Resource Committee — Department of Business — 3 May 2010

2010-05-03

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 3, 2010

RESOURCE

COMMITTEE

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

replaces Mr. Verge, MHA for Lewisporte.

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

CHAIR (Harding): Good morning everyone.

We are ready to begin the Estimates debate for the Department of Environment

and Conservation. First of all, we begin in our usual way and have the Committee

members to introduce themselves beginning with Mr. Pollard.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Labrador West.

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

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

CHAIR: I would just like to have the observers identify themselves as

well, please.

MS CAMPBELL: Lori-Ann Campbell, Researcher.

MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan, Researcher.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

When the Clerk calls the first subhead the minister may take up to fifteen

minutes to introduce the officials that you have here this morning, as well as

give a brief overview of her department's Estimates for the year.

I ask the officials, if you have to call on any of them to answer any

question, if they would identify themselves prior to speaking each time.

First of all, we will deal with the minutes of the previous meeting that we

had and that was the Department of Business. So, a motion to accept these

minutes as circulated.

MR. DALLEY: So moved.

MR. CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Dalley, seconded by Mr. Butler, that the minutes

of the Department of Business Estimates Committee meeting be accepted as

circulated.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

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

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01.

Shall that carry?

Minister Johnson.

MS JOHNSON: Good morning everybody. We are here to discuss the Estimates

for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

I would like to introduce the group with me. To my left is Bill Parrott,

Deputy Minister. Next to Bill is Ross Firth, the Assistant Deputy Minister for

the Natural Heritage branch. Then we have Martin Goebel, the Assistant Deputy

Minister in the Environment branch. Behind me we have Scott Jones who is our

Director of Financial and General Operations. Next to Scott is Shane Mahoney;

Shane is the Executive Director of Sustainable Development and Strategic

Science. Then we have Peter Howe; Peter Howe is the Director in Lands. In the

back is John Drover; John is the Director of Policy and Planning. Next to John

is Denise Woodman, my Executive Assistant. Next to Denise is Melony O'Neill, my

Communications Director.

Just a little bit of background about the department and the Estimates this

year. For the 2010-2011 fiscal years we have a gross budget of $63,884,000

reflected in the Estimates to cover departmental costs for the protection and

enhancement of the environment, management of the Province's biodiversity,

wildlife, endangered species, water, Crown Lands resources and several other

issues. To offset a portion of these costs, the related revenue of approximately

$11 million is budgeted which results in a net expenditure of $52,776,500.

As you will see as we review the Estimates - because I am sure there will be

a lot of line-by-line questions - we have placed a significant focus this year

on reallocating our departmental allotments, basically, to better reflect the

priorities of the department and to put those values in the lines where they

should actually be. So, you will see some moving around from purchased services,

supplies and things like that.

The gross budget for the department's four main programs: We have

approximately $24 million for Executive and Support Services; approximately $17

million for Environmental Management and Control; a little over $7 million for

Lands; and around $15 million for Wildlife, Parks and Natural Heritage.

We have three branches and two divisions in Environment and Conservation. We

have the Environment Branch. This includes Pollution Prevention, Water Resources

Management, and Environmental Assessment. In addition to the head office here in

St. John's, we also have offices in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor. As I

said, Martin Goebel is the ADM for that branch.

In the Lands Branch we have Crown Lands, we have surveys, mapping and land

management. The Lands Division has satellite offices in Corner Brook, Gander,

Clarenville and Labrador. The ADM position is currently vacant. It is being

temporarily covered by Bill Parrott. Peter Howe, as I said, is the Director of

Crown Lands. He is here today to provide technical support.

We also have the Natural Heritage Branch. This includes parks, protected

areas and wildlife. The Parks Division is located in Deer Lake and the Wildlife

Division is located in Corner Brook. There is a satellite office in Labrador.

Ross is the ADM responsible for that branch.

Sustainable Development and Strategic Science Division manages sustainable

development issues and the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science in

Corner Brook. Shane is the Director of that division.

Policy and Planning Division provides the design and implementation of a

program of research and analysis pertaining to policy and program issues across

the department including climate change, legislation and policies and

accountability requirements. John Drover is the Director of that division.

I am pleased to report that we have several significant initiatives funded

this year which are aimed at remediating contaminated sites in the Province and

enhancing infrastructure pertaining to our natural heritage.

In Budget 2010-2011, we committed $5 million for contaminated sites in the

Province; $4 million of that will go to Buchans and $1 million will go to

Hopedale. Of course, the Buchans $4 million is on the former Abitibi ASARCO mine

site there in Buchans. The $1 million to Hopedale is for cleanup of the former

US military station.

As part of our continued focus on our natural environment, we have allocated

approximately $1.6 million for enhancements to Salmonier Nature Park; truly a

gem in our Province. Additionally, we have allocated $3.6 million for the

replacement of Crabbes River bridge; that is a structure in St. Fintan's. We

certainly understand the significance of the T'Railway Provincial Park in the

Province. Replacement of this structure is an important part of our parks

infrastructure.

We also have $500,000 for a capacity funding program to enable meaningful

Aboriginal participation during the environmental assessment of Labrador-Island

Transmission project. I am pleased to report that the department is continuing

with its ongoing support of our five-year Caribou Strategy.

There are many others, these are but a few of the significant investments we

are making toward the promotion, protection and enhancement of our environment.

I appreciate the consideration that you will give the department's budget

today and we will do our very best to answer your questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Minister.

Before we begin questioning, I would like welcome Committee member Mr. Ray

Hunter to the meeting

I guess we begin with Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I would like to welcome you and your staff here this morning. Just

to say from the outset from time to time, we do have to call members of your

staff and I must say we get a good response. It is not always what we want to

hear, but they are very courteous in getting back to us.

A couple of question before I really get into the gist of it, I guess, with

regard to the

Summary 2010-2011 Salary Funding where it lists the Permanent

Employees, Temporary & Other Employees. The figure there this year is $6,758,500

- it is on page 79. That is down by $548,200. That is less than it was last year

and I was just wondering if you can explain the reasoning for that. Compared to

last year it was $7,306,700.

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

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

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

million is -

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

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

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

will help.

MR. JONES: Scott Jones.

We can get back to you on that. The Salary Details is a document that is

prepared by the Budgeting Division, and it is based on information that is

provided by the departments. What I can do is I can contact the analyst that we

deal with in the Budgeting Division and we can reconcile our numbers to get a

better answer for you, if that is okay.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. I know it was $7.3 million last year. I have a copy if

you want it. This year's, I was wondering if it was employees let go or

MS JOHNSON: I think - and I will let Scott verify it - there were some

temporary positions in past years that have ended this year or some that we said

we will find within. I know in the Natural Areas Systems Plan, there were two

positions there, which we said we will not seek in the budget this we will find

it with savings within. There was also one in Crown Lands in the collections,

which we did not continue to fund this year, but there are still two people in

Crown Lands. So, it might be something around that, Scott.

MR JONES: Yes, it is that type of situation that leads to variances in

the numbers from year to year. I just would not be able to speak to the actual

specifics to reconcile to the actual numbers without consultation.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. In the same document it shows that your total employees

are 248 and that is up one over last year if you compare the two documents. I

was just wondering how many temporary employees are there, say thirteen weeks,

that you have within your system now or are there any?

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

all of that here.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, okay.

The other one we received in the House recently, I guess the tenders that go

out I do not see the date on it. Anyway, it has to do with the Public Tender

Act. There was one where the Department of Environment and Conservation went to

tender due to the only available source - that is not the issue. I was just

wondering what it was for, or to explain whoever this was for and what type of

fish. Was it tags for fish with sensors attached? I was just wondering what

project or where that would have been? It was for $59,000.

MS JOHNSON: That was for a project that Rob Perry, one of our biologists,

is working on in Labrador. There is a lot of work around climate change and the

impact and so on.

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

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: 1.2.03., the line by lines

MS JOHNSON: Policy Development and Planning?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. BUTLER: Under 10. Grants and Subsidies, I know it went from $16

million to $11 million for clean air and climate change initiatives and only $9

million out of $16 million was spent last year. I was wondering why the grants

were under spent.

MS JOHNSON: This is the $23 million that we received from the federal

government for the EcoTrust; we call it the Green Fund. We also put $2 million

of our own money into it over three years. If we have a lot of applications in

and the applications were fully subscribed, we know that this is all going out

the door; it is just a matter of timing and getting out. What we did not get out

last year, the roughly $7 million less than what we had budgeted for, will go

out this year. The $11 million that you see, that is how much we have left in

the fund.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This year you have estimated $500,000 there. Is that from the federal

government, the revenues there,

whereas last year it was $16 million from them?

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

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: But that $500,000 is money we are receiving for climate

change adaptation that we are partnering with the federal government and the

four Atlantic Provinces on. That is separate than the Green Fund, but it is a

grant.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

2.1.01. Pollution Prevention, under 06. I know you mentioned in your opening

comments that there was juggling of figures from one area to the other. I know

this one there, it shows $1.7 million and Revised is $72,000.

Number 06. Purchased Services.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, I am finding it now. You are asking why it is $5.1

million this year as opposed to $1.7 million last year?

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

is $72,000.

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

That was for the clean up of contaminated sites and the expenditures for that

were less than what we projected as we are still in the very early stages of the

projects.

Also, the Professional Services you see would have increased. So it is kind

of a moving around of money. If you look in the line above that, we had $718,200

budgeted for Professional Services but we actually spent $1.7 million. That is

what I talked about in the opening remarks about moving money around.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: And the $5 million for this year, that is the money for

Buchans and Hopedale.

MR. BUTLER: 2.2.01. Water Resources Management, under 01. Yes, under 01.

Salaries; I know there was only $2.3 million and $2 million. I was wondering why

it was under spent there by approximately $300,000?

MS JOHNSON: Those would be vacant positions that were not filled, and

there was some delay in the water use study we were doing. So we did not fill

those positions yet.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. I guess the one under 06. Purchased Services is similar

to what you responded to about the other ones above, I guess a juggling around

of the figures there, is it?

MS JOHNSON: Just let me verify for you. Well, that one there actually

the reduction of $400,000 was actually some savings that we had with the

drinking water projects. So we did not actually move around that one; that was

actually savings that we had.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

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

determined, this revenue?

MS JOHNSON: 2.2.02?

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

MS JOHNSON: The $71,000 Revenue?

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

MS JOHNSON: Oh, the $528,000.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, the Provincial Revenue there.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. This is an increase. That Revenue is from revenue we get

from industry for water quality, measuring the water quality and the water

quality monitoring stations that we have. The industry pays some money towards

the department to operate those. So there are two more, I believe, coming on

this year. That is why you see the increase of $82,000 roughly from last year.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

2.3.01., with regards to 01. I know last year the Budget was $1 million for

Salaries, it went to $1.1 million, and this year it is down to $991,000. I was

wondering why the reduction there?

