use, but it is certainly not in decline. It is manageable.

MR. EDMUNDS: I have seen the decline over the past thirty years.

The reason I ask is because as we are seeing an increase, some of the other areas, like Foxe Basin and Hudson, are seeing a decrease. Sometimes the question is: Are the migrating over to the east as a result of climate change? I think the last application from the Nunatsiavut Government was twelve polar bears and I do not think they were all harvested this year, but that is the amount that you were talking about in terms of an increase from six to twelve?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, six to twelve.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

While we are under Endangered Species and Biodiversity – like I said, I have a series of questions, and, Mr. Chairman, you can interject at any time. I guess my first question on caribou under endangered species would be relevant to the Red Wine herd. This herd has been marginally small and the danger now is with the George River herd migrating through and the low numbers that are in the George River herd and some of the overharvesting that has been taking place from out-of-province. Do you see the same numbers in the Red Wine herd or are the numbers increasing or decreasing?

MR. FRENCH: We have collared animals in the Red Wine herd and I cannot tell you from one year to the next but if I am not mistaken, the Red Wine herd has decreased. Ross, is that correct? Yes, it has declined. I do not have the exact number, but there is not very many left in the Red Wine herd now as a matter of fact. It would be 900. Does that sound right? I do not know why I am thinking 900, but I could be wrong on that. Do not quote me on it.

MR. EDMUNDS: I think it might be more along 120?

MR. FIRTH: There are roughly 120.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, 120.

MR. EDMUNDS: When was the last census done, or are you just going on collar information?

MR. FRENCH: We do our regular stuff for our classifications, our collared data, and we do population modelling and determine it every other year anyway, I think.

MR. EDMUNDS: You say that this herd is maintaining its status quo?

MR. FRENCH: No, this herd is declining is my understanding.

MR. EDMUNDS: Oh, because at 120, it was at 120 for the last four years now.

MR. FRENCH: Do you want to speak to that, Ross?

MR. FIRTH: One of the challenges that we face with regard to conducting census, as you know, is weather conditions and the ability to do the census in the wintertime when the animals are separated from the George River, so before that migration pattern occurs before they intermingle. What we have noticed in the last few years is we have not been able to undertake those population census because the intermingling between the George River herd and the Red Wine herd is happening at a time during which we need to take the census. It is just not possible to do that.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, thank you.

The other herd that raises a lot of concern is the Torngat Mountains herd where there has been very little base work done. I think the last bit of work was done by Schaefer and Stu Luttich. This herd is in very bad shape. Do you entertain any partnerships with Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board to look at getting at least the census done on this herd?

MR. FRENCH: We do have collared animals, I am fairly certain, in that herd. I will let Ross speak to that.

MR. FIRTH: The minister is correct. We do have several collars in that particular herd. We did just recently do a census of the Mealy Mountains – is it the Mealy Mountains herd you are talking about or the Torngat?

MR. EDMUNDS: Torngat Mountains.

MR. FIRTH: Torngat, yes, sorry. We do have some collars on the Torngat animals there and we are working together and looking at the possibility of doing further census work with the Parks Canada Agency and the Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board on it. That is kind of the current status of that particular herd right now.

MR. EDMUNDS: It is too soon to, say, give an estimate on the size of their herd – I know there have been a lot of guesstimates done, but I have been kind of, I guess you can call it, out of the loop with the wildlife board now for quite some time. I am just wondering if there is a basis we can place a number on.

MR. FIRTH: I think it would be pure speculation on my part around putting an estimate out there, so I prefer not to.

MR. EDMUNDS: This question is relevant to the one you mentioned earlier, the Mealy Mountains herd. Past reports have indicated this is one of the few herds that are sustainable and the calving rates are good. There is a concern from some of the neighbouring communities as to the possibility of a limited harvest on the Mealy Mountains herd. I have not even heard what the base number is for the last census, so could you fill me in?

MR. FRENCH: Ross, do you want to speak that?

MR. FIRTH: Sure.

As you know, these sedentary herds are listed as threatened under both provincial endangered species legislation and also federal species at risk legislation. There is currently no legal harvest allowed from that particular herd.

As I mentioned earlier, we did recently conduct a population census on the Mealy Mountains herd. That data has not yet been fully analyzed, so unfortunately I cannot give you a population estimate at this time on it. The most recent population estimate was from the mid-2000s and it was in the range of roughly 2,500 animals.

