Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Gerald Smith, M.H.A., Port au Port, substitutes for Wally Andersen, M.H.A., Torngat Mountains; James Walsh, M.H.A., Conception Bay East & Bell Island, substitutes for Mary Hodder, M.H.A., Burin - Placentia West; Rick Woodford, M.H.A., Humber Valley, substitutes for Gerald Reid, M.H.A., Twillingate & Fogo.

The Committee met in room 5083 of the Confederation Building at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

It being the appointed time, perhaps we could convene this meeting of the Social Services Committee. The first order of business, I understand, is to elect a new Vice-Chair. Could we have a nomination for the Vice-Chair?

MR. H. HODDER: I would nominate Loyola Sullivan, the Member for Ferryland.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the Vice-Chair being Loyola Sullivan?

WITNESS: I have a question. Do we have a letter where he is willing to accept the position?

CHAIR: We are trying to move things along. We understand he is prepared to accept the nomination. Do we have a seconder for the motion?

MR. WHELAN: I will second it.

CHAIR: Thank you, Don.

All those in favour, `aye'.

WITNESSES: Aye.

CHAIR: Loyola is duly declared elected to be the Vice-Chair of the Social Services Committee.

Just for a few seconds, look at the procedures which we will follow with respect to the Social Services Committee and these hearings this evening. At the beginning we will ask the minister to make some introductory comments. He can speak for as long as he wishes, as long as he keeps it within fifteen minutes. So we will have our minister make his presentation to the Committee. We will follow that by having each of the Committee members ask questions in their turn. What we will try to do, if there is a large number of questions, is limit the questions to about ten minutes each, go around, and eventually we will exhaust all the questions, we would hope.

This evening the Opposition critic for the Department of Environment and Labour, Mr. Bob French, has asked to participate in the hearing, and within the rules of the Committee and the rules of the House that is quite acceptable. Mr. French, however, will have no voting capacity; but being a member of the House he is quite at liberty to ask questions as he may see fit. I understand as well, Robert, that you wish to leave at an early time. Would the Committee be in agreement to allow Robert to ask his questions at the outset?

WITNESS: No problem.

CHAIR: Okay, very well.

WITNESS: As long as he takes his time from Harvey it is okay.

MR. FRENCH: After what he did supper time (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: You are never getting into my Cabinet.

CHAIR: Before we start, we will just introduce the members of the Committee starting at my far left.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, MHA for Port au Port.

MR. WOODFORD: Rick Woodford, MHA for Humber Valley.

MR. WALSH: Jim Walsh, MHA for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, MHA for Humber East and Chair of the Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, MHA for Ferryland and Vice-Chair.

MR. FRENCH: Bob French, critic for the Department of Environment and Labour, and MHA for Conception Bay South.

MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, MHA for St. John's West and critic for Human Resources and Employment.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, MHA for Waterford Valley.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, MHA for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly.

With that we would ask the minister to make his opening statement. We would ask that each time the officials and members of the Committee speak, they identify themselves so the gentleman from Hansard can maintain proper records. Minister.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is unusual, I think, for me to be here. I have been on the Estimates Committee, and (inaudible). It is my first time being on the hot seat, so I am hoping there is not a lot of (inaudible). I am looking forward to it, with the people here. I will introduce the staff first: Leslie Grattan, Deputy Minister; Rick Hayward, Director of Finance and General Operations; Ann Marie Hann, Assistant Deputy Minister on the Environment side; and Joseph O'Neill, Assistant Deputy Minister on the Labour side of the department.

I do not have to go into a lot of detail about the department, and I am not going to do that. I will leave the time for you people to ask questions of us, and we will do our best to respond and answer them for you.

The Department of Environment and Labour - there are actually, I guess, four parts, two for which we are responsible. We have Labour and Environment, the Occupational Health and Safety, and the other part of it is the Workers' Compensation Commission. We are now in the process of working with the statutory review that was done in 1995 and (inaudible). Very shortly, I guess, we will be recommending it to Cabinet (inaudible) done with that report. I think at the end of the day it is a situation where we would have to balance off the employers, I guess, which is with the fiscal prudence but by the same means put a human face on the side of the injured worker. We believe that in our analysis we have tried very hard to do that and I think we will probably have some success at the end.

The department also, last fall, under Joe O'Neill, as many of you know, did the task force on the crab fishery, and did a tremendous job, he and David Vardy, along with David Jones. Because of the report, this spring there has been an agreement with the crab prices. Then because, I guess - Morgan Cooper was the arbitrator, I think, who finally decided the price in the first instance - the employer and the employee decided on their own and came to an agreement on the shrimp. We are hoping, over the next little while, they can come to some agreement with the cod and caplin and so on.

It has been a very worthwhile exercise, and later on Jill might be able to give you more detail on it. It has been very innovative and we are looking forward next year as well to a pilot project for the price of cod in the 3Ps area.

In addition to that, there has been key environmental assistance to the Voisey's Bay that has been front and centre with the department. Along with that, of course, now the department is involved integrally with the negotiations of trying to put a package in place for the Lower Churchill. My Deputy, Leslie, has really been playing a major part in that from the environment point of view. I am sure we will continue to do so as it goes through.

Also from the Occupational Health and Safety side, with Joe O'Neill, some time ago we decided that we were to hire a number of personnel into the department and we will get into that a little later on as well.

Basically, as I said, it is one of the smallest departments of government but in a sense it touches many of the peoples' lives in the Province through the environment and through labour, through the Occupational Health and Safety, and through the Workers' Commission. There are a number of broad areas there.

Rather than me going on and giving you a litany of things that happen, I am pleased to appear here and hopefully be able to satisfy you people with the estimates at the end of the night.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Before we proceed, just a bit of clarification. How does the Committee wish to proceed with their discussion? We have in the past called the first head and then allowed discussion and debate to range freely throughout the Budget. There have been other occasions when we have called each head separately and entertained only questions relevant to that. Any preference?

WITNESS: Personally, Mr. Chairman, I think it makes more sense, since we do not have a lot here, just leave it open rather than go through item by item. When someone gets a question, they can reference whatever area.

CHAIR: Is there concurrence on that?

MR. H. HODDER: I agree with the hon. member.

CHAIR: I would ask the Clerk to call the first head.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): 1.1.01.

MR. SULLIVAN: Basically, Mr. Chairman, I could certainly defer mine to the critic there. Bob, you are leaving in half an hour?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly do not mind doing that on any particular questions. Then, if there are questions I have that are not answered that I want to ask, I will just pick up in order whenever the opportunity arises afterwards.

CHAIR: Robert.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your Committee for letting me do this tonight. I realize I could sit in as a member, but thank you very much for the opportunity as the critic to be here to ask the minister some questions.

I would like to start out with the heading 1.1.01, the Minister's Office. Probably on the salary end of it, Minister, maybe I should go to your finance people.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, by all means.

MR. FRENCH: In Salaries in the 1997-1998 Budget, the amount is $45,800 more than the Estimates were in 1997. Where in the Budget heading and section did the extra appropriation come from?

MR. HAYWARD: You are comparing the 1997-1998 Budget figures to the 1996-1997 Budget, is that -

MR. FRENCH: No.

MS S. OSBORNE: That was the 1997-1998 Budget compared to the revised, I think, is it?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. LANGDON: Is it $261,000 versus $292,000, is that where -

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: Okay, there was an extra appropriation for the minister's travel there.

MR. LANGDON: I can explain, I think, that part of it there, Bob. There is an extra $14,000 I think in travel; but what happened was, in 1997 it was Newfoundland's turn for the minister to be the Chair, if you wish, or the President for the Environment Ministers of Canada, and it meant a number of sub-meetings that I had to take in, being President of the Environment Ministers. That is what accounted for the extra increase that you would see there in travel. It only happens, I think, once in ten years?

WITNESS: Less than that.

MR. LANGDON: The two territories are included as well. It was our turn last year and this year it is the NorthWest Territories. Next year I am not sure where it would be. That is what made the difference between the $55,900 and $69,000 that was actually spent.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the reference I took it to be - in the Estimates last year it is my understanding that $154,600 was estimated a year ago. I believe Bob is making reference to over a year ago when it was $154,600 and now it has climbed to over $200,000. That is $45,000 difference.

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That was my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HAYWARD: Okay, that is basically a restatement from Executive Support to the Minister's Office of the Director of Communications being moved from Executive Support to the Minister's Office.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are all assigned to departments. Each one now is assigned to each department.

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: They are moved from the Executive Support area to the Minister's Office to reflect that change in policy.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, and that is listed here in the separate Departmental Salary Details.

MR. FRENCH: Okay. It is a very minute thing, but as well the 1997-1998 Budget for Salaries was exceeded by roughly $3,000. Was that an increase in somebody's salary?

MR. HAYWARD: Basically it was two car allowances because of two ministers.

MR. FRENCH: Salaries in the Minister's Office will increase by $8,400, up from $203,000 to $211,800. The reason?

MR. HAYWARD: That will be the 2 per cent. That will be the raise included there, and the twenty-seventh payday. In this particular year you will notice all the way through the Estimates that there is a twenty-seventh payday, and that reflects into a certain percentage that is added on every x number of years. So it is a twenty-seventh pay period, and the raise is included there.

WITNESS: So there are twenty-seven pay days in the public service this year rather than twenty-six?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, and that will be reflected all the way through in every salary account.

MR. FRENCH: Okay. How many salaries and positions were paid out, or will be paid out, I am sorry, in the 1998 appropriation, in the $211,800? If the answer is not readily available you can certainly supply it to me in writing if you do not have it.

MR. HAYWARD: That will be five positions: minister; executive assistant; special assistant, communications; a departmental secretary; and a secretary to the minister. That is in the Salary Details.

MR. FRENCH: In 1.1.01.03, I guess, Transportation and Communications, there seems to have been $15,000 more spent than recorded in the Estimates for 1997.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: Is that the one that the minister had answered on the -

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, that was the first one answered.

MR. FRENCH: As well, in 1997/1998 the travel budget was $13,100. Again, was that because of that conference that the minister talked about, where there was extra travel involved there?

WITNESS: What number are you looking at, 1.2.01.03?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: The difference there, I guess, would be as the

minister said. Also the Budget there, I think, historically has been a little under. We have been trying to correct it over time but there is still a deficit there and we did not want to increase the 1998-1999 request. There were also some new executives there as well.

MR LANGDON: Yes. I think also, Bob, because the minister here was the president it meant that the deputy was heading up all the deputy ministers from across the country. She has been to a number of meetings other than those I have attended, and a fair number, so that may have some (inaudible) as well. If you want to react to that, you may.