MS JOHNSON: We have a certain budget for Salaries in the department, so

each year we have to live within that budget. We move positions around

sometimes. So that is a matter of there is going to be a vacant position there

that we may have needed say in Crown lands or somewhere else. Again, it is

moving money around, but there is no less staff. It is just that we have

identified vacant positions and we are going to keep them vacant.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under the same heading, 05., Professional Services; I know budgeted last year

was nothing, Revised to $195,000 and this year it is $690,000. I was just

wondering if you could elaborate on that for me.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. The $195,000 that we spent that we had not budgeted for,

this is contracts for the Lower Churchill joint panel. That would have been

moved around from Purchased Services. You see underneath it, Purchased Services

were less than we planned. So that is, again, a matter of moving money around.

The increase, the $690,000 this year, is the money I mentioned we are having for

the Lower Churchill initiative this year.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The last one under that heading - under Revenue again, right at the bottom,

Provincial - under 2.3.01.02. Revenue Provincial.

MS JOHNSON: Everything we do in Environmental Assessment is cost recovery

from the proponent. So this would be the increase in revenue we will get from

industry for the recovery cost of the joint panel - money in and money out.

MR. BUTLER: It is up quite a bit from over last year. You estimated

$200,000 and it went to $710,000, and this year close to $1.7 million.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. Well, we are going to have the hearings and those types

of things are going to start in September. There is also the transmission onside

now too. So there is a lot more activity that is going to be happening this

year.

MR. BUTLER: A couple of questions now, minister I do not know what my

time is but I am sure the Chair will cut me off. A couple of questions, I guess

a follow-up from last year with regard to the caribou advisory committee that

was put in place. I was just wondering who sits on this committee and how is it

functioning at this time?

MS JOHNSON: Okay. I will leave it to Shane to give you all of the

member's names, but they meet quite frequently for a group and I have been to

several of the meetings. The whole purpose of the Caribou Resource Committee is

for us to give information to the groups so they can then bring that information

back to their organization. I know we have the Outfitters Association, the

Trappers Association.

I will defer to Shane now to give you the list because I just do not remember

all the names right now.

MR. MAHONEY: We have Wayne Holloway who represents the Newfoundland and

Labrador Outfitters Association; Brad Leyte who represents the Newfoundland and

Labrador Wildlife Federation; Wade Bowers from Sir Wilfred Grenfell College; Dr.

David Schneider from Memorial University campus here in St. John's; Ken White

from the Trappers Association; and of course, Ross Firth from the Department of

Environment and Conservation, as well as myself. Yes, the Director of the Rural

Secretariat, Barbara Case; and Keith Deering from Natural Resources also sits on

it.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible).

MR. MAHONEY: Mary Taylor-Ash, yes.

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

MR. BUTLER: The other question a lot of these questions are coming that

we get calls from people, concerns about this and that and the other thing. I

know the caribou licences has been reduced again this year and people are

wondering - like the outfitters, if they have less numbers this year is there

any compensation package in place to assist them if their caribou numbers are

reduced and their business is down for that reason?

MS JOHNSON: In our department we are responsible for doing the population

estimates and then determining the number of licences. We have a certain

allocation that goes to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and

then they allocate to the outfitters. So really, it is the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation who is responsible for the outfitters. It is down by

eighty-five this year, which is good because in the past the decline was much

sharper. So we are seeing that that is slowing down now. Even though it is a

reduction, it is a good thing.

MR. BUTLER: We have heard a lot about the moose through the House and

outside of the House, I guess. I was just wondering - with the new moose

licensing system, the work that the department has done and I guess again in

conjunction with other departments as well to reduce the moose vehicle accidents

in the Province. I was just wondering, have you heard many concerns about

whether an increased cull may create a backlog? I know a lot of people are

calling in and saying if there is a cull the meat is not going to be - the

butchers cannot look after the meat and all this. I was just wondering what you

are hearing on that, or have you heard anything along those lines?

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

sure -

MR. BUTLER: People are calling in and they are saying if there is going

to be a cull on the moose and I guess they can increase -

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

MR. BUTLER: - a longer season and they are saying that there is going to

be a problem with regard to the butchers, from their perspective, being able to

handle the meat and that. Have you heard anything on that?

MS JOHNSON: I have heard a lot on this issue; that is the first time I

have heard that one. I get struck up about questions for the moose wherever I

go, whether it is in a grocery store or on a plane or whatever.

The extension to the season by three weeks is really to assist hunters to

gain access to the interior parts of the Province. The majority of people hunt

within one kilometre of the road and we know that is the easiest and so on, but

we are really trying to encourage people to get into the interior parts because

this is where the population of moose are exploding. Then there is competition

for food, so then those moose have to leave and they move out toward the road.

I do not know if the extension of three weeks will have a major impact. I

guess it will help in terms of if people did not get their moose earlier in the

season it is an extra chance for them over the Christmas holidays. It also will

help us in terms of habitat degradation. That is where you see a lot of the

degradation to trees and habitat because of the over browsing. So we are hoping

it will help there.

In terms of loading up the butcher shops, I do not see that happening. I know

the crowd out my way; they are in the first day moose hunting. So it is really a

second opportunity or a third opportunity for people to get in the woods with

the extension of the season.

MR. BUTLER: Still on the moose licences - I am wondering if you can

explain this and maybe we are looking at it wrong. I think it was in a release

that you put out that there were 590 new licences.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: We see 365, based on the figures that are in last year's

guide. Can you explain where we are wrong there or

MS JOHNSON: It is actually 590 new licences, plus, as I said in a press

conference, there are 2,154 more licences made available to residents. The

reason being for that is there were 1,513 - I think is the number - that was not

used by outfitters last year and there were 1,200 that were not used by

outfitters the year before. So, what we have done is we have reallocated those

to residents, because if you look at the map, half of them at least were right

along the Trans-Canada Highway. If outfitters were not selling the licences,

those moose did not have a chance to be hunted at all. So now, at least, there

is an opportunity for residents to hunt them. As to the -

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with all due respect, I think that is where we are

coming from with the 365. It is probably licences that were not used last year.

We did not calculate into getting the 590, is that right?

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

Do you have the guide there?

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

MS JOHNSON: Do you have the guide?

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

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

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BUTLER: Yes. Where we came up with the figures is when we had the two

guides, looking at one with the other.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and that is because after the guides go out we always

put a little disclaimer there, that sometimes the numbers can change after the

guide goes out because we do not have all of our surveys done. Last year you

would have seen a decrease in the number of licences due to the surveys. You

will not see that this year because it is too complicated. I just said what it

is this year it is. So, you see the 590 on page 18 of the guide?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: That is the true number. Plus, there are fifty additional to

the charities. If you add the 590, the fifty, and the 1,513, I think it is, it

comes to 2,154 additional to residents.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. I know there was a gentleman from Ontario who provided

some information about active signage that they use in some part of another

Province, I do not know if it is Ontario or B.C. somewhere -

MS JOHNSON: In B.C.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering, has your department or anyone within

the system looked at that technology?

MS JOHNSON: I am not sure if it was that specific one, but we have been

doing a lot of work looking at other jurisdictions in terms of signs and devices

you could put on vehicles and flashing lights and so on. At this point in time,

none of it is actually proven technology. We are still continuing to work with

the other jurisdictions and with Transportation and Works, because a lot of this

falls in their department, but I would be really hesitant, and I get asked all

the time about these sorts of whistles that you can put on the front of the car.

I would never endorse any of that because I do not want to give anybody a false

sense of security. It is not proven. If people want to try some of this on their

own they can, but until we see some proven technology we would certainly be

willing to look at it at that point. At this point, there are lots of things out

there that are tried but not proven to be true.

MR. BUTLER: Seeing as you mentioned the whistles, I will tell you now:

When I was up on the Northern Peninsula during the by-election, there is a lot

of moose up there so I said I am going to try everything I can. So I put those

cheap whistles they are only $4 or $5 and I travelled back and forth from

Roddickton up to Main Brook every night and did not see a moose. I said: I do

not know if the whistles are working are not; I hope I see a moose before I come

back out of it.

The day we left, there was a moose on the side of the highway, up ahead of us

quite a distance, and when we got closer you should have seen that moose take

off and run back into the woods. Now, I think it was my whistles, but I would

not recommend to everyone that this is going to be a cure-all.

One of the things and I think government is looking at this, not only your

department but other departments as well - the big thing, I think, is the

cutting back of the brush from the sides of the road. I know over in your

district going to Green's Harbour, one side of the road is cleaned off perfect

and the other side is still a bit close. It makes some difference if you have a

good sight distance.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it does, particularly in the daytime. I drove to

Clarenville this week and it is amazing you can see, but that is not going to

help you at night and that is where the majority of our accidents happen, from

dusk until dawn.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

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

Michael.

New Harbour dump - I know it is somewhere within the system with the federal

people investigating something there. I am just wondering if you could give me

an update on it, please.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. Oh gosh, we have spent almost $1 million on New Harbour

dump now, and I am pleased to say that the community have moved on and they are

bringing their waste to Robin Hood Bay. We have removed 120 or 140 tonnes of PCB

material. We have put in monitoring wells and we do testing there and everything

has come back fine in terms of those monitoring wells. We have purchased a liner

to cap off the dump - landfill - but that cannot be put down yet until the soil

compacts, and you need to wait a year or two I am told by the engineers to do

that so that it is done properly.

We are still continuing with the monitoring wells and so on this year, but we

cannot put that liner on until all of that soil is really compacted.

MR. BUTLER: Any word on the federal end of it, where they are supposed to

be investigating something there? I do not know what.

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

that it is under review.

MR. GOEBEL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Yes, they have asked us for information which we have

provided, but I have not heard anything other than that.

MR. BUTLER: So the committee that was looking after that dump, they are

still in charge of the site over there, are they? I am going to tell you, I

drove by there Saturday

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

this morning.

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

the dump, and it is terrible.

MS JOHNSON: They are.

MR. BUTLER: It is a beautiful area. A lot of tourists go over there to

the parks, and I travel over there all the time. The tires and mattresses and

washers and everything is being built up now outside the fence. I do not know

how you control it, but I guess someone has to get after them.

They could be coming from my end of the district bringing that over there,

which is something we do not know.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Whoever it is, I am just wondering who is in charge of that

there now. Would it be the same group that was looking after the site, or where

it is closed, is that directly with the department?