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, I am really looking forward to seeing what those numbers are when they come out.

I will hand it over my partner in crime, to Mr. Murphy.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.

I will turn it over to Mr. Murphy, and just keep in mind we are down to thirty-three minutes left. If you want to get to finishing Labour Relations, this is a heads-up.

MR. MURPHY: I have just two questions, Mr. Minister, both covering the Endangered Species and Biodiversity section. I am a little bit concerned about mining exploration in the Glover Island area of Grand Lake. I wonder if we might have a comment about that. Exploration has been allowed in recent years in a protected area for the pine marten.

Also having to do with the pine marten, is there any update that the Environment and Conservation department might have as regards to the population of pine marten, for example, in the Star Lake area? I have not heard anything from that area now in a long time when it comes to the pine marten, in particular since the area was flooded for hydro a number of years back.

MR. FRENCH: I know the pine marten has been removed, if I have this right, from the threatened list to the vulnerable list. We do quite a bit of testing for pine marten when it comes to hair samples and so on. Before anybody is allowed to do any kind of mineral exploration, they have to come through the department and go through the normal of vigorous, I would say, tests and questions. That is fed out not only to the different divisions within our department, but also other departments.

Any time that anybody does any exploration, Wildlife will always highlight or prevent based on the information they have available. The big explosion of the pine marten some time ago, there is a belief out there now that maybe the pine marten were not has plentiful here in the Province as people thought initially, that there was not a big lot of pine marten here and they were not as threatened as people thought.

Having said that, there are a number of areas, I know, things have passed my desk where Wildlife have highlighted the fact you have to keep an eye for the pine marten and there are a number of restrictions and so on put in place when it comes to cutting wood and that sort of thing.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, so that is being monitored?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: Perfect.

I guess we will jump over to Labour Relations Agency. I know we are getting limited time here now. I want to jump ahead to section 5.1.04, Standing Fish Price Setting Panel. It is a bit unusual to be tied in with Environment and Conservation.

I wonder if you can give us a brief description of the Fish Price Setting Panel. Probably describe in some terms when they meet, whether, for example, their meeting dates would coincide with the marketing info; the selection of members to the board, who those members are; and probably some of the criteria as regards to how they reach their pricing formulas?

MR. FRENCH: Okay.

MR. MURPHY: That might be an awful lot of questions.

MR. FRENCH: The Fish Price Setting Panel has been in place now for a number of years, since 2007, I believe, or 2005. The three people on the board are – Rachelle, can you –

MS COCHRANE: Joe O'Neill (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Joe O'Neill has been the longstanding Chair. Of course, they are all longstanding members, I believe.

MS COCHRANE: Max Short and Bill Wells (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Basically, what happens is every year they start in probably March – Rachelle, would that be fair to say? In March, they start meeting and they start with the processors and with the union. They have deadline dates set and they work through the various species and they both submit prices, to which the panel picks one.

It is a constant rolling out of meetings, I guess, between now and – they will probably finish up in August maybe. I think is probably the last date they finish up. Again, it is based on each species as it rolls out throughout the year.

It has worked reasonably well. It has had its bumps along the way but it has worked reasonably well. It is an agreement that everybody came to back a few years ago when they were having all the fights about pricing for every species. Like I said, they each put in a price, the board picks one. If you do not like it you still have the right to an appeal process that you can go, but there is only one appeal because you cannot have it going on forever.

It is a schedule of species. They have a certain date set. They plan their calendar in March and they go to the middle of August.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, all right.

I did not get the third name, there was Joe O'Neill, Max Short, and who was the third?

MR. FRENCH: Bill Wells.

MR. MURPHY: Bill Wells, okay.

All three of them, in this case, have an extensive background in the fisheries?

MR. FRENCH: They do now because they have been there for three or four years.

MR. MURPHY: At least they are keeping up with the changes.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, that is right.

MR. MURPHY: There you go.

The Labour Relations Agency, 5.1.01 Executive Support, I guess we will start there on that end when it comes to numbers. Salaries in this department are $373,900 down to an actual this year of $315,000. Then they might explain the budget estimate for this year up again from that number, $387,900.