MS GRATTAN: In addition to chairing the Canadian Council for Ministers of Environment, this also meant that Minister Langdon co-chaired the joint ministers meetings, which is a joint meeting of the Ministers of Energy and the Ministers of Environment. With the new focus on greenhouse gases and climate changes, there has been an increase in the number of meetings both at the ministerial level and the deputy level.

In addition, we were supposed to be relieved of or relinquished, depending on the point of view; we were supposed to finish our term as Chair and President of CCME in November, but due to a number of requests from the federal government we actually ended up continuing to chair both those groups until the end of January. Again, that was all additional travel we had to do.

MR. FRENCH: Okay.

Heading 1.2.01, Executive Support, under 01, Salaries, the budgeted amount was $45,800 less than recorded in the Estimates. Why would that have been? Would that have been a position we did not fill or -

MR. HAYWARD: You are comparing which numbers?

MR. FRENCH: Heading 1.2.01, Executive Support, and then 01, Salaries.

MR. HAYWARD: The 1997-1998 budget of $330,300 went to $346,500. Again, that reflects the twenty-seventh pay period and raises less the public relations position, moving to the top, to the Minister's Office.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, just let me check this for a second if you don't mind. I will probably be able to follow you better or you will be able to follow me, one or the other. I am just not following it correctly, that's all.

The Salaries in the 1997 Budget were exceeded by $22,300; from $330,300 up to $352,600. Why?

MR. HAYWARD: Basically that could be accounted for in any number of ways: job classifications, people leaving, the reclassification issue might be out of that, normal steps from the year before, hiring some temporary help, I think, in public relations during peak periods for the conferences, and those kinds of things.

The department as well, Mr. French, has the ability to transfer around salary dollars in its entire envelope. You will see it as you go along through that salary expenditures in other areas were down compared to budget and the department has to have the ability to prioritize its salaries expenditures in that way as long as they come in under budget.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, thank you.

Transportation and Communications, 03.

WITNESS: 1.2.01.03?

MR. HAYWARD: We just went through that one.

MR. FRENCH: Heading 1.2.02, Administrative Support. Salaries went down by some 40 per cent from $151,200. How positions were eliminated, and what positions were they?

MR. HAYWARD: The $151,200 represented a budgetary estimate for the financial administration, human resources and Information Technology areas.

During the last couple of years we have been going through reorganization of the administrative arrangements for the government departments and consolidated the financial resources and Information Technology areas.

In the salary details you will see there are only a couple of positions budgeted here, but the $90,700 was what was required in the Department of Environment and Labour to basically support the Information Technology joint services of the three departments: the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Department of Environment and Labour, and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Again, that money was used in the entire salary account of the department to deal with shortfalls in other areas like pollution prevention and water resources, et cetera. I guess there was some temporary help hired here as well. That is why we did not spend what we needed in the Budget, because of the amalgamation of the services and the fact that we did not need all that money.

MR. FRENCH: The $172,000 in the past fiscal year that was spent in travel -

MR. HAYWARD: No, that covers more than travel. That covers our travel, our postage, and our departmental telephones. It covers three areas.

The reason it is down from $212,000 to $172,000, for the most part, our postage was down from budget. That would be the explanation of the $212,000 from $172,000. That could be accounted for in some mail-outs, less mailings in general, et cetera. I have not done a detailed analysis of the postage budget but the postage was down on a line item.

That covers more than just travel. It has three components.

MR. FRENCH: I guess in the next fiscal year that amount will be actually covered off the same way?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, other areas in the department might have needed money, whatever, so we transfer it around.

MR. FRENCH: Of course I might not be here next year in this same position, but might I suggest that maybe at another time if we could see it probably broken down, what the exact amount was for travel. Because when you look at it you are almost saying that all of that was travel when in actual fact it really was not travel. Someone looking at that would assume that it was all travel and it is not. It does not really give us a fair picture.

MR. HAYWARD: There are four components to that. The travelling budget was $10,300. That was for all the human resource administration, Information Technology people who deal with the regional offices. That could deal with grievances, (inaudible). Telephones for the entire department was $93,600, and postage was $104,000. Then there is travel for relocation, $4,000, (inaudible) $212,000.

There are a number of components. I guess the government has decided to frame its Estimates this way in every account; like Purchased Services has printing services, office rentals, et cetera. Behind every number here there are usually three or four categories of expenditures. That would be a policy issue of how much detail the government wants to show in these Estimates.

MR. FRENCH: Under 07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

MR. HAYWARD: That was the purchase of a vehicle to deal with some of the old vehicles in our fleet, and it was a re-profiling of some of the money in postage and in other areas. It was a deliberate effort on behalf of the minister and the deputy to make some of our vehicles a little more trustworthy in the remote locations that we visit.

MR. FRENCH: So the $34,700 would have bought -

MR. HAYWARD: One to two, depending on if it was a truck or a car.

MR. FRENCH: On Grants and Subsidies - this is 10 - you went over by $10,000. Why would that have been?

MR. HAYWARD: The major component of that would be our grant to the Canadian Ministers of -

WITNESS: CCME? Canadian Ministers of Environment?

MR. HAYWARD: CCME, Canadian Ministers of Environment. The remainder, $10,000, were miscellaneous grants that the minister provided to various worthwhile causes during the year to deal with the environmental issues. Obviously the amount was not that great but there were some causes that came in that the ministers felt they should sponsor.

Again he has the authority, with Treasury Board approval, to move money into grants (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will end on this one. There was $48,000 given out in subsidies. What kind of subsidies would this have been, and what type of people would have received them?

MR. HAYWARD: The major portion, around $38,000 of the money, is our contribution to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, and that is per capita prorated grant to keep that organization going. Maybe Ms. Grattan would like to speak more to that, Mr. French.

MS GRATTAN: I would be please to.

The CCME, the Canadian Council for Ministers of Environment, there is a funding formula in place that roughly - there is a small secretariat which has been down-sized greatly in the last few years, as I understand. It is based in Winnipeg, and all jurisdictions provide the funding for the secretariat. The federal government puts in a third of cost and then the rest of the Provinces divvy it up according to population.

So in fact we, with our relatively small amount, get an enormous research effort for those dollars. Because that not only funds the Canadian Council for Ministers of Environment in the various pieces of research that they do, developing Canada-wide standards on air quality and things like that, but also it helps to fund the national air issues coordinating committee and their research. Again, that touches on things like smog and acid rain and now moving into more climate change issues.

Another group that we did give a grant to, for example, is - as we all remember, last year was Cabot and there were a lot conferences here. There is a major waste management conference, a national one, that we, for example, put $5,000 towards. We also put some money towards the Newfoundland and Labrador environmental network. Those are just some examples that I can think of.

MR. FRENCH: I would not want to leave the impression that I was against some of these things that we do because, in actual fact, sometimes where we spend $5,000 on a conference we might very well make back ten times or twenty times that. I would not want to leave the impression that I am against those things. In fact I am probably all in favour of them, coming from a sporting background. It is a little bit of a different issue, but in reality sometimes we can invest money to certainly put a heck of a lot more money into our economy. I would certainly have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman, and on that note I will end and let somebody else take over.

Thank you, very much.

WITNESS: Okay, Sir, thank you.

CHAIR: We will revert to Gerald Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of general questions. First of all, just looking through the salary details, primarily of interest would be the positions that are maintained within the department. Minister, I wonder if you could just relate, looking under Pollution Prevention, page 74, some of the specialists you have on staff in your department, I am curious as to what role - we are talking pollution prevention - your department plays.

Just recently we have heard the Minister of Forestry announce this year his department will be going to a spray program. How closely does your department coordinate (inaudible) spray program being undertaken by the Department of Forestry? What involvement would your people have with that?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible) for specifics I will let Ann Marie deal with it because she is more familiar with it day to day than myself.

Obviously one of the first things, if the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods this year wanted to do a spray program for Dylox, which is a mild chemical, for example, we ask them first of all to register with the Department of Environment and Labour. They did that. So we work very, very closely with them. In fact, one of the people on our staff, Richard Martin, who is a specialist in insecticides and probably one of the best in his field in all of Canada, works very closely with the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods in that. So yes, we do. I guess it is like a hand in a glove. For the details of it, I will let Ann Marie fill in some more details for you.

MS HANN: Basically, as the minister has indicated, the program is now going through an environmental assessment process. Hopefully, when that project clears that process then basically the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods will submit an application for a pesticide licence. On that basis then we will define them more specifically: the spray program components, the buffer zones that would be tolerated, the requirement for further community consultations, the specifics of the actual spray program, the timing, the scheduling, the public notices and that type of thing. It is all laid out in the terms and conditions of the pesticide licence.

MR. SMITH: One of the things that I get from time to time - and I am sure most MHAs are the same - is a number of calls from constituents who are concerned when they see what they consider to be environmental issues. They call me and say: Well, what can we do about this?

I get a lot of complaints from people who say that the laws are not being enforced - this is the way that they put it to me - that they see blatant violations: various disposing of waste inappropriately, (inaudible) inappropriate places. For example, one of the things in my area that I have dealt with is people going out and just starting excavating in any old place at all, whether for topsoil or whatever, and as a result are leaving eyesores behind or whatever.

In terms of the enforcement end of it, how many people are we prosecuting? This past year, how many people in this Province would have been prosecuted for violations under the environmental regulations?

MS GRATTAN: If I could go first, I don't have a number but I just want to make the point that a lot of things that people feel the environment department is responsible for, inspecting and (inaudible), in fact, since the establishment of the Government Services Centre it is in fact their responsibility. Probably the easiest example to come up with is oil spills. If people find an oil spill or hear of one they still call the Department of Environment and Labour, but in fact that very specifically - our agents in that are the Government Services Centre. We certainly can get that information, and it would be interesting to have, but it would be a combination of work and efforts by our own department as well as Government Services.

MR. SMITH: I guess my question, the crux to what I am asking, is that - one of the charges that I get is that we don't have the resources; that you, Minister, nor anybody in your department, has the resources on a regional basis to adequately deal with it.

Apart from my own experience - as a matter of fact, I dealt with Ann Marie last week on another issue. I have always found officials in your department very cooperative, and in the western region they are very supportive, and I have always gotten a quick response. People have gotten back to me and are very helpful.

The issue that I had on the weekend, Ann Marie did arrange for one of the officials to come out to the district with me and attend a meeting. I am just wondering in terms of that part of it, the information side, whenever there has been a violation or a perceived violation, our ability to react and to take whatever action is necessary. I have had a number of issues in my area and I recognize that sometimes it is not clear-cut; it may be operating over several departments.

One of the things that I mentioned, for example, the operations of these quarries, gravel pits or whatever, they are a real nuisance. People going in and decide: Well, I need a few loads of topsoil.

