Social Services Committee — Department of Environment and Lands — 26 April 1994

1994-04-26

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

April 26, 1994

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Dr. Bud Hulan, M.H.A.

(St. George'

s) substitutes for Oliver Langdon, M.H.A. (Fortune - Hermitage), and

Lloyd Matthews, M.H.A. (St. John's North) substitutes for Caroline Young, M.H.A.

(Terra Nova).

The committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Order, please!

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I will call

this meeting to order now. Tonight we are doing the estimates of the Department

of Environment and Lands. Before we start there are a couple of little things

that we are going to be doing. I would ask that someone make a motion that we

adopt the minutes of the previous meeting. I understand there is an error. The

Clerk tells me that she will fix it and make sure that Mr. Hodder gets his due

rewards or whatever to show that he was here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just desserts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: His just desserts, yes.

Anyhow, as you know the Committee operates with the

minister being asked to make an opening statement and she has up to fifteen

minutes. The critic for the Opposition - and who is going to do that tonight?

Ms. Verge, is it? Yes. - has an equal amount of time to respond. Then we go to

the ten minute stages and I will recognize the members if they want to speak. I

will keep a note of them and recognize them in the order that they signify they

want to speak.

Normally we try to get through those meetings in

the three hour period. A little later on we will determine if we are going to be

able to do this tonight and then we will make the decision. If we can clue up

around 10:00 p.m., fine; if not we will clue up at 10:00 p.m. to meet again

another day.

With that I would like at this time to welcome

Minister Cowan and her staff. I would ask her to introduce her officials. I

would say to the officials, if they are called upon to speak at any time during

the night they should identify themselves before they speak. Because most of the

people who are transcribing this, they recognize the voices of the people on

this side, but they wouldn't recognize you people. I would ask you to identify

yourself before you speak. Maybe all the members of the Committee are not known,

so it is customary that the Committee introduces itself and then I will ask the

minister to introduce herself and say a few words.

My name is David Gilbert, I'm the MHA for Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir.

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, Humber East.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, St. John's East.

DR. HULAN: Bud Hulan, St. George's.

MR. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Lloyd Matthews, St. John's

North.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the minister.

MS. COWAN: Okay. Patt Cowan, Minister of

Environment and Lands, MHA for Conception Bay South. I have with me my Deputy

Minister John Fleming, on my immediate right. Next to him is Barbara Wakeham who

is a Deputy Minister of Lands. On my left is David Jeans, who is the Assistant

Deputy Minister of Environment, and behind me, our financial person, is Frank

Harris.

I'm not going to speak at length tonight,

Chairperson, because I have in the past and I think most of the people on the

Committee have heard me several times now talk about the role of my department,

the various divisions that we have in the department, and so on. I'm sure that

other things will come out in the questions that follow. Just to briefly say

that I'm pleased with the activities that the department has undertaken during

the past year, and extremely excited and pleased about some of the initiatives

that we will be undertaking in the coming year as a result of this particular

budget, in which I feel I was fairly fortunate to be able to hire some

individuals who we've needed for some time in the Industrial Division and for

Waste Management and in the Lands Division. Certainly I would be pleased to

elaborate on any of their roles as time passes.

I think that probably the highlights of the past

few months have been the launching of the ATV regulations; the derelict vehicle

legislation is proving to be quite successful; and we have been quite rigorous I

think in starting to prosecute - not starting, but continuing - to prosecute

individuals who are committing crimes against the environment. I think we've

gone up in the number of charges laid by about 400 per cent and in the areas

where we have decided to fine and so on I think it is significant and I hope

that it will cause people to be more aware of different regulations and so on

that we have.

I think perhaps I will leave it at that, Chair, and

if then Ms. Verge wants to use some of my time, you may -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge will use her own time.

MS. COWAN: Oh, she will. Well Chair, I don't

mean to take the role of the Chair, pardon me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you are finished -

MS. COWAN: Yes, I think I am finished and I

will probably have lots of time to speak later, should I need to fill anybody in

on anything that I think is necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you and I would like to thank

the minister for her opening remarks.