MS JOHNSON: I will have to check on that. I really do not know if that

committee - I do not see that committee being in charge any more; they did their

piece. It is our role now to get the site cleaned up, but as I said we cannot

put the liner there. My experience is once these are cleaned up, because we have

had some: Burnt Point dump, Western Bay dump. There was one other one that I

know of close by. Once they are greened up and cleaned up, you do not see,

typically, people dumping there.

So I will have to check into that, Roland, and get back to you and see what

the next phase is.

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

thing, the enforcement -

MS JOHNSON: It was. I think they tore it down and threw it in the dump.

We fenced it, we gated it and we put signs up but -

MR. BUTLER: I would say the law is not enforcing it either, not your

department but when it goes to the system. I know people who have caught people

in my area dumping, their addresses were in the garbage bags, their mail was

there but when it went to court: Did you see them put it there? No.

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

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

MS JOHNSON: Unless you have it on video I am told, because this is all

around the Province that we get calls about people dumping stuff. Really,

Justice says unless you have them on video, you do not have much of a case -

unfortunate.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

We will give Ms Michael an opportunity now, fifteen or twenty minutes, and

then we can switch back and forth.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

I will not be repeating questions, but I might go back to a topic that has

been covered simply because I want to go more deeply into or have more questions

to ask.

The first one will be 1.2.03.05. Under Professional Services, you talked

about the $500,000 that is part of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy that

We were told that last year as well at Estimates, so it would look like nothing

has really happened in that area. Could you give more detail on what is going on

with that strategy?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, there was a delay in the adaptation strategy for last

year, so that is why the monies were not spent. There was an official press

release that was put out April 23 actually where the feds announced it in

partnership with us. Now that we have the money, we already have plans to spend

it. We have the letters ready to go. We were just waiting for the money. A lot

of it will be around working with the municipalities in terms of adaptation,

also a big piece of work in Labrador. I do not think we have sent those letters

out yet, have we, John?

MR. DROVER: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: No, but very soon?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

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

year.

MS MICHAEL: When you say adaptations, what are the specific adaptations

that you are looking at?

MS JOHNSON: We would look at communities that would have potential for

sea level rise or flooding, things like that and how to adapt to those

situations. Also, in terms of municipalities, if they are putting in

infrastructure, things like that, we are going to work with them. Particularly

in Labrador, being a Northern climate, adaptation studies there in conjunction

with the university and so on.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Then, in the same budget section, under 10. Grants and Subsidies, you did

speak to that but in response to Roland's question. I wonder could we have a

current list of the grants and subsidies, what the projects are and to whom the

money is going.

MS JOHNSON: I think I have them here.

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

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

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

ask.

If I could just make a point, Mr. Chair, that we usually make that we did not

upfront this morning, with the understanding that if anybody requests

information on the Committee that everybody on the Committee would receive that

information when it is sent out, please.

CHAIR: Yes, I just want to comment too that any answers you provide after

this meeting is over, if you would send them to me and I will distribute it to

the Committee members.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

Yes, it is really a large list and it varies from wood waste to coffee beans

to Browning Harvey to Stella Burry, so it is really good. We have spread it

around. We tried to spread it around the Province and we tried to do different

projects that can be used in other say if we funded one fish plant for

information on cooling then that can be transferred to other fish plants. It has

been great. Unfortunately, the feds are not continuing with the funding, so that

will come to and end this year, unfortunately.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

So, there are no plans by the Province to put money in to make up for the

money that is not coming from the feds?

MS JOHNSON: We put $2 million in three years ago which was to be spent

over three years to leverage that fund. Our portion is still in there this year

and we will review it next year for next year's budget.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

1.2.04.01., Salaries, there was quite a difference between the Budget and the

revision - $197,000. Could you give an explanation, please?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we temporarily hired some more staff there to work on

the Caribou Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Once we were in the field we realized that we needed some

more field support. We did hire two wildlife biologists and a wildlife research

biologist, all temporary on a six-month basis.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

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

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we are. You see a slight reduction. Again, that is what

I explained to Roland about you have so many salary dollars so you move it

around.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Thank you.

Under the same heading, I am going to go through a number of line items here.

There are a number of over expenditures. In 03. Transportation and

Communications, there is a difference of $745,000 between the Budget and the

revision last year.

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

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

MS JOHNSON: Yes, you will see most of it in the section. A lot of it is

additional helicopter time and things like that.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Then, I imagine you are keeping it up this year by

quite a bit, $638,700. That would be the continued work on that or is that

something new?

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

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: Also, when you see how it was spread out over five years,

there is actually a bump up of about $700,000 this year in the budget for it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. What about the over expenditure in Supplies because

that is quite high, $639,000? Is that related to the work on the Caribou

Strategy as well?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, that was an increase due to we needed more radio

collars. We had some that were not working that well. We wanted to put some more

collars on than we had originally planned. That is strictly radio collars, they

are not cheap.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Sophisticated pieces of equipment.

MS MICHAEL: Under Professional Services, you had a difference downwards

of $364,400. Why so much less than what had been anticipated? Was there a

reallocation going on there?

MS JOHNSON: There would be some reallocation with the Professional

Services, but there was also a reduced need for some contracts under that line.

MS MICHAEL: For what?

MS JOHNSON: A reduced need for some contracts.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

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

MS JOHNSON: Again, this is equipment we needed for the Caribou Strategy.

This is scanners, darting equipment, net guns, repairs to some vehicles, and

some equipment rentals.

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

MS JOHNSON: At this moment.

MS MICHAEL: Great. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: There is always a reallocation that goes on during the year

once you see the need.

MS MICHAEL: I realize that, yes.

Under 1.2.05., again under Grants and Subsidies, if we could have a current

list of the Grants and Subsidies under the Institute for Biodiversity.

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

students, right?

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

MS JOHNSON: Could we give out the list of names of those graduate

students sorry, we can give the projects out for sure, right?

MR. MAHONEY: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: Students working on particular projects?

MR. MAHONEY: Yes.

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

MR. MAHONEY: Absolutely.

MS JOHNSON: Master students primarily.

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

In the same heading there, 1.2.05.03., $230,000 had been allocated under

Transportation and Communications, but very little of that got spent. I am just

curious, had something been planned that did not happen?

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

MS MICHAEL: Reallocation, okay.

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: So, it is a reallocation of money. We thought it would be

best to put any field support, flying time, all of that under the heading of

Grants

whereas before it was in Transportation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I am sorry if this sounds like it is repetitive, but I cannot guess that it

is reallocation, so I need go through

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

reallocation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Just to make more sense so next year it will make it a lot

easier when you ask the question that they are in the right spots.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

Under 2.1.01., the Pollution Prevention, 01. Salaries, you do have a jump

this year in Salaries of $206,300. Obviously, there must be new positions. Are

these permanent or temporary?

MS JOHNSON: This is the result of the reallocation of salaries. There are

going to be some vacant positions that we expect to fill in this one.

Whereas in

other divisions we are keeping them vacant so we can move the money toward this

area, but there is a greater need in this department this year. So that will be

some hiring of vacant positions.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I just want to check something up above. Yes, if we could go up to 1.2.06.

Just back one

section - sorry about that - under subhead 07., there is quite a

bit more money spent under that, $315,000 more spent than had been budgeted.

MS JOHNSON: This was for replacement vehicles, also particularly around

water quality monitoring and air monitoring. If you recall, in Buchans we said

that we would be monitoring the air for dust when the work is going on.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: So the federal government provided us with some of the

equipment to do it but we had to buy the vehicles to move that equipment. Also

the same thing for water quality monitoring, it is vehicles for that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under Purchased Services 06., just up above, we have quite a difference

between last year's Budget and this year $4 million. Is that the Buchans that

is the $4 million, I just realized now, for the Buchans -

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

MS MICHAEL: The Crabbes River Bridge?

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

MS MICHAEL: That is under Administration, right.

Okay, thank you.

MS JOHNSON: Also, for the Salmonier Nature Park.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Yes, the reallocation for (inaudible) Hopedale was in the next section. This

is where I will not repeat. I just have to go through my own notes now.

Under 2.2.02. Water Quality Agreement, under Supplies 04., there was a

revision of $102,900 over the Budget last year. Could we have an explanation for

that, because obviously it is a one-time thing? This year we are back down to

$87,800.

MS JOHNSON: This is for some Real Time Water Quality stations that we

purchased. We also had to purchase a flow probe model, camera equipment and a

chain-link fence.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: That was for the Humber River project.

MS MICHAEL: Had that project already been planned? I am just curious as

to why that was not budgeted for.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, there is an issue in the Humber River area. We had not

planned on doing this piece of work but when we saw there were some savings in

other departments we wanted to try and get it in last year. It was always on the

radar plan. We would have liked to do it in the future but the opportunity was

there to do it last year.

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

MS JOHNSON: It is more around quantity in terms of flooding. It is a

potential flood zone area.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: So again, it is related to climate change. We are looking at

it from that aspect, but if you see the work that we do in Buchans, the people

of Buchans really appreciate that we have those monitors there to give them some

warning in terms of floods. So this is another area we see that could have

potential.

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

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

MS JOHNSON: Buchans has the metals in the water.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. I was picturing Buchans. Now, where in Buchans

would they have that problem?

MS JOHNSON: Sorry.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Okay, you have answered that one.

2.3.02., the Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board. No, this one is not

straightforward. This is a place where we were told last year that no more money

would have to be spent in this area, the appropriations provided for the support

of the management board. Yet, nothing was budgeted last year but now this year

there is $500,000 in there.

MS JOHNSON: This is for Aboriginal Participant Funding.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: 2.3.02.?

MS MICHAEL: 2.3.02., yes.

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

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: Originally, the federal government were going to do a

screening assessment. If they do a screening there would be no federal

participant funding required. It is only when there is a comp study that that

kicks in on the federal level, but we put this in there anyway for participant

funding so that the Aboriginals can have some funding to hire consultants

throughout the transmission project. Since that time the feds have made a

decision that they are going forward with a comp study. So now they will have to

have monies there as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: I do not know if we will have to use this entire amount now

because when this was put there it was done on the premise that they were doing

a screening and had no money, the feds that is.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JOHNSON: It may all be used. It is budgeted for, but it is part of the

environmental assessment process. When you are doing big projects like that, the

Aboriginals need to have this participant funding.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, no, I am well aware of that. I am just wondering why it

is under what is called the appropriations for the support of the environmental

management board, because that management board does not exist any more.

MS JOHNSON: Where are you

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

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

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

MS JOHNSON: That does not exist any more.

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

MS JOHNSON: Yes. I can give you

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

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: I can show you the sheet.