Without any permits or whatever, they are just going in. People assume it is on their own property and they can go in and do what they like with it, even though it is creating an eyesore.

In my own district right now there are at least four such operations that have operated within the last eighteen months off and on. People have called me and I have directed them to contact environment, just place a phone call. I assume, when they make the initial phone call, if they do not have the right person, they certainly will be directed on as to whom they should contact.

Do we have the capability right now to enforce the regulations as they exist? Do we have the people in the field who can really go out there and follow up on the complaints they are receiving? I know in my own district we still have people who are going out, and not just ordinary citizens, they are commercial enterprises. Somebody will get a contract to go in and do a cleanup in a certain area. I will get a call from someone saying: You know where they dumped that material when they cleaned up? It is down on the beach.

On the education side of it we still have not convinced the people in this Province that the environment is a concern to all of us. Coming from an educational background, one of the things that always struck me, in the school system over the last ten years or fifteen year there has been a great emphasis on ecology and the environment and anything else. It never fails to strike me; every time I drive from home to Stephenville, which is about thirty miles, I do not think I have ever made the trip without seeing Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes - no disrespect, Jim -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: It really strikes me in a broader sense, like in terms of the enforcement end of it. It seems to be an area... Education is great. It is alright to say we will educate people. If we were living in an ideal world it would be nice if everybody respected the environment and none of these things happened. The reality is that it is happening and we do have incidents where people are not behaving as they should and not observing the laws as they presently exist on the books.

It is just a general observation. I don't know; I cannot say it is widespread. I know in my own district... Maybe it is a good sign. Maybe people are starting to realize that it is a concern, but it bothers me if I go down to a beautiful area on the beach where I grew up and a contractor has gone in there a week before - I get a call and go down - and has excavated a section of the bank about the size of this room for topsail. No permits, nothing at all, just gone in and carried away truckload after truckload of soil. Of course, once it is gone the damage is done and they have created this monstrous eyesore in what was a very pristine area.

MS GRATTAN: To follow up the bad example of essential illegal quarries and quarrying, that would effectively come under Mines and Energy but with a role again played by Government Services.

We keep hearing similar concerns like: Who do we take our complaint to? Hopefully, as you say, people are directed to the right place. If it comes to environment, certainly our guys obviously know what is still their responsibility, and we will try and respond. They also know where to send people, but it would seem that it's not clear enough.

I would say that I know on the West Coast - Ann Marie jump in - we feel comfortable with the staffing levels on the West Coast and here. One area (inaudible) people have just huge expanses of geography to cover to get from one problem area, or one area where they have a piece of work to do, is in Central, where we have a very small group operating out of Grand Falls.

MR. SMITH: Just one other question with regards to that. In terms of the penalties presently, as prescribed under the legislation, how severe are the penalties for anybody who breaks the law as it pertains to abuse of the environment?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS HANN: There is a maximum penalty, if I recall, (inaudible) for example for a pollution violation is $25,000.

MR. SMITH: Would that apply to an individual or are we talking like to a company?

MS HANN: No, that would be for businesses, corporations. Off the top of my head I don't know what the individuals are. I think it is almost (inaudible).

MS GRATTAN: If I may just add, one of the pieces of work we are doing right now is to modernize the environmental protection act. One of the aspects of it will be to increase the capability of environmental officers in the field to actually act in the field. Also, we are looking at a variety of measures, even things like issuing tickets and administrative penalties.

An example is people who have large fuel tanks. As part of their license they have to send in records. They are called dipping levels. They have to send those records in, say, on a monthly basis. An administrative penalty would be if they don't or if they are late then they will be penalized some sort of dollar level. That will gradually escalate as the seriousness of the offence increases. That piece of legislation is something we are working on and hope to have to the House this fall.

MR. LANGDON: The other thing too, Gerald, the piece of legislation that we are talking about, the newest environmental assessment act, what we will be hoping in the legislation is that the people who work in forestry, when they see something that is blatant in the environment then they will be able to help us. Like people from Kevin's department, the wildlife officers who have been integrated into environment protection officers. So this is where in a sense cross-sectioning of government - they will be able to enforce legislation.

Because like you said, all the education in the world out there, at the end of the day somebody is going to do something in the environment that isn't (inaudible). So if our people go down and see a contractor, for example, (inaudible), we should be able to ticket this right on the spot. Up to now we have not been able to do that. Probably the enforcement has not been up to standard, but we are addressing that, hopefully to rectify it.

MR. SMITH: I think that is a good move, Minister, (inaudible) share responsibility (inaudible) wildlife.

Just one other question, Mr. Chairman, and that specifically relates to item 4.2.01, the Assistance To St. Lawrence Miners' Dependents. Can you tell me a little about that? Page 108, 4.2.01.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, that's an allowance of $66,000 that is provided to supplement the benefits that pre-1982 widows of St. Lawrence Miners have been receiving over the years. There was a study done a number of years ago where some of the widows were determined to be in really difficult financial situations so this money was allocated to supplement their income.

MR. SMITH: How long has this been in place now?

MR. HAYWARD: I would say at least five or six years, maybe even longer.

MR. SMITH: How many people (inaudible)?

MR. HAYWARD: A small few. I couldn't give you an exact number, but it came as a result of an identification of certain widows in St. Lawrence who were really in difficult financial situations.

MR. SMITH: I wasn't aware of this, that is why I raised the question. I'm not just asking questions for my own information. When the decision was made to initiate this, was this a recognition on the part of the government of the day that they had to accept some responsibility for the fact that there had not been sufficient monitoring done with regards to the fluorspar operation in St. Lawrence out there?

MR. HAYWARD: As I recall it, and I'm thinking now, it was probably back in the late 1980s that in fact it was one of two mediators in the department who did the study, or was asked to go to St. Lawrence and interview the widows down there. Because there were some concerns that some of the widows were in difficult financial situations for any number of reasons. This was, of course, in addition to the workers' compensation premiums they had already been receiving. As a result of some representation being made at the time, the individual from the department went to St. Lawrence, interviewed the widows there, and as a result of that they decided to supplement the income of those people who were felt to be in very difficult financial situations. That is an amount that just keeps flowing over year after year, the $66,000.

MR. SMITH: I'm certainly not questioning that it's not a (inaudible), or something we shouldn't be doing. It is just knowing somewhat generally about the history of the area, and the fact that that operation there certainly took a tremendous toll (inaudible) life of the operation of the mine. How long has that mine been closed? (Inaudible) used, is it?

MR. HAYWARD: The last I can recall of the aluminium mine in St. Lawrence being a major issue is in the mid-1970s. I know there was a major strike down there in 1975, and shortly after that there was a movement to shut the mine down. It's been shut for quite a number of years. Of course, it has been reopened again, you know, under - I think Lynn Verge reopened it at one point. Then there was a further attempt to re-open it again. The Alcan mine, as it used to be, in 1975 was the big strike, so it was shortly after that. Probably 1977.

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerald. Loyola? Then we will go to Rick.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Just to follow up first there on what Gerald mentioned. For instance, I guess an incident that this year probably highlights something Gerald mentioned in the La Manche area. I know the Department of Mines and Energy issued a permit for someone to quarry there, and I think the Department of Environment and Labour laid down certain conditions which the person had to comply with. I know at the time I raised it and complained. I think the Department of Mines and Energy had someone up there and found them violating the terms of the permit, and automatically I think terminated the permit and the person had to get out of there. The site is not pretty, really, at all.

I'm just wondering what role your department would play in insuring that the appropriate restoration occurs, because it is certainly an environmental problem. I know the resources to do that... they aren't all the responsibility of the individual who went in there, of course, because it probably I think had been building for some time. Certainly, there is a certain amount of responsibility by the person who violated that, there is no doubt there. It's being used by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Others had stopped using it some time ago. It's been extended and it's in a state now that has to be put back.

I have spoken with people within the Department of Works, Services and Transportation too to see what could be done. Probably what could be done is a few dollars to piecemeal it and put it back, do a little bit as time goes on. There has to be something more significant there and I think a role that somebody has to play, if not the Department of Environment and Labour, insuring that gets done as expeditiously as possible. I'm just wondering what role the Department of Environment and Labour would play in following up to insure that it is restored to the condition it was in prior to work being done there.

MR. LANGDON: I will comment first and then I will let Ann Marie talk about what (inaudible), the new environmental assistant act is going to do to try to rectify some of that.

I would think, Loyola, that up to now, whoever has a permit in a sense to operate a gravel pit - like it was in the La Manche area in your situation - that at the time that the person was given the permit to do the work, I'm not sure if any money for restoration of that particular piece of land was built in to a part of giving him that work. I stand to be corrected on that, but I don't think it has been the practice in the past to do it.

We started in that process - we didn't get a chance to operate it, of course - in Voisey's Bay. We were going to do that temporary air strip and the four kilometres of road to go to the eastern depth. We had stipulated that the company put up a $1 million dollar bond to restore that particular piece of land if the project didn't go ahead. Obviously, it didn't go ahead because the courts deemed it otherwise.

Under the new environmental legislation that we plan to introduce - we hope to get it done in the spring, I do not know if we will or not - that will be a part of the program we will introduce at the beginning, right, that part of the restoration. You can go ahead and go in detail what you are familiar with. She gave a presentation to our group today, so we might be able to do it for your caucus as well. Go ahead.

MS HANN: If I may, Mr. Sullivan, I'm not personally familiar with the situation which you are talking about, but I guess potentially, that situation or others, there are two scenarios that we could be talking about. If it is one that the approach had proceeded based on an approval granted by the Department of Mines and Energy then the onus would be primarily on the Department of Mines and Energy to enforce the terms and conditions of its permitting.

In terms of the direct role that we would play, I would assume that basically we would try and work with the Department of Mines and Energy to encourage them to try and clean up that site. If in fact we as the Department of Environment and Labour have also issued approvals - should be for some streams or a river in the vicinity of that project - then we would have a lever to go in there. Primarily, we would be relying and trying to work with the Department of Mines and Energy in the first instance to be sure they follow through on their piece of legislation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because basically here, there is a stream pretty close, right alongside there in La Manche Valley, and siltage and problems. I think some of villains in this case too probably have been government departments, in the sense that it's been used by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for years, and then different contractors went in there. This individual went in because he was supplying sand to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation - it could be provided cheaper because it was the closest site -, so to go in under restrictive conditions to allow him to achieve an end that would be cheaper for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, I think they have to bear a certain responsibility.

When it is convenient for government sometimes, from one department, sometimes conditions might get stretched, or limitations imposed, that might allow something to happen that might not ordinarily get done if it is a private contractor out there.