MR. FRENCH: The reduction is because there was a vacant ADM position for part of the year. That has since been filled – correct, Rachelle? An increase of $14,000 is the replacement staff at a higher step level when they were put in their place.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Transportation and Communications, line 03?

MR. FRENCH: Basically, that is simply less travel by staff.

MR. MURPHY: Less travel by staff. Okay.

Down to 5.1.02, Salaries $234,900 down a little bit to $205,900 for the year, Salaries down again to $177,300 in Administration and Planning.

MR. FRENCH: The $29,000 decrease is a vacant statistician. What the plan is there now is to roll two positions into one. The statistician by itself was not really what the division needed. They wanted to roll that out with a manager's position as well, hence the decrease of $57,000. That is the result of the cost-saving measure in total.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, two positions.

Further down the line 03 Transportation and Communications, last year budgeted $72,800, the actual was $32,000, and the budget is up this year to $58,700.

MR. FRENCH: Again, it is less travel by staff than was anticipated, for the $40,000. The $14,000 drop is a readjustment of the budget for a cost-saving measure.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Line 05 Professional Services, $200,000 was budgeted last year, $225,000 was actually spent and nothing in the budget this year.

MR. FRENCH: The $200,000 removal is for the Voisey's Bay inquiry. That is not on the books this year coming up, and the $25,000 increase was for the SPO review.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

In 5.1.05 Labour Relations Board, line 01 Salaries, $682,100, the actual was $469,400 and then up again this year in this budget, in these estimates, $577,100.

MR. FRENCH: The decrease of the $200,000 reflects the Chair being paid from Professional Services. We did not have a full-time Chair in place. That was being paid from Professional Services. It also included severance pay for two employees who retired.

The decrease of $105,000 from the previous year is basically a reconciliation of all the salary details. This is basically the true cost now within the department.

MR. MURPHY: The change in the Transportation and Communications number would probably be reflective of that. Maybe you can explain that one, $40,800 in the 2011-2012 Budget down to $31,000 and then, of course, the budget is down a little bit more at $22,000.

MR. FRENCH: That was a cost-saving measure.

MR. MURPHY: That was a cost-saving measure?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. MURPHY: What did we lose there as a result of cost saving?

MR. FRENCH: Well, travel was down. Across government we have reduced the cost of travel. That is one of the things that we have tried to deal with.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

I think that is probably all I have with regard to the line items in Labour Relations. I see time is getting limited.

Just one question, as regards to the government stance right now when it comes to scab legislation, if we can touch on that for a minute. I would like to know if government has been looking at scab legislation, if they have any further information, or if they have any studies or anything underway as regards to that.

MR. FRENCH: Actually, since I started here I have done a fair bit of research in replacement worker legislation. It is one of the things we are looking at now. We have three things happening. The Labour Relations Act itself has not been touched in – well, there were some minor things done a couple of years ago. Last year or the year before?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Last year. It has been years since the Labour Relations Act has been worked on. I am hoping to open up the act, and I have three potential things feeding into it.

The industrial inquiry was one of the pieces, it came with six recommendations. The special project order review was just completed. Plus, we have had an employment relations committee working now for quite some time. They have looked at a big host of things, including replacement worker legislation. There were a number of things they came to a consensus on. Of course, there were an awful lot of them that they could not come to a consensus on because it is a tripartite committee made up of business, labour, and government.

Now, as a government, we have to make a policy decision on whether we come in with replacement worker legislation. I will tell you that I have done a fair bit of reading on it, a fair bit of research on it. I know there are two provinces in the country that have replacement worker legislation, BC and Quebec, with two varying degrees of success.

For example, Quebec has replacement worker legislation and Ontario does not right now. Over the last number of years through labour unrest, labour disputes, there has been less time lost per capita in Ontario than there has in Quebec. Depending on which academic you talk to who have studied this, they fall evenly fifty-fifty on whether this is worthy or whether it is not. It comes down to a policy decision.

I will sit down with our caucus and our Cabinet and when we bring these three things together – which we are part of the way there now, hopefully for this session of the House – we will be able to open up that act and we will make a decision then on the policy. The decision on the policy has not been made yet but it will be coming very, very soon.

MR. MURPHY: All right.

Mr. Chair, that is probably about half the time that was left over out of the twenty-three minutes. So I think I will digress to Mr. Edmunds, just to keep it fair. I think he can probably have the last say.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

MR. MURPHY: I do not know if there are other sessions we can have to finish up some sections with regard to the Estimates?