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

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

Participant Funding.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, but the description is not there now. The subhead number

is there but not the description. I have the description in front of me but I

think I know what happened, sorry about that.

MS JOHNSON: 2.3.02. is Aboriginal Participant Funding. "Appropriations

provide for support in coordination with the Federal Participant Funding

Program..."

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, a mistake has been made. It must have been done for me.

The $500,000 remains the same. Now it makes sense.

Thank you very much.

MS JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Down to

section 3.1.01. Crown Land, under Transportation and Communications

subhead 03. Quite a bit had been budgeted, $648,300 but only $260,000 had been

spent, so a difference of $388,300. Yet, this year you are back up to over

$600,000 again. So what happened?

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

had anticipated.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under the same

section but subhead 05., once again, much less money spent

under Professional Services. A difference of $315,000 from what was budgeted and

what was spent, and this year down to more of what actually was spent last year.

What had been anticipated there or was there reallocation?

MS JOHNSON: No, it was what was anticipated. We were trying to gather

more information from Abitibi on their files for Crown land. We had hoped to get

access to some of their deeds and documents. We did not get that. It is in their

vault and we did not get it. So that is a piece of work that did not get done

because we did not have that information.

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

anticipated maybe?

MS JOHNSON: That is right.

MS MICHAEL: It is related.

Since you mention Abitibi, and it is sort of related to that, I have a

specific question that I would like to ask. It has to do with, last year in

Estimates it was indicated that work was being done at looking at what the cost

of the environmental clean up with regard to the Abitibi, the areas that they

had used, that some estimation was going to be going on inside the department

with regard to what the cost to Abitibi would be. Has that work been done?

MS JOHNSON: We have done some preliminary work just to find out where the

areas of concern were. We identified Botwood, Stephenville, Grand Falls-Windsor,

Buchans and some logging camps.

In terms of the actual cost, the only thing that we would have details on

would be around Buchans because that was a health and safety issue, so that came

to the forefront for our department. When there is an issue of health and safety

we made that our top priority. The others, we will not have the actual costs

until Abitibi submits a remediation plan. We sign off on the remediation plan,

only then will we know the costs.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

My next question, I really do not mean it politically, but will the mill then

be part of that? Because if they are not going to submit a remediation or

anything to do with the mill than whose responsibility is it going to be to look

at the cost of the environmental clean up that is going to have to happen with

regard to the mill?

MS JOHNSON: Well, as you know, it is going through a process now. We

currently sought leave to appeal the Quebec Judge Gascon's decision. That is

going to be heard on May 12. So, we are not giving up. We are continuing to

argue that Abitibi should clean up those environmental issues. I mean they came

here, they used our resources, and they reaped the benefits of it. All we are

asking is that they bring the land back to the state that they found it in.

MS MICHAEL: I realize that. I guess the only purpose of my question in

terms of in the budget is it looks like we are down the road in terms of any

determination that might be there of what the cost of that might be, no matter

who it is that has to do it. If you are saying that you are waiting for the

remediation plans with regard to clean up from Abitibi and until you get the

remediation plans you cannot plan costs, you cannot do estimates of costs, then

when it comes to the mill it looks like until everything is over, with regard to

the legal stuff, there will be no work done on trying to figure out what the

remediation around that will cost.

MS JOHNSON: No, the mill was in the orders, as were all the other sites

that I just mentioned, Botwood, Stephenville, Buchans and the logging camps. So,

it would not be us planning costs. It would be Abitibi that would determine the

cost because they would submit the remediation plan; we would sign off on it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I understand.

MS JOHNSON: It is their cost, not ours.

MS MICHAEL: Unless you lose the battle.

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

MS MICHAEL: I guess that is my question, we will not be doing any

estimating until you find out?

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

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Down under 3.1.02., then the Revenue section, the Provincial Revenue is down

a bit I guess, but that is determined by probably sales of land, is it? You

estimated getting $7.5 million in but you were actually $1.2 million less than

anticipated in Provincial Revenue.

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

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

section 3.1.03., Surveying and Mapping, you were $156,800 below what had

been budgeted for Salaries. Could we have an explanation of that, please?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we had a director leave us last year, retired, and we

had two senior engineers who retired last year as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. This year we are back up to $740,000. So I presume you

are going to be filling all of these positions this year?

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

other two.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

In the same section, but subhead 05., Professional Services, a difference of

$120,000 between the Budget and the revision.

MS JOHNSON: Under 3.1.03?

MS MICHAEL: 3.1.04., I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: Under Professional Services.

MS MICHAEL: Do you normally just keep $230,000 as your line? Because

sometimes it goes up that high or

MS JOHNSON: There was a reduction in the number of projects that staff

took on last year but we are hoping to have those projects back on the books

this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

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

projects.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That would explain the Revenue differences. That is

what I figured. This is a joint agreement and you have the changes.

MS JOHNSON: Right.

MS MICHAEL: The two things go together, the federal and the provincial

funding differences there.

MS JOHNSON: That is right.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 4.1.01.01, again it is Salaries, there was a difference between the

Budget and the revision of $250,000, which is a fair bit.

MS JOHNSON: Yes. We had some overtime, we had severance pay and also we

extended the seasonal staff in some of the parks by a week or two.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, but now this year there is a drop. It is down to

$2,977,000. So are you losing a position or anything there?

MS JOHNSON: No, we are keeping the positions. There are two positions

that were in the Natural Areas System Plan. When I went through the budget this

year I just said we would keep the positions but I will find the money within

the budget in terms of savings to fund them. We are all doing our part to

tighten the belt.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 05., there was quite a bit in there for Professional Services that

obviously did not get spent and now it is not there. Has that money been

relocated, or has it just disappeared?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it was reallocated, just underneath it there. That was

for the T'Railway funds, and if you see, it is just underneath there in

Purchased Services.

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

I guess just more curiosity; it is not a huge sum, but under 07. Property,

Furnishings and Equipment, there was an expenditure that obviously had not been

anticipated, $15,500.

MS JOHNSON: That was an ATV we purchased. Was it one or two? One ATV -

three for $15,000. Where did they buy them? I want to get one.

MS MICHAEL: What was it again?

MS JOHNSON: It was for ATVs.

MS MICHAEL: There must be more than one.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, but not three.

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

they cost.

In this section, what is the Grants and Subsidies line? Is that money that

goes directly to one group?

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

MS MICHAEL: It goes to the council.

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

other one in that?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: That's right; $190,000 of it goes to the T'Railway council

and then they use those funds to leverage from ITRD, ACOA and so on. There is

also $100,000 that is going to the Nature Conservancy Council of Canada. That is

a three-year project we signed on with them, $100,000 each year, and that is do

to some eco-region, eco-district work for us in Labrador on the Natural Areas

System Plan.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just to give you an update, I just have a couple of more line

items, if I could finish those and then save some more general questions for my

next time.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

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

differences.

Under 4.2.03., under the Salaries, there was a big jump from the Budget to

the revision, a jump of $269,600.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, that was for overtime and we extended some of the

seasonal staff, and it was also for students. This is mainly for the operations

of the Salmonier Nature Park.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

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

MS MICHAEL: I notice that this year the salary budget is up to over $1

million. Did any of those positions become permanent because you have a

difference of $139,200?

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

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Do you have the numbers?

MS JOHNSON: Would you know, Ross?

I will have to get them for you.

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

up.

What area would they be going that is work in the park itself, in the parks

themselves, the temporary positions?

MS JOHNSON: I will have to check but I am pretty sure this comes under

the Salmonier Nature Park, right?

MS MICHAEL: Well, you have the training public awareness programs. I am

wondering if it is in the training and public awareness programs or if you have

more of that going on this year?

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

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

is being spent.

Under the same section, subhead 06., a big difference in Purchased Services.

The budget is going up $603,000. What is being anticipated here?

MS JOHNSON: This was actually a reallocation of funds. It did not come

from 4.2.03. It actually came underneath from 4.2.04.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. What would that have been? Why was it moved? What is

the actual action or the service that is

MS JOHNSON: It is just better to reflect the needs of that particular

division. We can get you some more details on it. I did know where it was moved

from.

Scott, do you recall where that was moved from?

MR. JONES: It was moved -

MS MICHAEL: Is it both the reallocation of the money as well as of the

service itself, if you get what I mean, or just moving money

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it is a reallocation from Habitat, Game and Fur, but I

should also mention too that about $560,000 of that is for the current work

under the Salmonier Nature Park. Some of it is Capital; some of it is Current,

the work being done at the Salmonier Nature Park. It is $1.6 million in total.

There was $1 million over in a previous

section under Capital. There is about

$600,000 of that is for the work to be done at the Salmonier Nature Park and

then there is a small reallocation from Habitat, Game and Fur.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Even though it is work that is related to Habitat, Game

and Fur, it is specifically happening under the Nature Park in this year's

Budget, I take it?

MS JOHNSON: I can verify it, but I suspect that is why it is, just to

better reflect the needs there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 4.2.04.01.; once again, a big variance between the Budget for Salaries

and what was spent.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, there was a delayed recruitment in some of the vacant

positions we had there, but we plan to continue trying to fill them.

MS MICHAEL: Are these permanent positions?

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

temporary.

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

area?

MS JOHNSON: It depends on the position. If it is more of the senior

biologist's positions, it has been tough to fill those for sure.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under 4.2.04.06., Purchased Services are going up. I guess just a question:

Why? Is there something new coming in or are services getting more expensive? It

sort of went up from the Budget to the revision and now again to the new Budget,

to the Estimates.

MS JOHNSON: It is a reallocation of funds, but it is specifically going

to downloading information from satellite callers. The program is called Argos.

I thought it was an actual Argo at first, but it is not, it is a program.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

Under 4.2.06.03. Transportation and Communications, there was a variance

upward of $100,600, so an over expenditure $100,000.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, this was for more required air travel time, as well as

other travel. Again, a lot of these are cost-shared projects.

MS MICHAEL: Right, and then I notice this year it is down by about

$39,400 from the Budget. It is the kind of thing you cannot anticipate, I guess.

MS JOHNSON: Well, we try our best.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

The only other one then under the lines is 06. Purchased Services, there is a

big decrease from last year's Budget to this year's estimate, a difference of

$228,000. What is making the difference there or is that a reallocation issue?

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Purchased Services 06.

MS JOHNSON: Sorry, I was looking under the wrong heading. Give me a

second. It was not making sense.

The additional $40,000-odd was for the increased cost of printing. The

reduction this year is the removal of one-time funding. It is some study that we

are not going to do this year or maybe several studies that we are not going to

do this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, right.