I think there are certain responsibilities here. I think the department should be very proactive in insuring that there is appropriate monitoring and appropriate follow-up to insure that somebody has to do the work. Whether it is the Department of Mines and Energy which didn't monitor it or whether it is the Department of Works, Services and Transportation which utilized it, I think the Department of Environment and Labour has a role on the environment, the stream there and so on. There is fish in that stream. It's a pretty area just right across the road from La Manche Park, actually, and the boundary. I just want to comment there.

I have a couple of more technical things, and then I will just pass on to someone else. Earlier there in 1.2.02, under Administrative Support, I know Bob had asked about the change in the budget from last year under Salaries, from $151,200 down to $90,700. I know the salary departmental details there show two positions, and it is down to two. Why then would it be back up again if there was some re-organizing restructuring? It did go from $151,200 in the budget last year, ended up at $90,700. That is on page 104 in the Estimates. Why would it be back up again if it's restructured?

MR. HAYWARD: There are only two permanent positions in that category, as you have identified, (inaudible) $90,700.

MR. SULLIVAN: That adds up to $90,700.

MR. HAYWARD: There is a need, and I think what I was trying to say to Mr. French was that we were dealing with the administrative and the organization in three departments: Environment and Labour, Industry, Trades and Technology, and Tourism, Culture and Recreation. All had little pockets of money before, and they have little pockets of money left after.

One of the areas where I think the deputy had some concerns was in the Information Technology area. I think there is a certain level of service that is acceptable. During the Budget process, while we didn't have any permanent positions in this category, Mr. Sullivan, the deputy did realize that, I think, the Information Technology area in the department, and I think not only in this department but in three departments, could do with a little bit of bumping up. There was some money left over from the amalgamation of the administration services. While we don't have permanent positions there, she did want to allocate some money to deal with our Information Technology problem.

It is there. I hate to use the word un-allocated, but it's a little bit of discretionary money that she has there without specifically knowing it. I would like to think that it is going to the Information Technology service that is being provided by our department. That could also be available for some temporary help in summer relief for our receptionist and our registry and our mail clerks, that mind of thing. There is some money there for Information Technology and other initiatives.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why wouldn't that be allocated to .12 if there is a perceived need there? It's in the Salaries.

MR. HAYWARD: Number twelve.

MR. SULLIVAN: Information Technology. That is all the expenditures other than salaries.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Specifically the point I am making is this. If we only spent $90,700 last year and we want to spend another $70,000-some, is there an identified need for it, or is that only a little bit of a cushion that we may need to move around within the department?

MR. HAYWARD: 1.2.02.12 deals with maintenance systems, systems (inaudible), hardware, other than salaries.

MR. SULLIVAN: Other than salaries, yes.

MR. HAYWARD: The salaries component in .01 there would clearly be people who go around fixing machines, showing people how to use the software and equipment that we buy. It is clearly salaries for -

MR. SULLIVAN: Has there been anybody hired for that? There are two positions listed here. Is it the intent to hire a third or a fourth person?

MS GRATTAN: As we need. It's an area where we feel that personnel need a lot of training; and it is more cost effective, from the point of view of easier to get continued assistance if it is done in-house.

MR. SULLIVAN: With reference to Purchased Services there, $320,900, what might be the major items there be in the breakdown of that?

MR. HAYWARD: Rental of offices -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is there any breakdown of rentals? For example, what you mentioned there, before you get into specifics, for space within the Confederation Building. Is there a pro rata breakdown of costs for each department or is that all absorbed under the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, for instance?

MR. HAYWARD: That is all absorbed under the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. There is some money allocated there for us to do one office in Corner Brook. Right now we are in two or three locations. There is some money there for that. We rent some space collectively in Labrador. We share the cost in Labrador. We rent some Occupational Health and Safety space in Corner Brook. In addition to that there are some printing services there. The departmental and entertainment protocol budget is there as well. Purchased Services such as photocopier repairs, maintenance, and those kind of things are in there as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: What might rentals, under Purchased Services, end up costing out of the $320,900?

MR. HAYWARD: Office rental is budgeted at around $280,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: The big chunk of that would be rental of space at various locations.

MR. HAYWARD: Office rentals, and also photocopier rentals, fax rentals, other kinds of rentals.

MR. SULLIVAN: Total rentals. You can come back to me after, Mr. Chairman, if you like. (Inaudible) questions.

MR. HAYWARD: I just recollected there that we rent space for the labour division over in the Beothic Building and the Workers' Compensation Review Division rents space as well. I just wanted to (inaudible). I didn't think Corner Brook was the only thing there. There are other locations.

CHAIR: That is a good place to spend money though, Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland.

Rick and then Harvey.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under 2.2.02, Water Quality Agreement, it says: "Appropriations provide for the implementation of the Federal-Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Agreement." What is that composed of? What portion is paid for by the federal government?

MS HANN: I don't know the specifics of the Agreement but it is a 50-50 and a cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government. Sorry, provincial.

MR. WOODFORD: Under the Water Quality Agreement it provides for the implementation. That would leave me to believe that this is something new. Is it?

MS GRATTAN: No. This has been ongoing for quite some time, although it has been down sized over the years as the federal government, as well as ourselves, have had to cut back. That includes things like hydrometric sampling of rivers and water quality sampling of rivers and lakes.

MR. WOODFORD: But it's fifty-fifty?

MS GRATTAN: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. HAYWARD: That is the Province's $141,200 there, and the feds spend their $142,000 through their accounts, Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: They spend it through you people? No?

MR. HAYWARD: Not (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: This is yours and that is it. They spend theirs on their own.

I will be something like Gerald now, and ask about some district things I have been noticing over the years. It is a good time to bring them up now when I have a lot of the officials together collectively and someone can answer me.

First, gas stations around the Province. I have noticed over the years, and have had some examples of it, that if a person had a gas station say, for argument's sake, for twenty years, and he just closed it down and left it, there seems to be nothing done with it until someone else goes in and buys the property. They usually then have to have an assessment done, especially when they go for a permit from the Department of Environment and Labour.

I have an example now in Deer Lake where there is a business hung up because of that. There was an old gas stations on the site. Who is liable for that? I can understand if the property is bought, but if the property is not bought and they go in and find some kind of contamination there or something, who is liable for that particular problem? Is there anybody in the department who can say: You have to take that out, or you can sell it and the purchaser takes it at their own risk, or what?

MS HANN: Is this somebody who sort of bought it maybe unknowingly?

MR. WOODFORD: They had an option to buy. They have an extension, a thirty day option on the property, but they found out after the fact that there was an old gas station on the property and now they are a bit hesitant about development. They are doing some testing there now, but who would be responsible in that case? Now I understand the potential purchaser is not going to be responsible, because he hasn't done anything, but say, for argument's sake, that someone went in and actually bought it, and then all of sudden they were hung-up, who would be responsible?

MS HANN: I guess if it can be traced to the occupant then that is what would be done. However, I think today, as I understand it, it is the occupant at the time. If you don't know who it is, that he unknowingly (inaudible) and it is discovered after, then technically he is liable.

MR. WOODFORD: Those fellows came close to buying the property and (inaudible) -

WITNESS: (Inaudible) own money (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

WITNESS: Using their own money.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, (inaudible). They can well do it, but I'm thinking about an individual.

WITNESS: Banks will ask for it.

MR. WOODFORD: Banks will, that is where you will get caught, a lot of individuals and people who have to look for financing, but anybody who (inaudible) doesn't. Then on the other hand you say: If they are not looking for financing, they can damn well afford to remove the contaminated soil. There are quite a few questions asked about that in my area in the last few weeks.

I had another example too of a business person who was tied in with an oil company. They broke the contract, two years left on their contract, broke it and left it, turned the key and said: Here, this is it, we are not selling your product any more. They went and started to look for another dealer, they have a contract signed with another operator, but the previous operator they were with will not let them go. They are saying: If you do not let us go with this new operator here are the keys, here is the building, take it and go. They aren't saying that, but I'm of understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that once a garage is closed for one year whoever should take it then, if they should operate it again, the tanks must be exposed and inspected. Is that true?

MS HANN: I'm not aware of that personally, that requirement, no. I don't know, Leslie, if you can-

MS GRATTAN: No, I'm not either.

MS HANN: That is the first I have heard of it.

MR. WOODFORD: Interesting. Because this operator has been told - well, to another party - that if it's left a year this is why - say for argument's sake, in this case Imperial Oil - would be keeping them on a string for a year. Once the twelve months is up, if I went in then, or they went with another operator, or I took it over, then those tanks would have to be exposed and they would have to be inspected. You are saying that you don't know of a rule saying that.

MS HANN: No sir, I don't.

MR. WOODFORD: Is that right?

MS HANN: If we could, Mr. Woodford, we will check into it and get back to you.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I would appreciate that. Because it seems like a dirty hand in there, you know.

MS HANN: I think it would be quite an onerous requirement to impose. I guess what we are trying to lean towards is depending on the material, like the tank. (Inaudible) some tanks (inaudible) stay there for forty years. Other tanks, maybe through some small modifications, can stay in the ground forever. We can empty them and fill them with sand. It's not an automatic requirement that tanks after a certain period of time come out of the ground (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That's interesting. I will get this checked out. We will have to see if there is a rule or a law. Because I know this has been insinuated by this particular company that, you know: You might as well tear up your other contract because we are going to keep you for another month. Once that twelve months is up they won't (inaudible) do it anyway, because we are going to make sure that you... Once the year is up everything has to be exposed. So that is interesting.

That's all, Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) questions I was going to ask. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you. Harvey, and then we will go (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: A lot of the questions that I have here, I noted as we were going through, have already been asked, but I have a couple of things to ask. I wanted to go to 2.2.01, Water Resources Management, on page 105.

I wanted to bring up the matter that is a real problem for many municipalities, and that is the issue of building permits being issued by municipalities in watersheds, and the building in watersheds. It's a real problem in many municipalities in the Province. The applicants will often go to the Department of Health and Community Services and they will get their approval, then they will go to various agencies, and yet the Department of Environment and Labour has said that this is an environmentally protected area, it is a watershed.

We have in some municipalities - for example, the local area of Paradise, the area in parts of St. Phillips and Portugal Cove, and also right on the roadway up on Bay Bulls-Big Pond - cabins and residences, there have been extensions. You can drive along the highway going down the Southern Shore and you can see the sewer septic tank outfalls right down across the beach. What is wrong? We aren't making two things happen: (a) more progress on places like Bay Bulls-Big Pond, and (b) that we aren't doing what we said would be done, in other words a one-stop shopping kind of thing with these one-stop approvals. Yet the Department of Health and Community Services is not respecting the legislation of the Department of Environment and Labour. (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: To be honest with you, this is the first I have known where that has happened. I have not been familiar with it and no one has brought that to our attention. I have made note of it here, and I'm sure to the officials, that we will address the issue and hopefully have an answer for you. I can't give you an answer as to why they would do it. To think that one department of government would, in a sense, undermine what the other department was doing just doesn't make sense to me at all.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) I'm sure that Leslie is familiar with it, (inaudible) that the applicant will go to the Department of Health and Community Services. They look purely at the thing and ask: Is the disposal field sufficient here to be able to take care of this particular issue? In doing that they haven't had any reference at all to the environmental aspect or to the control, if necessary, for this area. You get a great deal of conflict at the municipal level. Very often you can have approval, for example, in the town of Paradise where our (inaudible) places that are built that are actually in the watershed.