CHAIR: We can reconvene another session, if possible. The policy allows for that. Where we are so close now, if we can get close to concluding, fine; if not, then we will adjourn at 12:00 p.m.. If we do need to reconvene, that will be at the call of the Committee.

MR. FRENCH: I am willing to stay until 1:30 p.m. if he has a few extra questions, if you wanted to go past 12:00 p.m. If you wanted to take more time, if you had more questions, I would be willing to answer them.

MR. MURPHY: I was going to say because I did have some questions as regards to energy efficiency, that sort of thing and we have not touched on that yet. That is basically I think probably about all that we might have had as regards to –

MR. FRENCH: Okay, yes we will work through it sure. We might be able to finish it up.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, all right, so I guess I will carry on.

CHAIR: Yes, I will have to leave the Chair, though. I have to get to that funeral on Bell Island. It is very important.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, no sweat.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, yes, that is understandable. It is for Tom Fitzgerald.

CHAIR: I could check with the Clerk the protocol if I have to vacate the Chair.

CLERK: (Inaudible) Vice-Chair.

CHAIR: Okay, the Vice-Chair then. Mr. Edmunds, you will have to serve as judge and jury.

Okay, so we can continue. I will go to Mr. Edmunds.

MR. FRENCH: We will probably be finished in twenty minutes anyway.

CHAIR: We will be fairly close. I will go to Mr. Edmunds.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, I still have a few questions on wildlife and these are stemming from a lot of concerns throughout the Province. I would like to go back to one caribou herd that I missed – I really miss – is the George River caribou herd. I know that the last census put the caribou herd way, way, way down in numbers. I also realize that it is the high point for predation throughout the natural cycle.

The question I have was, in terms of licensing, there was licences allocated based on conservation. Most people did respect it; however, having said that, we did get some visitors from out of Province who did not follow our provincial protocols. It did create a lot of headaches. I realize that it put you in a very uncomfortable predicament when you are dealing with Aboriginal issues. In the face of conservation and the longevity of the George River caribou herd, have you obtained any proposals or any discussions on a possible solution to avoiding this problem again next year?

MR. FRENCH: No secrets, this is a constant struggle. Because of traditional rights and so on, like with our Aboriginal groups in Labrador for example it is traditional rights. It is a tough one and we are always balancing.

The easiest thing for me to do as a minister would just be, on the side of conservation, shut it all down. That is one thing that I do not want to do. We are probably looking at a total allowable harvest for next year. That is not written in stone yet, but that is where we are headed.

We have started the consultation process. We have met with a number of the groups, Aboriginal groups in particular in Labrador. I think there is one scheduled now for the Innu coming up. As well, part of that consultation has been meeting with the Innu groups in Quebec. We have also met with the Quebec government who, as well, are just as concerned as we are – I figure I can speak for their confidence in that, can't I Ross?

So, Ross has started the process as our lead point person in the negotiations – consultations are the correct word. Yes, we have started meetings. They have been ongoing now for some time, and we are hoping that there comes a point in time where everybody has to buy into this. If everybody does not buy into it, then in several years time we are going to be looking at no caribou in the George River herd, then it will be too late for any of us to grumble.

I am just hoping that everybody so far, from mixed reviews – the last couple of years now they have not hunted outside of the open areas, the Innu in Quebec, which is a positive. That was a first, a big step I would think. There has been no protest hunts, so I am hoping that we are going to keep the lines open and eventually we are going to come to all hands are going to be on the same page. Everybody has to realize that the animals are in decline, so it only makes sense for everyone to come together. If that does not happen, we have trouble on our hands.

MR. EDMUNDS: I am assuming that what you mean by coming together is the formation of a stakeholder co-management board that we are hoping would look at the conservation issue.

MR. FRENCH: When we come to the conservation, we are working together – from the groups in Labrador we have a working group, if you will. In Quebec, of course, we have to go through the Quebec government and the Innu groups as well. We are trying to form a – what is the terminology I am looking for, Ross?

MR. FIRTH: Advisory committee.

MR. FRENCH: An advisory committee would be from the Quebec side.