I am just curious; under 07. Property, Furnishings and Equipment, last year

the Budget was $100,400 of which none was spent and revised down to zero. This

year there is just $1,000 in there. Was there something anticipated last year

that did not get purchased?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it was equipment that we thought we were going to need

and did not. The Budget there this year is again, it is a project or two or

three that will not proceed.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

That is all the line items.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Michael.

Are there any questions over here?

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have just one with regard to the one-liners. I guess it is

not a question in relation to any figures or anything but 4.2.05., just an

explanation, if you could explain. What is the difference with that division

than the Sustainable Development, or Policy Development and Planning, or

Habitat, Game and Fur Management? Is there a difference in that particular one

than the other headings that I mentioned? It is just a general question.

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

Okay, I will pass it on to Ross.

MR. FIRTH: The research

section within the Wildlife division looks at a

variety of different areas really, and that includes the inland fish

section as

well. You mentioned earlier about fish telemetry purchases. So that includes the

work through the Northern Strategic Plan for looking at lake trout, brook trout

and providing advice and guidance to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on

fish management issues, but it also includes research related to moose. The

application of moose collars onto animals such as that. We are also looking at

the installation, purchase and maintenance of collars related to caribou

research as well in some areas of the Province. Also, we are looking at things

such as aerial surveys for beavers, an example, that falls under it as well.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Minister, your department is directing the closure of many, I suppose

hundreds of landfills throughout the Province, I do not know about hundreds but

quite a few. What is your plan to remediate those sites in the future? I know

there must be quite a bit of work and a good dollar value attached to that.

MS JOHNSON: The only thing that we are directing is the incinerators,

which there are twelve of those left. Between ourselves, Municipal Affairs and

MMSB we assist in the cost of cleaning up those sites once the incinerators are

gone, but the remainder of the Waste Management Strategy comes under the

Department of Municipal Affairs. We are just responsible for the standards when

it comes to incinerators. We have come a long way. We are from fifty-two down to

twelve. So that is really good for the people of the Province.

MR. BUTLER: That number twelve, does that include the incinerator on

Mount Scio Road?

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

ours.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: Does MUN own that?

MR. BUTLER: I am not sure. It is a good possibility but I was just

wondering is that one that is being considered as well.

MS JOHNSON: We are looking at the teepee or conical incinerators. So that

one in relation to municipal waste, I do not have any details on that one. I do

not know if it is more of a better sophisticated because sophisticated, high

burning incinerators, there is no issue with that when you have them burned at

high temperatures, it is when you burn at low temperatures in these, what we

call teepee incinerators, that is where the issues lie. So, I do not have any

details on that one on Mount Scio Road.

MR. BUTLER: What we have heard is this one is operating with no

certification. Maybe the certification does not come from your department

either, it could be through someone else I do not know, that is why I asked the

question.

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

MR. GOEBEL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: No, it is not a landfill incinerator. We will have to check,

it is the first I have heard of it.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Minister, with regard to the waste management plan on the Avalon - I know

this is tied to the MMSB and probably Municipal Affairs as well - from time to

time we hear different groups saying it is off the rails and so on. With your

department, how do you see it all coming together and hopefully getting back on

the rails that we are going to see the masterful plan that is trying to be put

in place.

MS JOHNSON: Well yes, there are funds that come from the MMSB in terms of

capacity funding for the regions to try to build up the capacity so that when

there are three landfills in the Province they will have the people in the area,

hopefully, onside.

It is a question for the Department of Municipal Affairs. I can only speak to

my own district because I do many meetings with them. It certainly not off the

rails out there; they are really moving. In fact, they just signed a tender to

bring the waste now from New Chelsea all the way down to Old Perlican and up to

Small Point into St. John's. Also, from Whiteway to Heart's Desire they have

gotten together and they are doing work to close down the landfills in their

areas and bring it to Robin Hood Bay.

So, I would not be able to speak to it provincially because it is under the

Department of Municipal Affairs, but it is certainly not off the rails out in my

area. They are doing a great job in moving this forward.

MR. BUTLER: I go back to the AG's report with regard to Crown lands and

some 4,000 people with illegal structures. I was just wondering - I know there

is work done in some areas and I know there have been environmental issues, no

doubt about that - what are your plans with the enforcement with regard to all

the other structures that are throughout the Province now that have not been

dealt with.

I know you said you were trying to deal with the people at the Whisky Pit,

which is the one that usually comes up. I was just wondering, will you be

consulting with those people at any point in time and try to come up with other

options that hopefully everybody can be satisfied at the end of the day.

MS JOHNSON: Well, really the onus is on the individuals, just as it is on

you or I if we want to go in and buy a piece of Crown land for a cottage or a

residence or whatever. The onus is on the people if they want to form an

association, come in and find a piece of land. We can assist them, we cannot

find the piece of land for them. However, in the Whiskey Pit we have been going

a little bit above and beyond what we normally do, but there are great examples.

Down in Tracey Perry's district there were trailers posted there. They all

came together, they formed an association, they went through the proper channels

at the Government Services Centre and they are well on their way now to being

ready to open for this season. When it comes to the fact of the environment, now

those trailers will be in a site where the septic is not an issue any more. They

have the requirements in place for the septic. They will now own land, so it is

theirs forever and a day for not very much cost.

In terms of the 4,000 structures, I know the AG went into a lot of detail. He

even cited all of the wharves and boathouses now. We are not at the point right

now where we are going to go around the Province and start posting all the

boathouses and wharves because we have to prioritize and deal with the cottages

and the trailers first.

We dealt with the bigger issues in terms of the environmental issues in

Howley. Whiskey Pit was an area of concern. They are right on the side of the

road, and if you look at the Highway Traffic Act there are issues there in terms

of them being that close to the road. We have also looked at other areas. A lot

of these reasons why we go in and inspect are as a result of calls that come to

our department, complaints about trailers, cabins or so on. So, when we get the

calls that is when we go inspect. It is also part of our regular routines, or

when there are enforcement officers out from the Department of Natural

Resources, they may see something and report to us.

So, it is a combination of reasons why we go. We prioritize the areas. There

is a lot more to be done, but we are trying to deal with the ones that we have

posted so far before we continue on with any others because there are a lot that

we have already posted that we are trying to get those sites cleaned up first.

MR. BUTLER: I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you

said one day I mentioned the issue of Wolf Pond, and you said that happened, it

should never have happened and it would not happen again.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The end result is really almost the same as what you are

trying to do with the other people. They are paying a fee now and probably the

department or government went in there and did more than they should have done.

Where do you see the difference if you are trying to work with people than

what happened there?

MS JOHNSON: I think the difference with Wolf Pond Bill, I think was

around at the time is that we owned Wolf Pond and really it raised a lot of

issues in terms of other private park owners, and Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador had some things to say about it in that it was direct competition for

these private park owners who are investing a lot of time, money and effort into

trying to get their parks full.

Take the Whiskey Pit for example, if you look at the Whiskey Pit, there are

two other parks on the Salmonier Line within five minutes of the Whiskey Pit.

There is the Pine Line - or it may be a new name now - and the other one is

called Pee Wee Park. Those sites are not filled.

For government to go out and create an area that government owns, we are

getting directly involved with, and the competition, of these other parks. So,

we made a commitment at that time - I was not here but a previous minister made

a commitment that we would not be doing that any more. If an association, if a

group of owners, or a development association, or a town council, or anybody

like that wanted to form an association and get the land, go ahead, but

government cannot do it because we are going to be in direct competition with

the parks and that is really not fair to those parks.

MR. BUTLER: The end result would be the same; they would be in

competition with the other parks.

MS JOHNSON: If they want to do that on their own, that is up to

themselves, but government is not going to put them in a position to do that, it

is not fair. There are parks there, there are lots of vacancies and if people

are fine to pay the money for a piece of land, then they can pay the $12 or $15

a night to go into Pee Wee Park.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Has

schedule two been completed with regard to Sandy Pond? I think

schedule

two references Sandy Pond out in Long Harbour.

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

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

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay, I am sorry.

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

MR. BUTLER: With regard to guide licences, I know there has been some

issue with regard to guides here in the Province versus those in other provinces

being able to come in here and they do not think they have the same, I guess,

whereabouts of going somewhere else if they have to. Is that an issue that comes

up from time to time?

MS JOHNSON: Somebody raised it with me and I checked on it - and Ross can

correct if I am wrong - but I did not think there was any different - just part

of internal trade and mobility issues, I thought that they could move around

freely from one province to another when I checked it out.

MR. BUTLER: We were under the impression that the rules were not the

same, but they are.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, somebody wrote me about that, but when I checked it out,

there is no difference.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The climate change discussion paper - the strategy originally organized by

your department stated that there would be updates on our emissions each year. I

was just wondering if you could give me an update on that now.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we have a new Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and

Emissions Trading office led by Jackie Janes. She is in the process - she is

already done some consultations with industry, but she is in the process of

doing further consultations which will feed into updating our Climate Change

Action Plan and also our greenhouse gas emissions predictions. That is a piece

of work that is ongoing. She is after getting about $1 million now in the last

two budgets to do her piece of work and hire staff to do that, so it is well

underway.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, we finally received a copy of the greenhouse gas

emissions report which came through, I guess, the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner. There are three things that were apparent in the report.

The three things that are apparent are: If approved projects came on-line,

number one, we would still not meet the GHG targets by 2020, even if the Lower

Churchill came on stream; Holyrood

is the largest source of pollution in the Province and would not be fully

displaced by the Lower Churchill infeed; and that Holyrood would not provide the

power necessary to provide the identified projects on stream.

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

that.

MS JOHNSON: In terms of the greenhouse gas targets - and these are

targets that we have signed onto with NEG/ECP, which are on a regional basis.

They are not specific to each province, they are on a regional basis. So, as a

whole, we hope to achieve these. We will have to see what comes from that, but

we are trying to do this in such a balance so as not to be detrimental to

economic development in the Province, but at the same time trying to protect the

environment.

The Lower Churchill - I should defer this to John, but my understanding is

there will be enough greenhouse gas reductions come out of the Lower Churchill

to offset all of our greenhouse gases in the Province and that there will be

more besides for other provinces. Can you speak to that some more? John, do you

want to go ahead?

MR. DROVER: Yes, Minister.

The total emissions in the Province are in the order of ten megatons. What

can be gotten from the Lower Churchill is in the order of sixteen megatons of

displacement, if it is displacing coal, for example. So the Lower Churchill is a

significant project for North America in that regard.

I think the emissions from Holyrood are something like a megaton, so they

could be displaced from an infeed, depending on the size of the infeed.

MR. BUTLER: Would that be based on just the projects we have ongoing now,

but if other projects came on stream, maybe that is what is throwing it off?