I think the member for the area is very familiar with this. I bring it to the attention of the minister because in some instances it's still going on. I think both departments should be aware of it, and that where it has been happening we have to kind of (inaudible) the same input.

The other issue I brought up was the issue of Bay Bulls-Big Pond. I was down on the waterfront last (inaudible) when the Premier and the mayors of St. John's and - well, he was the only one who got his name on the plaque - (inaudible) we were a little bit peeved with that (inaudible)-

CHAIR: But you aren't bitter, Mount Pearl is not bitter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) my name (inaudible) the Mayor of Paradise's name on the plaque, because this was supposed to be a joint effort (inaudible) announcements, and then it becomes a one-person show.

My point is this. The issue was: We have to bring all those tourists in, we have to (inaudible) our hotels, and we are embarrassed because they (inaudible) and we are aware of the minimums of (inaudible) sewage go out there today kind of thing. Here we are saying: Here is our $40-million-dollar treatment plant, paid for totally and completely by federal money. If you drive down the Southern Shore and we have out there, right along this highway here - when I was a member of the Metro Board we tried to get it stopped and so on and so forth. Right now it is within the City of St. John's control but we are doing nothing to stop the continuance of that particular problem. Why aren't we putting more pressure on the municipal government to say we have to stop this kind of thing? Because I noticed last year there was another extension to a cottage up there or something, and it just keeps on going.

MR. LANGDON: The Bay Bull-Big Pond area.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe, if I could interject on that too, it being in my district. Since we got Harvey away from the Metro Board there has been progress

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The representation has been very effective since, but I guess I want to make a couple of points. One is this. There is a required separation from waterways, of course, when anyone is applying for land. In fact, I have dealt with instances of that when people want to get allotments near a waterway or water supply. There has to be a certain separation; if not, it doesn't get approval.

I have had a file I went through last week. I had to go back and speak to someone who can redesign that land where the layout of lots would be such that you would get the required separation and so on in sufficient amounts. That is one thing. I think in Bay Bulls-Big Pond and right in that section, right in through Middle Pond, there have been no approvals of new housing in that area for the past twenty-something years.

MR. H. HODDER: Fifty per cent (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but there has been no new -

MR. H. HODDER: You have you foundation there, and if it's fifty years old, you can prove that your family is there, you can keep on (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but there hasn't been one built in over twenty years. For instance, there were houses on the water side, to use an example, that have now been taken down. That has been an encouragement. I think there was initially, I'm not sure, a buy out or some type of thing to encourage people to move from the water side there. There certainly have been improvements there. I don't know what the basic amount is but I know there has been a freeze and nobody permitted to build. I think when you are a certain distance -

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, he is using up my time, you know.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is my intention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now that I have clarified that point, with the permission of the Chairman I asked to clarify a few points. I will now stop.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have heard the question and the clarification.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to go back to a question I asked on a previous occasion, what we are doing to try to improve landfill sites in the Province? (Inaudible) our communities we still have many of these sites that are in very poor condition. We don't seem to be making as much progress I'm sure as we would like to have. What initiatives are we acting on to improve landfill sites from an environmental perspective?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. LANGDON: Harvey, I was listening to you. I (inaudible) to Ann Marie. You are right. I go up to my own area and I see some of the gravel pits along the side of the road that were used to build the Bay d'Espoir Highway, and to re-pave the Bay d'Espoir Highway. It's happened over the last number of years that they have taken those pits along the side of the road and, at the end of the day, they aren't restored. In a sense there is no plan of action from the department right now to do that, things that have happened in the past. No doubt we will have to get together with the Department of Mines and Energy and probably with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

Probably I'm off target. Am I off target?

WITNESS: That is the wrong answer, (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The answer is very good.

MR. LANGDON: I'm sorry about that.

MR. WOODFORD: Then again, the minister is not much off on that, because a lot of those pits around are used for (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Not totally irrelevant, because a lot of them are (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: You are right. As far as the landfill sites are concerned in the Province, we have roughly 270 of them.

MR. WOODFORD: Two hundred and seventy?

MR. LANGDON: Two hundred and seventy. In New Brunswick there are less than forty. I think there are thirty-something landfill sites in New Brunswick. Recently what had happened in Nova Scotia was this. They have built an incinerator, state-of-the-art. I haven't seen it. I think my predecessor, Kevin, and some of the department were there to see it in Sydney.

All of the waste for Cape Breton Island is trucked to that one incinerator, even the medical waste and so on. The people were telling me that if you want to, in Sydney, it's right down in the town itself, that when it is operational you can't tell which of the stacks are being used because it is so clean and so on.

One of the things that we have looked at for this area, Harvey, from within the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and our own, and within the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, we have been looking at the possibility of having one incinerator for the Avalon which would take care of it. Because we have to address Robin Hood Bay. The (inaudible) is a real concern in our view. Get up in a plane on a clear day and you can see the flume out over the water, and obviously that can't go on forever. We must address that.

Like I said, it's only in the preliminary stages yet. If we could have one incinerator for the whole Avalon to do that, to take care of these sites, I think it would eliminate thirty-seven sites if we were to have that one incinerator. I guess at the end of the day we don't want to be able to charge for tonnage any more than we have to. However, I guess society itself and the people out there are going to demand much more of the environment, that it be more pristine and so on.

What it would cost, at the end of the day, to transport the waste from St. John's, Mount Pearl or whatever area might be will depend on the number of dollars the government might put in to construct that facility. For example, let's assume that if government were to build it outright for the whole Avalon region, the 200,000 people who are here, it might, at the end of the day, if we were to go that route, cost the municipalities no more, probably a little less than they are now. It will depend, of course, on the level of government participation in that for your dumping fees, as to what they would cost.

It certainly has to be addressed. I think that in time that - well, no site has been determined or anything like that. We are just looking at the feasibility of what it would be, what it would cost, if we were to build one big incinerator here based on the Sydney model for the Avalon.

What is happening in Central Newfoundland, for example, is very interesting. Grand Falls-Windsor has a state-of-the-art incinerator system there. What we have been able to deal with, in the last number of months, because of the source of the sites in Millertown, Millertown Junction, Buchans and Buchans Junction, they are putting their waste garbage in bins that are being trucked to Grand Falls-Windsor to be used in their incinerator. The last report that I had in talking to the minister is that it is working well. By the way, Botwood and Peterview are using that facility as well. The garbage is put in big bins in the town and trucks come in and take those bins - something like the waste BFI has here -, those containers and take them to the site. We are hoping to entice communities like Point Leamington to come in, and probably even Leading Tickles, Glovers Harbour and even Lewisporte. The more people that will use it, the more economical it would be.

It's something that has to be done, there are no two ways about that. Still, there is the community attitude in some cases. We are looking at the situation in Brighton-Triton area, where we could take all the waste from Brighton, Triton, Pilley's Island and all the places around, and we could put it into South Brook. Their capacity there is able to handle it with no problem. The point is that the South Brook council is saying: You aren't going to put it in my back yard.

At the end of the day, I think that with consultation with them, and looking at that, that we will help to maintain it and the other communities as well. Then we will be able to close out four or five other landfill sites and be able to use that one to a regional approach. I think that is the way it's going to go. As I said, I think society demands it of us. Our tippage fees I think in St. John's right now is $22 a ton, in that area I think, Harvey. In New Brunswick some of the cities there, because of the fewer landfill sites that they have, and there is a large number of miles that they are trucking, they are paying up to $60 and $70 a ton.

Obviously, what we have to do is be more cognizant about our recycling and to eliminate the amount of waste that would go into landfill, and that municipalities would have to send to the site. That is a process that is ongoing, and hopefully at the end of the day we can make some more improvements there.

It's our wish, obviously to be able to close out as many of these as we can, but yet we have to proceed slowly, and at the end of the day, I guess, get the communities to work with us. What we are doing, hopefully, is to have the communities see that we aren't imposing something. We want to be able to be able to work with them to find an alternative to the way they are doing things now.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you intend to draw up some kind of a consultation paper-

MR. LANGDON: Yes, definitely.

MR. H. HODDER: - on that, and will that be coming out in the next while?

MR. LANGDON: I would say that after the preliminary test (inaudible) is done as to what it would cost. Because at the end of the day it might not be feasible to build one incinerator for the whole of the Avalon. When all the numbers are crunched and we think that it would be, then sure, you go to consultation to everybody, put out a White Paper. I can see that it would be probably two or three years, or probably even four years down the road before it becomes a reality. You want to have consultation with all the regions involved.

MR. H. HODDER: One last question. I want to ask one on workplace and safety services, (inaudible) particularly about the offshore. What is the role of the department in monitoring workplace health and safety in the offshore sites and what is the role of the industry itself? I was looking a couple of models: the European model (inaudible) very different than ours and that kind of thing. Some of the work that came out of the North Sea and how they have basically said that government let too much of the responsibility be controlled by, or took the word of, the industry itself too much. What kind of steps are we taking to make sure that our monitoring of workplace safety is being followed in a way that recognizes our learning from the experiences of the (inaudible)?

MR. LANGDON: I will start and then I will pass it to the expert, the lady who helped to devise some of those plans. She is very knowledgeable about it.

Let's look at Canada first. Basically, what you have is the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. They use the window, if I can use that. The window in the federal government would be the Department of Energy there, and the same thing here. It's channelled through them to the Department of Mines and Energy for us. That is the window. Then from that they pass the information to us, and obviously we work in relation with them.

For example, when we look at our responsibility for people who work on the rig, okay - that is our responsibility from a provincial point of view - we have occupational health and safety people on the rig. They have health and safety committees. We had a committee meeting with them on the rig. We have inspectors that go out there I think probably once a month, and they stay two to three days out there and do their inspections.

What we also have are the C-NOPB people. They have, I think it is, four inspectors. They operate from Atlantic Place in St. John's. They do go out and they do their inspections regularly. However, after having said all that, there is a difference between the way we do it here on the rig then say, for example, in Norway. Here the inspectors who work out of Atlantic Place and are employed by C-NOPB, if they saw something that was unusual they have the right to shut the rig down.