That is what we are trying to put in place, which is in place, by the way. If everybody keeps plugging in –and like I said, we did have some success last year, but there is no doubt we are probably go through total allowable harvest, which means that there are a lot of people going to have to take a lot of less animals and do without a lot of meat. It is not lost on me the significance of the caribou into the freezer programs and so on that they have up the North Coast. I am familiar with that.

MR. EDMUNDS: I think that given the lower numbers, which will lead to my next question, that the lower numbers do help in conservation because it is harder for hunters to harvest them. The last reports I heard indicated approximately 50,000 animals – correct?

MR. FRENCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR. EDMUNDS: Still declining?

MR. FRENCH: Still declining. It could be into the mid-thirties by next season. That is the possibility.

MR. EDMUNDS: Just to shift location, this one is a two-answer question. I am just wondering what the current populations are and the trends are for the Island caribou, Northern, Southern, and Central. The last time we checked there were no updated data available on the Eastern populations.

The reason I am asking that is because there is an increase in the coyote population on the Island. With increased predation you are going to see higher than 50 per cent impact on caribou by coyotes if you see that increase. Coyotes are making headlines almost every other week, so the population is increasing.

I am just wondering: What impacts would that have on the various populations on the Island?

MR. FRENCH: That is the whole point of this five-year study. Right now we are doing a piece of work with the coyotes for example in one of the study areas, Middle Ridge. We are removing the coyotes from that area. We have tried diversionary feeding and we have tried a number of different things. Hopefully this time next year we will be in the final phases of a report on how all of the predators intertwine with the caribou and get some real science to it.

Right now there are about 33,000 caribou in the Province. We have noticed a number of things which are good signs. The decline has slowed significantly. The calves being born are a lot stronger and bigger than they were in the past at the height of the decline. We have also noticed that the stags are a lot bigger and getting bigger racks. The herds are looking a lot healthier with their size. These are all good indicators.

Mr. Chair, however, the survival rate for calves has to be around 45 per cent. The survival rate of calves to have a healthy population has to be about 45 per cent and I do not think we have quite reached there yet. Depending on what part of the Province you are in, you will get a different survival rate in the calves.

Although the decline has slowed, it has not stopped, but all indicators are that we are headed in the right direction. I guess only time will tell.

MR. EDMUNDS: I have just one question on caribou before I leave it: Do you plan on doing another census based on the concern of the George River Herd going down to less than 40,000 or are you going to go with alternative measures of herd sizing?

MR. FRENCH: No. My understanding is there is census work that happens every year and there is collaring that happens every year, and there is information that is gathered every year for population modelling. It is a significant study. It is $1.9 million that we have put in, plus partners. I am sure that will include – there will be photographic census as well of the George River Herd.

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes. I think 2010 was the last census that was done on the herd. That is where the basis came for this new number in terms of population. That is all I have in terms of wildlife.

I have some questions if you do plan to go beyond 12:00 o'clock, just a couple of short questions.

MR. FRENCH: No sweat.

CHAIR: Yes, we are good to go.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

Should I wait?

CHAIR: No, no, I think the deputy is good.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

I have a question on the court case with the Quebec Innu with respect to Muskrat Falls. I did have a whole series of questions on Muskrat Falls but it is a non-sanctioned project yet. One question on your thoughts on the NunatuKavut community taking a hard-line stand on the proposed project, as well as the possibility of court action by the Quebec Innu with respect to the Muskrat Falls project.

MR. PARROTT: Yes. The Province has not been named in a court action with the Quebec Innu. It is between the proponents and the federal government.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

One question here on legal action with respect to the Abitibi mine in Grand Falls-Windsor and what the procedures are for continuing with the clean up.

MR. PARROTT: The clean up related to Abitibi? Yes, any of the issues that were related to human health have been addressed in the last year or so. In terms of further clean up, the Province is currently waiting for the results of a court action in the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the liability of Abitibi-Consolidated for the environmental issues they left behind when they vacated the Province.

MR. EDMUNDS: I have a question on Labour Relations that I think was already asked by Mr. Murphy on replacement worker legislation.

On CCEEET, Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Emissions Trading, just looking at this, in this office there is almost $300,000 less than what was budgeted for. Can you explain section 2.2.05 on Salaries?

MR. FRENCH: Climate Change goes through Executive Council, so it is a little bit of a different animal in itself. You say it is a reduction?