Would that be

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

MR. BUTLER: They are taken into account.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, they are. Now, they may change. One of the things that

were taken into account was the second refinery. As we know, that is on hold

right now, but that was taken into consideration here too. So it is predictions,

but they are our best guesses.

MR. BUTLER: I understand the office of Climate Change was put in

Executive Council. I am wondering why that was not put in your department where

you provide such leadership roles in that area.

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

I do know that the Premier has a very keen interest in climate change, and

other provinces do have offices such as this fall under Executive Council, but

again I would not want to put words in the mouth of the Premier.

MR. BUTLER: Last year, there was money announced for a climate change

adaptation strategy. I was just wondering has this report been completed, or if

you can give an update on that?

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

Lorraine.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: We did not get those projects up and running last year, but

they are going to be up and running this year. In fact, I know the letters are

before me to sign off. There are a bunch of individual different projects. It

could be research with municipalities, it could be research with professors at

the university, and so on. So we will have more to update it is over two

years, so there will be more of an update after the two years.

MR. BUTLER: I would like to make a comment on the 2007 Sustainable

Development Act that never received Royal Assent?

MS JOHNSON: We are working through the different sustainability

indicators, the makeup of the round table, trying to sort through all of those

issues. So that work is currently ongoing in the department. Once we get some of

those items dealt with, perhaps we will be in a position then to move forward,

but there is a lot of work being done in terms of sustainability indicators or

measures and so on.

MR. BUTLER: I know I mentioned this the other day, Minister, and I guess

it comes up from time to time. It is not an issue that I just bring up for the

sake of bringing it up; we do get calls from the people in that area. That is

the tires that are stored in Dunville. I agree with you, the way they are laid

out there, the way they are put down, separated and things like that, but the

concern that we are getting from people and I am serious about this, we do get

them, and it is not just for the sake of bringing it up is the protection of

the tires.

I know there is a security guy there, and when you go to the site and it is

a wonderful site for it, but it is not protected there. My understanding is when

they were in Bull Arm, they were fenced in or what have you and the whole bit,

but out there it is open to the main highway. There is just one little swinging

gate where you go into the construction site and the security guy is just inside

of that. You go down the highway and there is another little road I forget

goes out to Southeast Placentia or goes out there somewhere, anyway. There are

trails going in on the back everywhere.

The concerns that the people have is that someone could get in there God

forbid, someone could get in there and you are going to have a major disaster if

that should happen. I know probably talking about it only puts it into people's

minds, but they do have that concern and they have asked us to bring it up

several times.

I went out and visited the site myself. I agree with you how the tires are

placed for fire protection, they are so far apart and there are huge bundles of

them. The site itself, any of us here could go out under the cover of darkness

and go in there and the security guy would never know you were on the site. I am

not blaming him or anything like that, I am just wondering is there anything

being considered that this site could be protected more until you come up with a

plan that those tires are gone and taken care of.

MS JOHNSON: The tires are stored according to fire code and have been

inspected by the fire commissioner. We pay for twenty-four-hour,

seven-day-a-week security. It is a private site, so we pay them to secure those

tires. There has never been an issue that has been brought to my attention in

terms of people accessing those tires. It is private land. They secure that site

for various reasons, not just for the tires. They have a lot of vested interest

into that particular area for other things that may be going on there as well.

So, there has never been a concern in terms of somebody gaining access to

that site that I am aware of. I have certainly asked in the past and they have

told me that there has never a concern with people addressing the site.

MR. BUTLER: You will never go in there and take any equipment and get

with it because that has to come out the road, but they are concerned about

people going in around the tires and something happening before it is all gone

(inaudible)

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

MR. BUTLER: Oh no, that is possible. It is a concern that people have,

knowing what is stored there. I guess they hear of stories that happened on the

mainland when the tires caught fire up there and so on.

MS JOHNSON: Well, we pay them to do the service, so we can only trust

that they are doing the service. So far, there has never been an issue, and they

tell us there is not access to the site, so we are satisfied with the service.

The tires in Bull Arm were not the case; they were not stored to fire code.

That was raised by the AG, so we took action and moved those tires. We take the

issues of fire and safety very seriously and that is why we acted on Bull Arm.

We are satisfied with the way it is being run at Placentia.

Now, there are other things we are looking at doing there that would even

lessen any chance of a fire, but we have not announced those yet.

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

MS JOHNSON: I should also mention - I do not know if you are aware of

this yet - any ongoing tire generation in the Province we are shipping directly

now to Quebec, so there are no more tires going into Placentia. There is enough

there now for the proponents we are working with - or the proponent, the one

that we, hopefully, have finally narrowed it down to. There are enough tires

there to keep that proponent going for about five years. We do not need to take

any more at this point, so they are going on to Quebec now.

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

MS JOHNSON: We all do.

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

MS JOHNSON: If something happens, then we would certainly have to ask

some serious questions of the people who are providing us with the security

service for sure.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: We pay them good dollars to do that. As you know the $900,000

that people cite every year, that is not just for storing the tires, a lot of

that is for security as well.

MR. BUTLER: Is there anything to do with the report with regard to the

plastic bag policy or anything like that?

MS JOHNSON: It is something that we are looking at. When you look at

plastic bags, I hate seeing them especially this time of year; you can see them

more so now. When you look at it from a litter perspective it is certainly an

issue, but when you look at it from a waste, in terms of tonnage of waste, it

makes up less than 1 per cent of the total waste that goes into our landfill.

While from an aesthetic value it would be really good to rid our roadsides -

you see down at Robin Hood Bay before, it looked like snow in the trees. It is

terrible; it is shameful that people throw them out and so on. If you sit back

now and watch at a grocery store I was in Carbonear one day and I sat out in

the parking lot. Out of twenty-eight people who came through the door,

twenty-one of them were using the reusable bags. It is great that you are seeing

more people do that.

We are considering it, we are looking at options. It is unfortunate that the

company stopped charging the five cents for it because they told me themselves

that they saw about an 85 per cent to 90 per cent reduction in the use of

plastic bags. I guess for competitive reasons and whatever their reasons are,

when all companies do not follow suit, I guess they change their policies.

It is something that we are looking at, but from a waste perspective it is

only less than 1 per cent of our waste. It would be more for aesthetics that we

would do it.

MR. BUTLER: I am wondering if you can give me a little update on the

research on the coyote numbers or what the research to date has been telling us.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it is telling us that the coyotes are here and they are

here to stay. They distribute fairly well in our Province in terms of the

collaring we have seen, that they can travel quite a fair distance in the

Province. In terms of estimates, Ross, do you know the estimates right now?

MR. FIRTH: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: The estimates are about 4,000 to 8,000 in the Province from

the work that we have done so far. We also look at the hunter returns that come

in, the information we get there. We do see, I think the year before last there

was about 500-odd. Now this year that has been upped to 700 to 800. That would

tell you that the population is doing fairly well here in the Province. They are

here to stay, they came in - it is an issue that all of North America is dealing

with. They can have up to ten, twelve pups at a time.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with regard to the issue with Viking Furs and

Country Ribbon that was ongoing some time ago, I am wondering has that issue

been resolved now to your satisfaction, and I am wondering where the compost

from Country Ribbon is now taken. I understand - now maybe that is closed as

well - the department allowed a road to be built to the Cavendish dump, now is

that still ongoing?

MS JOHNSON: Well, in terms of your first question as to if I am satisfied

I think there was some major progress in that we struck a committee. They meet

monthly, and it is headed up Dan Michielsen in my department.

I think part of the problem was communications before. People in the

community really did not know what was going on and when compost was being

turned and so on. Then, last year topped all of that off with chicken offal

being brought to the site to be composted. That was never allowed, and when we

discovered that was being done we put a stop to it. So, a lot of the complaints

dropped off fairly quickly because that was a terrible smell.

The committee meets monthly. I do not think there will ever be a day when the

smell is completely eliminated. Mink do urinate and a lot of the smell is the

ammonia that comes from the urine, so you are never going to fully eliminate it.

There will never be chicken offal there for compost again not as long as I am

here anyway because that was a terrible smell.

In terms of where the compost is going now from Country Ribbon, it is going

to Sunnyside landfill. That is an approved, acceptable use for Sunnyside

landfill is to landfill the compost there. They do it according to standards in

terms of the layers of fill and the thickness of the fill that they put on it

and so on.

Plans for composting of what is coming out of Sunnyside, as you probably know

they have an application in now through the EA division to do a protein

conversion plant, so that is to use the offal and all the inedible parts and

convert it into animal feed. I just made a decision on that on Thursday and did

some media interviews on Friday in that I will be requiring an EPR, an

Environmental Preview Report, to provide me with further information on odour,

odour control, effluent discharges and controlling that, looking at alternatives

and so on. So, we will have to issue guidelines, they will have to submit an EPR

and then there will be another thirty-day review period before I make my final

decision on that. So in the meantime, it is going to Sunnyside.

I should also mention - you just asked a question on coyotes - that the

Department of Wildlife have been doing a number of coyote hunting workshops

throughout the Province. They have been very well attended. In fact, the one in

Carbonear I went by and had a look and they had over a couple of hundred people

there. They have been really well attended.

I do not hunt them myself, but I am told it is not very easy to hunt or trap

a coyote, so we are doing these sessions around the Province, and the number of

e-mails and comments I have received on it has been extremely well in terms of

the work that is being done. Maybe that is why the number of coyotes that have

been hunted and captured has gone up, I do not know.

MR. BUTLER: If time permits, sir, I will just go to one other topic and a

couple of questions with it, then I can pass it over to my colleague. That is

with regard to the site in Bay Bulls, I think the company is NLL.

I know we get numerous calls from individuals, as well as I think we had one

call from an individual who worked there. I know, Minister, you have responded

to some people saying that it is just solely a transfer station. From the

pictures that we have I was going to bring down my disk I have; we had a disk

sent to us - I am just wondering is that what it is, they are licensed just as a

transfer station, that site in Bay Bulls.

MS JOHNSON: That is my understanding. I know this has been inspected and

checked on because we have gotten letters mostly from the same company, a

particular company has wrote on it, and we have sent staff out and it has all

been inspected. There are some minor issues, but nothing in terms of shutting

them down. In terms of all of the inspections, they have certainly have been

satisfactory, but specifically to Bay Bulls, that is supposed to be a transfer

site, isn't it?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: So, really the material that is there is cleaned up in Robin

Hood Bay somewhere and just transferred to that site to be sent out of the

Province. Is that how it is done?

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

well.

MR. BUTLER: Have you looked at it?

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

again.

MR. BUTLER: Even one gentleman called us, apparently he worked there, and

was complaining about it, about how he was working on fridges and cars and he

felt that the oil was not put in containers properly that was being drained off

and was seeping into the ground.