In Norway, the people who work on the rigs themselves, the workers, the people who are participating in the Occupational Health and Safety Committees, if they see something that is, as they would see it, a hazard to the worker, they themselves have the right to shut that down. Obviously our inspectors shut it down, not the people on the rigs, so there is a bit of difference on that. But it could very well be, at the end of the day, that the C-NOPB should report not only to the Minister of Mines and Energy as the window, but probably that window should also include the Department of Environment and Labour. It should probably include the Department of Labour in the federal jurisdiction as well, but that is not the way that it does it. It is the window, but we participate with them regularly and keep abreast of things that happen.

With that as an introduction I will let you fill in.

MS GRATTAN: Not that he left a lot for me to add but, as the minister, said the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has been formally designated through a Memorandum of Understanding to be our agents in the offshore. It is our Occupational Health and Safety legislation that is applied offshore as well as anything... There is also a specific set of offshore safety regulations. The key differences are the additions that come from our legislation.

I should turn this over to Joe, the ADM of Labour, this is his particular expertise, but it is that there must be, as the minister referenced, Occupational Health and Safety Committees on the platform; and yes, when we were out to the platform we were invited to attend one of those meetings. The employer is to provide a safe workplace and an employee, a worker, has the right to refuse work on the grounds of safety. Those are particular specific provincial requirements that C-NOPB also applies offshore.

Joe, can you think of anything else to add to Mr. Hodder's question?

MR. O'NEILL: No, I think you have pretty well covered everything. I think our deputy minister is probably being a little bit humble because I think she has probably more knowledge of this than most people around, having come from the oil industry herself and being very, very familiar with safety plans. I do not know if you wanted to add that Leslie, because you certainly gave me a good description of it yesterday in terms of companies that have to file very, very detailed safety plans at the beginning, right at the design stage, in terms of...

So there is a lot more to safety with respect to offshore installations than meets the eye. It goes right back to the development of safety plans, with which I understand our deputy minister was very much involved in her former life.

MR. H. HODDER: The reason I bring the question up is because there is some literature floating around which makes comparisons between the practices in the North Sea, Norway, and other countries, that says we had better make sure we do not let the industry govern itself and control itself and feed its own self information that, in essence, amounts to less than a satisfactory adherence to the policies that are put down by governments of whatever country we are talking about.

Having asked the question, I guess, also in the background of the Ocean Ranger, today is the day on which we are focusing on that particular thing: the safety, the hazards, and what happened. I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to be assured that here are the policies that are going to be supreme, it is a government that is going to be in charge, and we are not going to have some boss on some rig intimidate, bully his way through or whatever, and thereby put the almighty dollar and the production line before we follow closely the safety regulations. I ask it because of the day, and also because of the literature that is circulating relative to what we should be learning from the North Sea.

MS GRATTAN: Joe, did you want to follow up? You might want to comment on the Morgan Cooper report and recommendation number 12.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes.

Morgan Cooper did a study for the department on offshore labour relations. He included in recommendation number 12 an observation with respect to safety in the offshore, and that was as the result of his visit to the UK and Norway. That was done last year and was followed closely by a visit which I attended with former Minister Aylward. We visited the UK as well, and also Norway.

You are quite right, Mr. Hodder, one of the issues involved - particularly Norway. In Norway, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, which is akin to our Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, reports and has a dual reporting relationship to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Energy. As Minister Langdon has said, the way it is addressed here is that while the reporting relationship of C-NOPB is to the Minister of Energy, there is a memorandum of agreement in place and there is an understanding whereby information relating to Occupational Health and Safety is dealt with by the department; so we do have that kind of liaison with C-NOPB through Mines and Energy.

In fact, I think February 24 was the last meeting whereby C-NOPB gave the departments - Leslie, the minister and I attended that briefing - a full update. That included, of course, safety measures with respect to the rig.

Just to get back to Morgan Cooper's recommendation, largely this is where his recommendation came from, his observance of these types of practices which we observed as well. What we are doing as we speak - in fact, I left a meeting this evening before I attended the dinner meeting - we are in the process now of hiring somebody to work full time on that file, to analyze what Morgan Cooper is saying with respect to addressing that issue, with respect to the reporting relationship. We are hoping to very quickly have somebody address that file and work on it full time.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you have documentation available that would tell us the number of accidents that have occurred requiring from first aid to people being lifted off the rig or evacuated because of a broken leg or arm or whatever? Do you have documentation available that we could have to show us exactly what happened, what the history has been, and the number of incidents of workers' safety that has (inaudible) on the rig since it has been out there?

WITNESS: Since it has been out there? Yes, that material would be gathered by C-NOPB and they would have those records.

MR. H. HODDER: Could that be forwarded to our office so we could have a look at it and be up to date?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: I asked the question because there have been comments made in the local area that may be correct or may be incorrect; but when words are spread around, sometimes they have a tendency to mushroom and anxieties go up (inaudible) and that kind of thing. I asked the question for clarification, and I am happy to know that you are going to send it over to us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

Mr. Walsh and then Mrs. Osborne.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to be brief because just about everything has been covered and I guess we are almost ready to go to the item-by-item vote. I just have a quick question, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the minister. It is of a personal nature more than anything.

We are heading into recycling. You have the Stewardship Board in place and I pay my six cents every time I buy something. They tell me, whenever I bring my cans in - and I do it now out of spite - I bring them in crushed and they do not want to take them. I leave them; I do not get my three cents. Is there any reason why in Newfoundland - you can do it everywhere else - we are not allowed to crush our cans? The plastic bottles I do not mind, but this silliness about... They only weigh them. They tell me how many pounds are in it and they give me my twenty cents, but if I crush them and bring in fifty pounds... I don't know if any of you are into recycling. I really want to participate, and I want to do what I can.

Some of you do not know me very well and others know me too well. The fact that out of spite I am actually leaving money behind when I drive away, anyone who knows me knows what that means. I would walk through my own parking lot just to pick up the pennies when I was in business. They won't take them. Yet, as soon as they go into the building they are run through a machine and crushed, packed up and sent away. Is that the Stewardship Board being a deterrent so they do not want to give me back my money? I know you don't know the answer right off, but I am asking, Minister, why can't - because if I am just doing it out of spite, how many Newfoundlanders are just throwing them into the garbage and they are ending up creating the same problems you are trying to deal with over in Robin Hood Bay or some other landfill? They are all cans. I am just wondering why I can't crush my cans?

MR LANGDON: If you go out to the Nova recycling plant on Torbay Road near the airport you will see that there are two ladies there who have the electronic devices. When a can is not crushed, it is pretty easy to be able to scan the bar code to verify it. When it is crushed it is impossible, in a sense, to do that, they are saying. So those cans that come in are counted, and after they are counted they are crushed. They are not crushed before.

MS S. OSBORNE: Why do they need the bar code?

MR LANGDON: I don't know.

MR. WALSH: I am saying, how come? I don't mind paying three cents on a soft drink can. I don't mind paying it on a can of soup or a can of beans or anything else, buy why do they count them and weigh them?

MR LANGDON: I cannot give you the answer to that. Ann Marie sits on the board (inaudible).

MS HANN: I would like to decline to answer now.

The reason it is important for the bar code is because of the monitoring and enforcement. We have set specific targets for the industry to meet. For each wholesaler and distributor of product we have to do a physical counting. The idea is now, of course, we will have 50 per cent recovery this year and 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, over the next three years. So it is for monitoring, reporting and acquiring that we do it.

MR. WALSH: But it is my money; I am paying it. So we are doing the monitoring for an industry that is not paying it. I am paying it. So what is the difference between - I would say to you that if you are at 50 per cent you might get to 60 per cent, and the other 40 per cent you are not going to get because people like myself are just saying: This is crazy. Why can't I crush it and bring it in?

MS HANN: Mr. Walsh, as I understand as well, how a can is crushed is very important; because if it is not crushed properly the paint and the enamel gets trapped and it devalues the metal itself so they don't get as much for it.

MR. WALSH: For the record, no other province allows you to crush your can and send it back? All the other provinces are doing the same thing as we are doing here in Newfoundland?

MS HANN: For the record, I will check for you, Mr. Walsh, but this is the reason actually. It recently came up and this was the reason that was given to me, but we would be certainly happy to check into that.

MR. WALSH: I have never been in Opposition but I was told by somebody who was, `only ask the question if you know the answer'. You might be surprised with the answer, that all other provinces are not requiring you to give back a full can. They go through the same recycling process. So I am just saying to myself, why here? I think you may find that in Atlantic Canada they are not all requiring it but we are here, and we are all paying the same deposit.

MS S. OSBORNE: You can even buy these little can crushers. It puts them right down to here and it is really easy to store. I am probably coming from the same direction as you; this bag of cans just takes up so much space.

MR. WALSH: It just gets so big, yes.

It was just personal, like I said. I am, in the meantime, asking on behalf of myself and the other 50 per cent of the people who are not bringing back their cans. In a lot of cases that is one of the reasons we are not. The industry has made it inconvenient for us to do it, but they still have my money and it is my money that I want.

MS HANN: In fairness to the board, right now our regulations call for cans not to be crushed. In fact, until very recently the board was accepting crushed cans. They were trying to be as accommodating as possible, but it is based on this additional information, I guess, they seem to have received from somewhere. The boards are only doing what our regulations are requiring them to do, so we will definitely have to look into that.

MR. WALSH: The Department of Environment and Labour regulations?

MS HANN: Yes, the beverage container regulations require, actually, that cans not be crushed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a suggestion. I guess where it is new in the program and they are trying to do an accurate count, if that is the only reason, obviously there is a correlation and you can always project that once you have gotten to that stage, if that is the sole reason for doing it. You can be pretty accurate within, I would assume, a percentage point on such a large volume. But if there is another reason, because of quality and what it is going to do, I guess it is something we would certainly like to know. If it is solely for counting purposes, that is something you would know by now, established weights, and the return, the type, et cetera.

MS HANN: In some ways the bar code also helps to identify the distributor and wholesaler, so we have to make sure that in fact the product that is being sold in the Province is by an authorized distributor and wholesaler as well.

MR. WALSH: A closing comment, Mr. Chairman. I resent the fact that I am being told before I solve the problem with the cans - and I heard some members say under it under their breath - that I should solve the problem with the Kentucky Fried Chicken packaging. We are dealing with cans here, so I want to go on record and say that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ann Marie.

CHAIR: Normally the Chair has not in the past asked questions but, as the minister knows, this is one of my pet projects and pet peeves, the recycling policy.

I can take any crushed can, crushed any way I want it, to an aluminium recycling dealer and he will pay me an adequate amount per pound for my can. What do they do with the can if, in fact, the crushing of it is not up to spec and, as you said, the metal gets contaminated?