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, it is $1.2 million down to $1 million, or just under $1 million. Is it not, if I recall correctly? That is because this year we are doing the ad campaign. Do you remember, I mentioned it earlier in the discussion? That was budgeted for this fiscal year, and that is why the reduction. It is strictly the ad campaign.

MR. EDMUNDS: In trying to review it, it seems like this entity is jumping back and forth between different government departments. I am just trying to find out –

MR. FRENCH: It has not really jumped. The only significant difference in it is that – it is still with Executive Council. Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is still with the Executive Council. Because it is broad basing it does work for all government departments. The only difference now is that I am the minister responsible, so the reporting mechanism comes through me versus going through the Executive Council directly and directly into the Premier's Office.

Now, for example, in budget issues I would make the case and defend it, go to bat for it and deal with it. Even though it is still parked in Executive Council and still the mechanism in that it is across government. The only difference is it reports in through me now instead of the Premier.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, just a couple of more questions on this.

I want to talk about $300,000 less than what was budgeted was spent. Then later on under Professional Services it is almost $200,000 spent over and above what was budgeted for in 2011.

MR. FRENCH: I am going to have to provide you with the specifics on that because like I said, the budget itself goes through Executive Council and I do not have it here. I can find that out and get it to you.

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, the reason I am asking is –

MR. FRENCH: No, a fair question.

MR. EDMUNDS: I do not know if I came out right in saying that it tended to jump around. That is just the perception I had. The other question is in regard to the Salmonier Nature Park.

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. EDMUNDS: Eight hundred thousand and five hundred dollars for energy efficiency initiatives. Is that included here in this?

MR. FRENCH: No, that came through the EcoTrust fund.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay.

MR. FRENCH: That was one of the pieces that was funded through the EcoTrust. It is a whole new layout. They are putting an Abydoz system in, another education piece for the kids who go through on how they deal with their own waste water and so on.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I think I will conclude.

I would like to thank the minister and his staff for coming out here today. I look forward to viewing some of the initiatives with respect to energy efficiency throughout the Province. I am sure we will be in communication over the next three-and-a-half years.

MR. FRENCH: If I could too, I would just like to add, thanks very much for your questions and it was very cordial and so on. When it comes to the George River and the herds, a community leader like yourself, I think it is important that we work together. I would need your support. It is not the government messaging; it is the conservation messaging for the whole herd. I know you are concerned about it as well as we are, so I look forward to working with you on that.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, I will look forward to it.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Edmunds.

Mr. Murphy, back to you for your last questions.

MR. MURPHY: I just had a couple of questions as regards to climate change and energy efficiency, trading itself in general. I know the office has been set up now for some time and sometimes one is at a failure to even understand the whole concept of carbon trading. Perhaps you can explain that, number one.

Number two – I did not mean to dump it on you. I know it can be confusing but this is in some recourse a potential revenue stream for the Province, if the Province happens to be in there in that particular market. Although it seems to be a little bit odd to be keeping your environment so pristine and rewarding somebody else who could be out there in the marketplace somewhere that is a heavy polluter, and buying of credits, that sort of thing.

Has the government looked at any proposals as regards to how it will participate in this market, and do they have an anticipated revenue stream that they will be making from that?

MR. FRENCH: Well, actually, we have not made a decision yet on how we are going to go with that. Are we going to have a cap and trade system? Are we going to have the other system – I am trying to remember the name of it now. We have the cap and trade is one system, and what do they call it? Only the other day I read a paper on it, anyway –

MR. MURPHY: It fails me, too.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, it is a couple of different systems.

MR. MURPHY: It is complicated.

MR. FRENCH: Alberta has one system, the rest of the country – and Quebec has a different system as well. So, we have not made a policy decision yet on what way we are going to go. Are we going to just put a tax on emissions and collect the tax and give it out for green projects? That is one option – I think that is what Quebec does, if I recall correctly, or Alberta, one of them. Then there is the other piece of emissions trading, whereby you might put out emissions here but you can buy them from another company and so on.

So, we have not gone down the road yet of making a decision on that. The office has been in place now a couple of years. We have the energy efficiency piece and climate change – both strategies have been developed. Right now the group is out meeting with the industrial sector to try to come up with – and obviously the industrial sector will play a big part in reducing emissions. Fifty per cent of our emissions are from the industrial customers, so obviously we have to do some consultation with them. I think we are in the second or third round of consultations now with the industrial sector, which is significant.