From the video that I saw - and that is what it looks like - I can tell you

it is more than just a site that material is coming in, that is there, you can

see that as well, but there is work being done there. There was a worker called

and complained that he felt for his safety even and he was going to quit. I do

not know if he did or not. It seems like it is beyond what it is listed as.

MS JOHNSON: Those accusations have been made, and that is why I have

asked staff to go out and have it inspected again. It is Government Services who

does the inspections on behalf of us, but I have asked that it been inspected

again.

To date, each time that it was inspected, it has been satisfactory. That is

not to say that they did not change or something has not changed, but that is

why I have asked that it be done again.

MR. BUTLER: Even in the video when you look at it, it always seems like

there is material pushed over the bank and probably filled in even. Whether that

is correct or not I do not know, but it seems like it is an issue, and I am glad

you are going to have your people check it out again.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Ms Michael.

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

A lot of my questions have been covered you will be glad to know. A couple of

things, Minister, from the Climate Change Action Plan and some of the goals that

were set out there, one of the points in that action plan in the 2007 update was

the thing around anti-idling campaigns. I have to say I have not seen much in

terms of public campaigns on anti-idling. Yet, with the major, major increase in

drive-throughs in particular throughout the whole Province, it would seem to me

that the issue of idling and the emissions from idling is becoming a more

serious issue. Are you anticipating doing any work with regard to an intense

anti-idling campaign?

MS JOHNSON: We have done a fair number of work and just in the past

couple of weeks or so basically, we do a lot of our work through the Lung

Association and we provide them with grant money to do that. So, I know I was on

the West Coast and announced anti-idling at a school out there and then that

whole school district has taken that on, so they are to be commended for that.

Of course, we have the signs up around here, but there has been a lot of work

going on how much is it we gave them, $40,000?

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

Association.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible) Lung Association to have them promote

anti-idling. They often invite me to their events. I have attended numerous

events where a particular school or organization has announced that they would

not be allowing idling on their site any more.

MS MICHAEL: Have you thought about a major provincial campaign using

media to get to the general public?

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

MS MICHAEL: No, I realize that.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and we have our signs around government, of course, and

certainly press releases we have put out in conjunction with the Lung

Association when we announce the various sites. So, a lot of people are really,

really stepping up to the plate, and I find it is the young people. Whenever I

do talks at schools I tell the young people: When your parents are outside

picking you up after school or at lunchtime tell them to turn the car off and in

drive-throughs, those kinds of things.

Actually, it was a really unique project that we worked on with the Lung

Association where they did up a ticket, like an actual parking violation type

ticket, where the students could give the ticket to their parents if they were

idling while they were picking them up. So it was a really neat project that we

worked on with the Lung Association.

MS MICHAEL: I think more than that is needed, minister. I am just going

to make that statement, and I would like your department to look at it.

MS JOHNSON: I have been known to be out in the parking lot where I walk

to my car and I have seen people and I have tapped on windows. Now, most of the

people I know, but I just kind of friendly point to the sign. It is a difficult

one to enforce. We promote it as best we can, as often as we can, but -

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

With regard to methane and methane capture and I must say, I really was

quite impressed when I went to the Robin Hood waste management site about a year

ago, last summer actually, and learned what was going on. As they gather the

information with regard to methane capture there at the Robin Hood site, will

the department be involved then in using that information with other sites?

Other sites will not have to relearn what we are going to learn down in Robin

Hood, I would take it.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and that was part of their contract, that they have to

provide information to us.

Methane, as you know, is twenty-six times worse than carbon dioxide as a

greenhouse gas, so any of this that we can capture in landfill sites would be a

great thing. As you said, it is pretty sophisticated, all of the underground

piping.

The next phase, I understand, that the City of St. John's is looking at now

is using that methane to perhaps power maybe its vehicles or whatever around the

site. So that is the next phase that they are looking at, but it was $1.6

million well spent. Part of their contract is they have to provide us with the

reductions and we fully expect that they will do that.

MS MICHAEL: Then what would be the plan as the other major sites start

getting put in place? Will the department be working with those sites as well to

make sure that methane capture does happen?

MS JOHNSON: I am not aware of that at this point. The reason that the

project is a good one is that we can determine if it will be applicable in other

sites. So once that project is complete and we have the research, it is

something that we can look at. Again, we will have to discuss that with

Municipal Affairs because they are really responsible for the three landfill

sites for the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MS JOHNSON: There is also a really neat one on methane capture that we

announced for what was the name of that farm? It is a cow farm, a dairy farm -

New World Dairy. So they are going to be capturing the methane from the cow

dung.

MS MICHAEL: I will not ask how.

MS JOHNSON: No, but expect to see major greenhouse gas reductions there.

Their hope too down the road is to use that to power other things. So that was

the $900,000 project that we funded there as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That is with a private enterprise. Will that

information be shared with others in the same industry?

MS JOHNSON: That is the whole premise around this, is that it has to be

given back to us so other industries, like industries, can use this if it is

feasible for them to do so.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

That is good to hear.

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Last year we did talk a bit about the beverage container

recycling program. The number, of course, of beverage containers being returned

has been going down. Do you know what the report was for 2009, or is the report

from MMSB with regard to the returned containers, is the number moving up again?

MS JOHNSON: Actually, last year was the highest number of beverage

containers ever recycled in the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Do we know why that happened last year, because up to last

year they had gone down?

MS JOHNSON: Well, if you look at the AG's report it was really a play on

words, if you look at it, and I do not have all the details here before me. I

remember it clearly (inaudible) explaining it at the time, but it was definitely

if you read the detail, he was not comparing apples to apples. Last year it

was the highest. I do not have the numbers before me. I do not know if anyone

remembers the numbers because I just said it at a speech about a week ago, but

it was the highest numbers ever recycled in the Province. The MMSB continues

with their advertising.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, they do.

MS JOHNSON: We continue with the matching funds at the schools and so on,

but it had something to do with the context he took the numbers in. It was not

quite an accurate statement, actually.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

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

MS JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I am not seeing anything that is really dealing with e-waste

in this Province in any kind of big way. What is the department doing in terms

of researching this area?

MS JOHNSON: Before I answer that one, if I could just continue on with

the depots and the recycling. We just also announced new standards for all of

the Green Depots that all thirty-nine of them signed on to in terms of wait

times. There can no longer be more than twenty minute wait times. There is

certain space that needs to be required. There is a whole host of things. So

that will certainly help improve people's experience when they go.

I know particularly out in my area, there were signs on the doors: we cannot

accept because we do not have any bags. We have changed all of those standards

now because really, if people went there and there were no bags then in all

likelihood those beverage containers are probably going to end up in the waste.

MS MICHAEL: No, I am sorry. We are misunderstanding each other. I am

talking about e-waste now.

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

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

MS JOHNSON: You asked maybe why last year it might have improved. It

might have improved because of the improved standards.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: If people had poor experiences before, there is a new

standard now that everybody had to sign on to in a contract. So we have not had

a complaint - and Paul Russell at the MMSB is very happy. We have not had a

complaint about bags or tubs or transportation now since those have come into

effect, so that might be part of the reason.

The e-waste: we did do an announcement around cell phones in partnership with

a national company around cell phones. I was in Nova Scotia and visited all of

their e-waste facilities. Was that March, February? It was a month or two ago,

because Nova Scotia has been really, really progressive in their e-waste

strategy. I looked at all of the other provinces and by far Nova Scotia is ahead

of the rest. So that is why I wanted to go there. They have ACES ACES is the

name of the group that heads it up there and they have just recently invited

me to go to Montreal to see the second step in the e-waste recycling and how it

all gets actually recycled and reused. So we are doing that in the month of

June.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel, so we are looking closely at what

they are doing. It is very interesting. It looks like it is very exciting stuff,

and no reason why it could not be applied here. Now, that is a decision

government will have to make but it is one that I am quite interested in. It was

fascinating to see. The people who are employed at these facilities, too it is

just an amazing piece of work that we could definitely do here. So I am going to

Montreal next month to look at what they are doing there.

MS MICHAEL: I am really, really glad to hear that as one person who has a

storage area in her house that is developing more and more material, waiting for

a place to send it. I would be very happy if we would move ahead with that here

in this Province.

MS JOHNSON: There is one program here through I believe the Department

of Education funds it. It is the Computers for Schools. They do ship their

e-waste to these facilities in Nova Scotia, actually. So there was a separate

group there from Newfoundland, but there is a lot more of that that we can

capture.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: When you look at the funds I have the brochure over at my

office, I do not know if you have it it is really not a lot of money. I think

an iPod was about forty cents, somewhere in that range. Some TVs were a couple

of dollars. Now, anything fifty inches and over I think was $6.40, but any of

the previous material that you brought to the site there was no charge. So a lot

of people cleaned out their basements, their garages and so on.

It is only on a go-forward basis and it seems to go over really well. There

were a couple of odd complaints that they dealt with along the way, in terms of

somebody from Ontario buying a TV in Nova Scotia and had to pay the fee there

but did not have to pay it in Ontario because Ontario did not have it, but for

the most part, they have had really good success with it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Well, I will be looking forward to seeing what the

result of all of this is. I hope this time next year maybe we will actually -

could be right into it.

MS JOHNSON: Yes, and we were trying to prioritize and we just did our

consultations on the paint recycling.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

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

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

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

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Mr. Butler, do you have any questions?

Mr. Butler.

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

Minister, I know you mentioned you are going to Montreal, I thought you said,

and you mentioned New Brunswick. Did you visit the site in New Brunswick where

they have everything under the one roof, all types of waste?

I know I was to the Municipalities convention a couple of years ago, and even

the waste, timber and wood that is how they heat the facility they look

after everything under the one roof. We had a it is the stick you put in your

computer with the full thing on it. I know it was costly for them to get it

started but they have everything there now, and they look after I was just

wondering if you saw that facility when you were in New Brunswick.

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

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: But I was in P.E.I. and saw a similar type I think you are

talking about the one in Westmorland, near Moncton. I was not to that one, but

there was one I visited in P.E.I. where they do district heating. They take all

of the waste there and it is heated through pipes and it heats the hospital and

the nearby communities.

We currently have a Green Fund application that we funded the first phase of

similar it is not waste, but it would be a district heating concept. That is

with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, from the excess steam that comes off. We are

looking at seeing if that can be used as a heat source for, say the courthouse

or the nearby communities and so on. So that is underway.