I am having some difficulty with the rationale of why the cans cannot be crushed. Of all the arguments and issues on the West Coast in the last two years, the one that I keep getting bombarded with is the crushed cans.

Real environmentalists are really ticked off with it. You cannot bring in a can which has been run over by a car, or a boy scout picks up, that has been a bit crushed. They are taking the garbage from the environment but they cannot bring it back and get three cents, for which someone has already paid six. It is an issue. Believe it or not, it is an issue out there.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) increase your return if you could.

MR. WALSH: Oh, very much.

MS HANN: The point is well taken and we will certainly investigate it. I apologize for not being able to provide the Committee with additional information on this. I have attended one board meeting so, I am just now getting (inaudible).

CHAIR: I am told as well in my area that the recycling people will take out the semi-crushed cans but they will keep them in their building; you do not take them back. I always do because I will be darned if they are going to get six cents for my can for which they will not give me three cents.

I will leave it with you, Mr. Minister. You know I have been on this wrath before on this particular issue, and we will be there again.

CHAIR: Ms. Osborne.

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to add to that.

Right in this very building, if you go to the cafeteria, I know there are some places to throw your cans, bottles and stuff afterwards, but there is not really enough. There is not much made of it.

I know in this building, when I am finished my lunch, I see people going over and just putting the cans down in the garbage. There does not seem to be a lot of hype about recycling. Even the ones that go out of this building every day, there are a lot. I am really big on that, too.

Another question. I have been recycling before they started to charge. Someone would come by and pick the stuff up. I do not know what they did with it, but they recycled it. How come you cannot recycle milk cartons?

MS HANN: At the time the regulations were introduced, that was a policy decision made by the government. The beverage container program at the time addressed two things. One was to try and reduce garbage going to landfills, and the second was litter.

Inclusion of milk was certainly concerned at that time, but at the same time the government was also trying to promote the Milk Lunch Program. It was decided at that point in time that potentially an increase in the price of milk could compromise that program. As well, milk cartons, particularly the single serve, were not deemed to contribute to the litter problem, which was a big focus of the program when it was first introduced. It was intentionally left out for that reason.

MS S. OSBORNE: Will the recycling people take them? Will anybody take them? Why do we have to throw them in the garbage?

MS HANN: That is the choice of each depot operator, what products they want to take in addition to the beverage containers.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MS HANN: Whether or not they have markets of their own that they have found and, I guess, obviously a field in which they can make money.

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to deal with the Grace. The Member for St. John's South and the critic of the environment is not here, but I was at the meeting and there were a lot of people there. It is a major problem, the burning of Bunker C oil at the Grace Hospital.

I have a friend who lives on LeMarchant Road and she said, literally, she has to go out and scrape her car. When you turn on the car, the car fills up with the black flakes. What is the cost of transferring from Bunker C to (inaudible) burning fuel at the Grace Hospital?

MR LANGDON: There is a committee in place that is being overseen by the Department of Health and Community Services, and they are in a process now of looking at different scenarios as to ways they can reduce the amount of soot that is going to come out of that particular stack. I think they have not come to any agreement yet. I was talking to Tom earlier today and said that after I have talked to Joan Marie tomorrow I will chat with him in the House. There has been no specific detail as to how they are going to do it, but there are a number of scenarios that they have looked at.

I think the big question from the Department of Health and Community Services, I guess, is the number of dollars that you would spend. If we would be able to take some of the equipment that we could put in the stacks and be able to use it again for the expansion at the Health Sciences, or doing work at St. Clare's - in other words to reuse it - then it would be much easier for her to be able to use those dollars in that capacity. However, if we were to take large sums of money and be able to put it in those stacks at the Grace and not be able to use it after two years then it is a deterrent as to how much money we could possibly spend.

I think basically what we are looking at, it is possible to reduce it by 50 per cent or, say, 70 per cent or 80 per cent, but it will depend on how well you can use the machinery after.

MS S. OSBORNE: It must be pretty horrendous to go out of your door every morning and just find your car coated with black; turn on the ignition and when the fan comes on to have your car fill up with black. Like I said, my friend lives right on LeMarchant Road by Shoppers' Drug Mart and she finds that every day. It is pretty horrendous. So it is from a personal point of view that I am asking this.

MR LANGDON: I will talk to Joan Marie tomorrow, and talk to Tom because he had talked to me earlier. It is in his district, I think.

MS S. OSBORNE: I was not talking to him about it today but I was at the meeting and I do have a friend -

MR LANGDON: Yes, and he did come to me after the House closed this afternoon.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I know there was a petition today.

MR LANGDON: We will go from that. I cannot give you the answer right now but I will talk to Tom tomorrow and give him the details.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

MR LANGDON: Or to you for that matter.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, no, you can give it - well actually, I suppose, he will give it to me eventually.

MR LANGDON: Yes, okay. I will do that.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is it for me.

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Whelan, and then we will ask if there are any questions.

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I will be fairly brief. There was one (inaudible) in the Estimates that caught my eye, 2.3.01.05. It is under Environmental Assessment, Professional Services. I don't think (inaudible) but you have a new estimate there for 1998 of $700,000 as opposed to $350,000. I was just wondering what the extra expenditure was for.

MR LANGDON: I will let my deputy tell you.

MS GRATTAN: I will pass to Ann Marie or Rick.

MR LANGDON: Okay, it does not make any difference.

MR. HAYWARD: There was $780,000 in incremental funding provided to the department in 1998-1999 to participate in the environmental assessment project for Voisey's Bay. That is what makes up that $700,000.

MR. WHELAN: Well, it was $350,000 last year. If $780,000 was given last year, you spent $350,000 last year. What happened?

MR. HAYWARD: $350,000 was provided in 1997-1998 as our share of the cost of the environmental assessment for Voisey's Bay. In 1998-1999, I guess incremental additional activity required that that would be increased to $700,000 from $350,000. So there is incremental requirement this year because of increased activity. I think -

MR. WHELAN: With that money already having been spent, and the $700,000 to be spent this year, what is the status on the environmental assessment?

MS GRATTAN: As you are aware, there is a review panel in place to head up the public hearings and the assessment of the mine-mill environmental impact statement. Someone has to pay the cost and that is government. We split it, again, 50-50 with the federal government, and so -

MR. WHELAN: Excuse me. You are spending $700,000 (inaudible).

MS GRATTAN: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: This year?

MS GRATTAN: That is right now an estimate, but that is based on the work we anticipate the panel doing. We are hoping that, counting on, the main effort of the panel, which are the public hearings, which travel from community to community in Labrador, and there will be some here. That is our estimate of what our share of the cost of the panel will be.

MR. WHELAN: So, would you be doing public hearings throughout the various communities in Labrador?

MS GRATTAN: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: There are only about, what, fifteen or twenty. How many communities (inaudible)?

WITNESS: On the North Coast there are six.

MR. WHELAN: Yes. There are only about fifteen or twenty communities in Labrador anyway (inaudible)?

MS GRATTAN: This is a five person panel and also a two- or three-person secretariat to support them. There are significant costs just to moving that number of people around from community to community in (inaudible).

MS HANN: If I may add this. At the end of the day (inaudible) I guess the Province will be recouping its share of costs from the company. Any monies expended by the Province in the (inaudible) of this project will be returned to the Province by Voisey's Bay Nickel.

WITNESS: That was part of the legislation that we passed last fall.

MR. WHELAN: There is still a question mark left in my mind with regard to even if you sent fifty people to every community in Labrador and tripled the secretariat, you should not spend one-quarter of $1,400,000, I don't think.

MS GRATTAN: It's not just the cost. I should have been clearer. The panel is working and hence billing for many other days besides the days they travel. I don't know if you have seen the Voisey's Bay EIS, but it is about this big, plus, and the big part of their duty is to go through that.

MR. WHELAN: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant it was just for travel expenses.

MS GRATTAN: No, no. I mislead you, sorry.

MR. WHELAN: There is something else I wanted to refer to as well, and it's a little different from the regular questioning. I'm from a rural district, Conception Bay Centre. It has been a tradition in our area - it has been agrarian, and fishing and that type of thing down through the years. There is some semblance of that left. Very little fishing. Well, better than what is happening today with the lobster and crab (inaudible). There is some agricultural activity out there.

I had the occasion to visit one of my constituents the other day. He had a visit from I'm not sure if it was the Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Government Services and Lands, or the Department of Environment and Labour. Apparently somebody had a problem with the fact that he had some cattle. There wasn't a big lot of manure stored there, he used to carry it away, but he was reported for that. The guy said: That is alright, because in another week or so I'm going to spread it. (Inaudible) he said: Whatever you do, don't that because, then you are in real trouble.

I'm wondering, is it your department that looks after that particular area? If it is, I would like you to be able to -

MS GRATTAN: Is your department responsible for spreading manure?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are a good many departments in that category, I can assure you, but we can deal with that department in the House.

MR. WOODFORD: The short answer, Don, is you aren't allowed to store it but you can spread it where you like!

MR. WHELAN: It's a way of life that (inaudible) -

MS S. OSBORNE: That is exactly right, it is serious.

MR. WHELAN: You know there is a lighter side to it, but there is also a (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Don, as a matter of information for me, can you go back to the person and ask them was it somebody from our department?

MR. WHELAN: He mentioned it was from Environment and Labour. He may have been mistaken. Usually the person on the street, if somebody comes out and looks at your facilities there, they don't know whether it is Health and Community Services or Environment. They aren't sure. (Inaudible) environment.

MR. WOODFORD: After it goes over a certain number of cattle, there is supposed to be containment now.

MR. WHELAN: Rick, this is usually the people who are around who have four or five (inaudible). They supplement their income that way, and this has been the tradition (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, there is usually never a problem with that, but I mean if it is a large operation now, especially a large dairy operating or something like that. Because broilers are not stored in any case, poultry is not stored. It just comes right out and right on to the field. The only places now are usually a beef-cattle operation or a dairy operation. My understanding is that if it goes over a certain number of cattle then there must be containment, and most of them (inaudible) today is not (inaudible) containments. There is usually -

WITNESS: What do you mean by containment?

MR. WOODFORD: In a concrete area you either go with a dry manure system where you just take a bucket, put it into the spreader and spread it, or else you go with a liquefied system where it is pumped right out from under the barn into a concrete containment area, liquefied, and just pumped back into the machine and gone. It never sees -

MR. WHELAN: (Inaudible) about a fairly highly commercialized (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, it is a very expensive operation.

MR. WHELAN: This is just people who supplement their income in raising (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I have never known for anyone out our way to be bothered with that.