Of course, we are moving ahead with clean energy, like we are with Muskrat Falls. That is going to make a significant impact. If we take places like Holyrood out of the equation, it will make a significant impact on our emissions. Having said that, we have to do more than just take Holyrood out to meet our 2020 deadlines. So there are a number of pieces of work that have to be done.

The other thing that the climate change office is doing currently is developing the advertising campaign, of which I have seen some blushes of. It should be finalized in the next month or so, I think – maybe scheduled for May or June. It is developed for people who run households, the head of households, to reduce emissions and be more energy efficient. So, that is currently what is happening.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

As regards to carbon trading and carbon taxes, is this government considering any kind of a carbon tax in the near future? Have they looked at proposals for carbon taxes on –

MR. FRENCH: No, there are currently announcements going on with what is happening not only in the country, but indeed in North America and worldwide. We have not made a decision yet, as a government, of which way we are going with that. I would say you will see something, though, sooner rather than later because it is on the agenda.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, that is all I can think of. I do not know if you might have had something else.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: There you go; there is one. It is with regard to the environmental cleanup process when it comes to fish plants and everything, I do not know what participation your department has in that. I know Englee has an absolutely desperate and deplorable situation up there right now with one fish plant that is literally falling into the street.

I would like to get your comment on that and if government has any kind of an inventory as regards to number one, I guess, when it comes to closed up fish plants, but number two, when it comes to other buildings that the government may be diversifying itself of through Service Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess they would be in charge of disposal of old schools, that sort of thing, as regards to any government properties that are out there.

Do you have any thoughts on that as regards to the timeline and what government should be doing in getting some of these properties and everything cleaned up and remediation to take place?

MR. FRENCH: I have a few thoughts on it, I suppose.

First of all, Service NL is the lead department in that area when it comes to cleaning up – and in Englee, in particular, there is a court order now delivered to the owners of the facility to clean it up.

OFFICIAL: Ministerial order.

MR. FRENCH: A ministerial order, sorry, not a court order, to clean it up. Service NL polices it but it comes through us, if that makes sense. It is something the same as the provincial waste program. We hold the legislation but it goes through Municipal Affairs, so we are kind of the regulatory agency there.

I do have some personal thoughts in the meantime on these buildings. Obviously, if it is a government-owned facility we clean it up, as we have in the past with schools and so on, we knock them down. Having said that government cannot take responsibility for every building and every business, every industrial site and fish plant in the Province and if we got in, as a government, cleaning up everywhere where people leave a mess – I mean, we have to be able to enforce it on the owners; hence the ministerial orders and court orders, should that go down. Governments would never be able to afford to take over every – I had an oil spill in my basement one time and the monies involved in cleaning up environmental messes is just unbelievable.

The piece of work we are doing now in Hopedale is $6.5 million, we are into it now, and where we will be at the end of the day is still – we know what we are going to do, but will we get it all and how much of it are we going to get. So there is a constant struggle. To be able to go out, as a government, and take over all the businesses out there – I mean, we have to stick with the principle of polluter pay, as much as I hate that phrase, but that is the reality of it.

MR. MURPHY: Okay.

Mr. Chair, I have no other comments, other than to thank the minister and thank his staff for coming over today. I know it has been a little bit longer than usual. Having said that, I wish the family over on Bell Island, while you are over there, all the best on behalf of this side of the House and everybody who is here in the room.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, George; I appreciate it. Thanks again, Randy; I appreciate it.

I am sure we will be talking over the next, like you said, three-and-a-half years, no doubt, more than once.

Anyway, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I want to thank, on behalf of the Committee, your staff for taking this opportunity to explain the Estimates to everybody and hopefully it gave everybody an opportunity to straighten away any queries they may have had about things relative. I want to thank the Committee itself.

I am going to ask the Clerk now if he would do the reading on the Estimates headings so that we can vote on those.

CLERK (Mr. MacKenzie): Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those opposed?

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK: Subhead 1.2.01 to 5.1.05 inclusive.

CHAIR: All in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All opposed?

Motion carried.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 5.1.05 carried.

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

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Environment and Conservation carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned now.

Thank you for your co-operation.

The Committee stands adjourned.