There is a lot of different e-projects our there. Plasco is another one that

I visited in Ottawa. Some of them would be applicable to here and some would

not. So that is why we have to target what we can, but this Corner Brook one

will be exciting if that goes through.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, I understand the federal minister Minister Prentice, I

think it is has entered into an MOU with the B.C. government on a strategy to

attack climate change. I was just wondering where our government is hitting with

an overall package on that?

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

MR. BUTLER: Minister Prentice, I think he has entered into an MOU with

the B.C. government with regard to a strategy to attack climate change. I was

just wondering, an overall review of how we here in this Province might be

looking at something similar to that?

MS JOHNSON: Yes, we have entered into, on an Atlantic provincial basis,

an agreement with Minister Prentice on the climate change adaptation piece. That

is $4 million shared by the provinces, and then the feds put in $4 million. That

is more around the climate change adaptation side. We are not really a big

producer of greenhouse gases here in this Province. In fact, Canada only

produces 1.5 per cent of all of the world's greenhouse gases and of that 1.5 per

cent of the world, as a Province we only provide less than 1.5 per cent of that

1.5 per cent. So, we are not a big contributor. We are going to get it on the

receiving end in terms of the sea level rise and the flooding. So we focused our

efforts on the adaptation piece and we did sign - I do not know if it was an MOU

but it was certainly an agreement with the federal minister on the adaptation

piece for an $8 million project.

MR. BUTLER: I understand there were twelve Red Wine caribou that were

collared in Labrador. I was wondering if your department had any word if they

survived the slaughter that we saw recently and, if so, is your department in

consultation with other departments on how to help protect them?

MS JOHNSON: We do not know if they were part of that or not yet. That

piece of work is being done. We have management plans in place for them. We know

that there are less than 100 of them, so that is the reason why we have closed

zones in the core habitat of the Red Wine herd.

If Ross wants to add to this he can.

MR. FIRTH: As you said, we have a number of collars on Red Wine animals

right now. We are very fortunate this year that we were able to isolate what we

felt quite confident to be additional Red Wine animals. We were able to put on

two more additional collars on there. So it is quite beneficial for us to have

those additional collars on there to look at distribution and movement.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

Minister, I know there has been considerable lobbying in the Province with

regard to pesticide bans. I am wondering - I notice there was one working group

trying to meet with you. I am wondering if you have worked with them and what

was the outcome of the meeting if you have met with them?

MS JOHNSON: Roland, on that other question

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS JOHNSON: Ross tells me that all of the twelve collared animals are

still alive. Sometimes these tests take so long to get back but I guess they are

still beeping and they are still moving around.

On the pesticides, I am not aware of any groups that have asked for a meeting

and did not get one. I have met with the Landscape Newfoundland and Labrador, I

have met with the Lung Association, I have met with the Canadian Cancer Society,

and I have met with various specific individual companies who apply pesticides.

There were members there of the medical association. So I am unaware of any one

group who has asked me - I have met with a whole bunch of them. There are not

any other requests in right now. I have also had discussions with my Atlantic

counterparts. In fact, we have Atlantic Ministers' next month in New Brunswick,

and one of the topics on the agenda is pesticides.

When you do a search around the provinces, you will see that different

provinces have different bans in place; some provinces do not have any bans. New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia are trying to work I do not think P.E.I. has

announced their ban yet. I know that they are considering it as well. One of the

things that we talk about is harmonization and it is more of an issue, really,

for the other three Atlantic Provinces because they may ban something in New

Brunswick and then they might just drive to Nova Scotia and get it. So, they are

dealing with some separate issues there.

One of the things that came up in my research is that Quebec is currently

they are not going through a court case yet, but in all likelihood will end up

in well, there are some legal challenges in Quebec from a company called Dow

Chemical. I have Justice doing a piece of work on that because we certainly do

not want to end up in any legal challenges if we ban the pesticides. Now, some

say: Oh well, do it and deal with it after. I just have to do the due diligence

and put the right information before government before we make any decisions.

One thing I will say, and this is the time of year, is: If you look in your

flyers that you get in your homes, every single flyer that I have received so

far in my home that I have in here, one of the options you see from the

companies is an environmentally friendly option for lawns. The companies

themselves have been doing a lot more work in terms of integrated pest

management in terms of educating the public.

Really, you should not need to use pesticides if you install and maintain

your lawn properly. Even though the City of St. John's has a law that you have

to put down six inches of topsoil, I know because I see the construction that

goes on that is not often the case. That is where you are going to have issues.

So if you have your six to eight inches of topsoil, if you test it, if you check

the pH because pH is really the issue and you add the limestone that is

required and you maintain it properly, you should not really need pesticides.

One of the other things that some companies are doing now is homeowners will

sign up for a program, three times a year they want their lawn sprayed and that

is it spray the whole thing. Some companies I will give them credit are

saying: Well, there is only a spot here, so rather than spraying the whole lawn

let us just do this area. So I have to give them credit; they are doing better.

It is something that we definitely have under consideration. I have been in

discussions with Health. I have read numerous reports from the College of

Physicians of Ontario about some of the work that is being done. Now, none of it

is proven scientific information; it is more test case results that have been

studied over the years, but it is not proven in science. So I am reading all of

that. It is interesting and it is something that we are looking at, but until I

get all of the information, we have not made any decision yet.

Actually, I would be curious to see if you are in favour of a pesticide ban

because I have not heard from the Opposition as to where they are on it.

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

it as detailed as that.

OFFICIAL: We had a resolution passed (inaudible).

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

convention on that.

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

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Pardon me?

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

OFFICIAL: May of 2009.

MR. BUTLER: May and June of 2009.

MS JOHNSON: Okay, that is good to know because I really did not know

where you guys were on that.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS JOHNSON: Was it specifically on because you hear the word cosmetic

pesticides and some people want to ban pesticides for pests in their homes, so

if somebody has a mouse infestation, they want to ban that too. I have been

looking at it really from the aspect of lawns because I am of the mind that if

you choose to bring pesticides into your home that is your choice, but when you

are looking at lawns and you have your lawn sprayed your neighbour did not have

a whole lot of say in that. So, I have been looking at it from the lawns. I do

not know where you guys (inaudible).

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

MS JOHNSON: On lawns specifically?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

We have had several issues raised by salmon fishermen - whether it is

correct, I was wondering if you people had any calls on it - considering

pollution coming out of The Wilds golf course and they say they are seeing a

lower quality of fish on the salmon river. I was just wondering, has your

department had any issue with this, any testing been done and has any directive

been given to the owners of the golf course?

MS JOHNSON: It is the first I have heard of it, but if there is an issue

like that then DFO would have the jurisdiction over that. I have not heard of

anything. I am not aware if there is any correspondence in our department on it?

No.

MR. BUTLER: Really, that is where they are coming from. Similar to the

lawns is the lawns at the golf course. Those people were saying that

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: The lawns, where they spray the lawns, and they figure this

is where it is coming from.

MS JOHNSON: I did do a media piece once on the swimming hole area in

Holyrood. They asked if it was coming from the golf course there in Holyrood -

The Wilds is on Salmonier Line.

OFFICIAL: A different issue.

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

it.

MR. BUTLER: This one comes right to your district, and I have not heard

anything on it recently but I said I would ask today. There were some

complaints, I think it was last year, with regard to the, I think it is chitin

plant or the shells from the -

MS JOHNSON: The chitin plant.

MR. BUTLER: Chitin, is it? I guess I said that wrong. I was wondering,

has anything become of that and is the facility still going ahead and everything

resolved itself?

MS JOHNSON: I have not made any decisions. What I did was I wrote the

proponent and required that before I do make any decisions they are to hold a

public meeting to provide information to the public. To my knowledge, they have

not done that yet. I would certainly know if they have because I would have

certainly heard about it.

So, there was a lot of concern in the area about that, and that is why I

asked them to hold a public meeting. I do not know if it is off the table or

what, but they have not actioned it.

MR. BUTLER: Apparently, there is another proposal we received a copy of

with regard to a shrimp waste facility in St. Anthony. I believe the facility

was to collect all shrimp waste products and change into a clean effluent and

generate energy for its own use. I was wondering have you heard anything on that

one. It was the St. Anthony Basin Resources initiative fishing co-operative.

MS JOHNSON: Off the top of my head, it is not ringing a bell. I do know

that there was an application I have heard of that I was submitted to the MMSB

under the solid waste management fund. That is a fund that is up to $10,000 per

applicant. It has not made its way to my desk, and I am not even sure if that is

the proponent, but Lee did mention to me one day that there is a proposal coming

in about shrimp waste. Now, that could be anything, but nothing has made my desk

yet.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This one is only a short one: How many unregistered tanks still remain in the

Province or would you have that figure available?

MS JOHNSON: A lot less than there were. I know since we said that there

would not be any more extensions beyond July, provided you had a letter from the

company or an appointment made, there has been, I am told, almost 10,000 that

have registered since that time. So, the numbers of calls have dropped off. We

hardly have any now. Of course, since HRLE provided the funds there to replace

the tanks that have certainly helped too.

MR. BUTLER: My last question, I guess, goes back - it was tied to the

issue with the Viking farm at the time. I do not know if this actually happened,

but there was a possibility of a federal investigation with regard to the waste

water that was entering the ocean over there. I was just wondering if that took

place and what actions is your department taking to reduce the amount of waste

water entering our oceans. I know that was an issue over there at that time and

it was brought up.

MS JOHNSON: I know that some constituents asked to have the water tested

down stream from that, which was going into the ocean. Our staff went out and

did that and there were no issues, but I am not aware of any federal

investigation at all.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS JOHNSON: They also tested the swimming hole further up in Brook Cove,

I believe it is called, and again there were no issues there.

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

Any further questions?

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Just one more question, Minister.

I am wondering in Water Resources Management Division, has any thought gone

into looking at the impact of bottling water, the impact both environmentally in

terms of the source where water is coming from and the impact of bottled water

producing then so much more waste when it comes to the bottles themselves, and

if any research around that issue is happening in your department?

MS JOHNSON: We have not done any research into the bottling water in

terms of the waste that is produced from it.

I know in our office we do not buy bottled water, we do not use it. We have

our water coolers, everybody has their own mug and everyone has their own plate.

We do not use paper towels. We have reusable cloths that you can wash and so on.

That is certainly what you would expect of the Department of Environment, but in

terms of the bottling, the standards around a company that bottles water, I will

defer that one to Martin.

MR. GOEBEL: Yes, we do have a review that is undertaken whenever a new

bottling plant is proposed. We look at the amount of water that it requires and

what impact it would have on the area, if it is a ground water source. We also

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2010-05-03
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga46_2010-05-03_20_rc-environment_20__20conservation_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	11ac5a6a07fed6cefbe2e088d42f7a614b39d622

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).