MR. WHELAN: I just thought I would mention that.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, we will check it out for you.

MR. WHELAN: Where (inaudible) I thought that it would be a good time to (inaudible).

CHAIR: Just before we conclude, are there any other members of the committee who would like to ask questions? I think the Vice-Chair has indicated he has one question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I had a few there but not all were addressed, so maybe I can just toss them out. Most of them were in the finance area.

I will just pick up on the one Don was on, for instance on the Environmental Assessment, in the expenditures on Professional Services as Don alluded to. Under Transportation and Communications, do the costs of any transportation or communication come under the Professional Services, or are they not included under Transportation and Communication? I'm talking about 2.3.01.03. Would the Environmental Assessment group's transportation and communication be under that particular item rather than under Professional Services?

MR. HAYWARD: In total for the Voisey's Bay assessment there was $700,000 provided in Professional Services, as you can see there, and in the $98,400 under Transportation and Communication there was $80,000 in transportation. So in total, for the Environmental Assessment, that would be incremental funding to the Department of Environment and Labour this year. There will be $780,000 split between travel and Professional Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the Professional Services would incur -

MR. HAYWARD: That would be the panel costs, and the travel would be captured in the transportation.

MR. SULLIVAN: It would be captured. What about the salary aspect? Are there any salary services included, any monetary reimbursement and cost included, under Professional Services or is that all under Salary?

MR. HAYWARD: The Professional Services would be the payment to the panel for their salaries and so on.

MR. SULLIVAN: Departmental staff.

MR. HAYWARD: The $467,100 under Salaries is the department core budget, if you will. There was no incremental allocation for this because (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 3.1.01, Labour Relations and Labour Standards, and it follows right into the next one too, Labour Relations Board, in terms of Professional Services we see there has been a significant change there. Under 3.1.01 it has gone from $16,000 expenditure last year, on a budget of $5,000, up to $150,000 this year. I know it makes reference to the overall use of it there but why such a hefty increase this year?

MR. HAYWARD: To resolve the issues with the crab pricing and the shrimp pricing issues, the provincial government provided the department with $150,000 there to the professional fees and other associated fees with implementing the Morgan Cooper report, so we don't have any disruptions in the labour component of our remaining fishery.

MR. SULLIVAN: These three would have taken up how much of that $150,000?

MR. HAYWARD: The $150,000 up top, that was our budget to implement some parts of the task force and to pay the consultants. There were some studies done, there some professional services performed, to look at the prices of crab and some associated costs with the task force there as well. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Just to sort of provide research and background on historic markets, etc.

MR. HAYWARD: We do not know if we are going to spend all of that. It's an estimate, so to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are there any provisions for other such price settling mechanisms in other areas to allocate, or are they strictly for the ones identified?

MR. HAYWARD: The $150,000 relates to crab, shrimp, cod, lump roe and caplin. Hopefully it is all the species.

MR. SULLIVAN: The one under .05, under 3.1.02, the Labour Relations Board.

MR. HAYWARD: What did I say there? Reinstatement of professional services to meet demand in this area. While we got through 1997-98 on target for $128,000, I think during the budget process we asked for some additional funding here to do more work in this area. Joe, I don't know if you have anything else to add.

MR. O'NEILL: I think the reason for the increase there as well is to reinstate funding that was reduced last year (inaudible). At one point there was some indication of appointing a full-time Chair and CEO to the Labour Relations Board. Where that decision hasn't been forthcoming, we have a full-time CEO who would still be a Chair working part-time. A saving that would have been effected as a result of that decision not coming into effect now has to be reinstated to cover the costs.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that under Professional Services rather than Salaries? Is that what you are stating?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's not under Salaries. Why would there be such an increase too in salaries though, almost $60,000 also?

MR. HAYWARD: Basically, they had a vacant position. If you look at the $250,700 in Salaries as the Budget for 1997-1998, (inaudible) salary savings because of the vacancies to $209,000, and $266,700 puts it back up and also gives them the small raise that we were talking about, the twenty-seven pay periods. There are a number of (inaudible) things in there that grow up to $266,700.

MR. SULLIVAN: What particular positions were not filled there out of the list of the ones, off-hand, that were vacant?

MR. HAYWARD: It could have been any number of things, like a maternity leave that didn't get filled or anything like that.

MR. SULLIVAN: It wasn't necessarily without positions. Overlapping for part of the year, there were some positions? It is about $40,000. It could have been a couple of positions for part of the year, for instance.

MR. HAYWARD: Vacant, taking time to fill, maternity, sick leave, unplanned leave. It's not a significant amount but we can certainly look into it for you and give you a little analysis there if you want that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it would be nice to know . Because we are looking at a $60,000 difference in expenditure, or close to it. If we are without positions for a length of time, was someone else picking up the slack, or was there something not getting done? Basically, the value of the positions and so on. If you could, give me an answer back on that one.

I had just one other particular area there, the last one on the workers' compensation review. Under Professional Services, 5.1.01.05, I guess it would be including the review commissioner amounts per case. I'm assuming it's in that category there, Professional Services. Because Salaries, looking at the details here, are just the staff there with the review commission.

MR. HAYWARD: That is correct, Mr. Sullivan. The number for various reasons - the sole judicator per case, the number and I guess a combination of the caseload - that number is pretty constant, and going and reducing with experience, etc. These for the workers' compensation review division are pretty stable.

MR. SULLIVAN: How much of the $175,000 projected, Professional Services, would be applied to the case cost? I think it is roughly $500 per case. What other Professional Services might be included other than the case?

MR. HAYWARD: That would include legal costs as well as the per case adjudicator cost. I don't have a breakdown on the $175,000. I can certainly get it to you that it is 75-25, adjudicator versus labour, on the $138,000 for the projected revised figure in 1997-1998, if you want. I didn't bring that in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Have the legal costs, offhand, been significant? Would you know any ballpark amount?

MR. HAYWARD: No, I would be just guessing.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess they utilize independent lawyers, I would assume, rather than the Department of Justice.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, there are independent solicitors on the workers' comp review division files, and there six or seven commission (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I mean for legal advice. Do they go out to the private sector for legal advice?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, they do go to the private sector. I can certainly get you a breakdown between legal and adjudicator costs.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would like to know the breakdown, if I could, of the Professional Services over all.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's it, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: Are you going to call Heads or what?

MS S. OSBORNE: I have another couple of questions, I'm sorry. Under 4.1.01, the Budget is down by $67,000. What positions were eliminated by that reduction?

MR. LANGDON: What has happened is we are transferring from our department the education services from Occupational Health and Safety over to Workplace Health and Safety.

MS S. OSBORNE: So that is another department then?

MR. LANGDON: Yes. Therefore it's coming out of our department and going over with them. That is the reason for the reduction there.

MS S. OSBORNE: Under .07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there is a big variation between the Budget and the revised there.

MR. LANGDON: What did we put in here?

MR. HAYWARD: There were some vehicles replaced in Workplace Health and Safety basically to replace antiquated vehicles with 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 kilometres on them, and then various equipment that we need in the Workplace Health and Safety section to do that job.

MS S. OSBORNE: In .03 there, with respect to the $302,200 spent, is there a breakdown of what - in trips, telephone bills and (inaudible)?

MR. HAYWARD: In Transportation and Communications, 4.1.01?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: Postage, $8,000; travel, $260,000; air services, $15,000; telephone costs, $60,000. That makes up -

MS S. OSBORNE: Did you say travel was $260,000?

MR. HAYWARD: Our budget for travel would be $260,000. That is all of our inspectors (inaudible). In Occupational Health and Safety those numbers are - how many people in Occupational Health and Safety? Thirty-nine people all over the Island visiting every site. It's a significant sum.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Just a short one, Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. We have till 10:00 p.m. anyway so, in fact (inaudible) 10:10 p.m. (inaudible).

CHAIR: We might add that we were slow coming back as you ordered the meal.

MR. H. HODDER: A few years ago I came across some data which said that about 25 per cent of all the health care costs in this Province were accident related. In fact, the report said $225 million a year are expended in health care in this Province because of accidents, all kinds of accidents. Accidents per se. That came from the medical (inaudible) data collection. That could be everything from children's accidents to falling off a bicycle to taking wrong medications or whatever.

It did include as well workplace accidents. I'm wondering if the department has ever done an analysis which shows how much money is expended in health care as a consequence of workplace accidents, and using that information to make arguments for greater input into worker safety, more inspections? Because every dollar we spend in prevention we save in MCP. Therefore what I'm asking is has there ever been an analysis done of that relationship and narrowing it down to workplace safety and that kind of thing?

MR. O'NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Hodder. To my knowledge, there hasn't been that kind of a detailed study done. I would suspect that it wouldn't be very difficult to do because all we need to do would be to work with the various health care corporations and identify the workplace injuries that are recorded as injuries. I guess it would be difficult to come up with a hard number because as we know it would be a guesstimate. Because some people who get injured on the job don't always report it, and that is a bit of an issue for us.

In terms of using it as an emphasis towards improved health and safety, one of the things we have noticed in our statistics over the last five years is that the number of lost time accidents are continually going down. We think that is because of an increased emphasis on prevention programs. As the minister has just indicated, we think that with the move of the Health and Safety programs area to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission there will be a need for greater emphasis to work with employers and with employees to improve safety in the workplace. As a result of that, hopefully we will begin to see an improved record (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: When we (inaudible) $220 million a year in this Province that is emanating from accidents, we have to pay pretty strong attention to that. I'm just wondering if there has been analysis done. It would make a very interesting analysis.

MR. O'NEILL: I think it was only a couple of days ago there was an extensive article that I was reading with respect to a Canada-wide survey on the cost of injuries. You are quite right, it not only includes workplace injuries but falls in a home, a kid falling off a bicycle, and that sort of thing.

MR. H. HODDER: Two hundred and twenty million dollars in this Province alone.

MR. O'NEILL: It's astronomical.

MR. WOODFORD: To add to that, there is one industry that is involved in that and that is the insurance industry under what they call a health care services levy. They, for at-fault accidents last year I believe it was in the vicinity of $6 million or $7 million that was paid back to the Province (inaudible). So it is interesting there, because out of that $220 million there is a portion there that is identified for at-fault accidents and is reimbursed under the health care services.

WITNESS: How much did you say was the reimbursement?

MR. WOODFORD: Between $6 million and $7 million. Now, we pay anyway, (inaudible) consider you still pay, because the insurance companies have a way to integrate that into their benchmarks (inaudible).

Mr. Chairman, if there are no other questions, I would like to move the heads from 1.1.01 to 5.1.01, inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.01, carried.

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister, thank you, staff. I appreciate the evening, it has been a delight. Next year we will have to go to a different restaurant and have a different person order for us.