I intend to make relatively brief comments on a few

topics that I consider important beginning with some broad aspects of

environmental protection and will then pause for the minister's answers or

re-action.

Last year I expressed concerns that the amount

budgeted for spending by the Department of Environment and Lands for the 92-93

fiscal year which was $12.5 million, ended up with spending far below that, the

amount actually spent was some $3 million less for the 92-93 fiscal year. I see

the same happening in the 93-94 fiscal year - actually I think I confused the

figures for the years but the point is, for two years in a row, government

budgeted far more for spending by the Department of Environment and Lands than

the department actually spent and in particular the amount originally earmarked

for environmental management and control or environmental protection was not

met, in fact actual spending fell far below the amount originally estimated.

Talking to people working in the field of

environmental protection and private citizens, who as volunteers are advocates

of stronger efforts to preserve the environment and to clean up contamination

and pollution, all tell me that we seem to be losing ground, that the effort is

not nearly great enough, so I would like the minister's re-action to spending by

her department falling far, far below that originally forecast for two years in

a row and I will give you the exact figures now. For 93-94, the last fiscal

year, the original estimate for the department was $12.2 million and the amount

actually spent, the revised figure, was $9.7 million. For the year before that,

the original estimate was $12.5 million and the amount actually spent was $9.5

million, so for two years running there has been a drastic variance between what

was budgeted and what was actually spent. I would like the minister to explain

why that is, in light of all the unmet needs.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to do

that now? Okay. Believe me, Ms. Verge, if I had that $3 million to spend, I

would have been glad to spend it. It was money that was put aside for the

contaminated sites agreement in which we are participating with the federal

government and unfortunately, it has not been realized. Now it should be in this

Budget year, the sites have been identified, work was done over the summer doing

the preliminary work that's necessary so that this coming summer the

contamination will be dealt with and disposed of appropriately.

Believe me, if the $3 million had been there,

budgeted for some other purpose, I am sure it would have been used up without

any problem at all because I certainly agree with you that there are many areas

in the Province where we do need that infusion of funds. That is the explanation

for that.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The environmental assessment

process. Last year at the estimates committee I expressed concerns of mine,

shared by many in the Province, concern about environmental protection. That the

assessment process is stacked in favour of proponents.

MS. COWAN: Proponents?

MS. VERGE: Proponents of development. I

expressed concern that little or no funding is provided for private citizens or

environmental protection groups intervening in the process. The onus is on

anyone concerned about a proposal to pay for their own studies or their own

intervention. Most private citizens and most environmental activists simply

can't afford to participate at the same level as proponents. Many of us were

alarmed therefore when we heard the Speech from the Throne at the end of

February signalling an intention on the part of the Wells government to:

"[transform] this Province into one of the most attractive locations in North

America..." Not for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not for the people who

live here but "...for business investment..."

Then we heard the declaration that the government

intends to introduce reform in respect of the provincial environmental

assessment process, not in the interest of improving environmental protection

but to deal with unnecessarily burdensome aspects for economic development,

especially in terms of the length of time necessary to make decisions on

individual project proposals.

This is an indication that a bad environmental

assessment process may become worse. I'm wondering how the minister feels about

this and if she has any intention to see that any change of the environmental

assessment process strengthens the chances for meaningful participation of

environment activists and for the furtherance of what should be the fundamental

objective of the department - of protecting the environment.

MS. COWAN: First of all, I would share the same

concern that you had when I first was aware that this was something that had

been recommended by the Strategic Economic Plan. However, I became quite

satisfied when I was assured that we would open this process not only to

business for their comments and their suggestions as to how we can improve it,

but we would also call upon environmental groups to come in and put forward

their concerns as well. The Premier has said on many occasions that while we

want to make it easier for business to establish itself in the Province and to

streamline regulations to make them less onerous, that regulations regarding

health, safety and the environment will not be weakened. I'm quite satisfied.

Now we aren't finished, we are still working on it.

I cannot at this time tell you what was in some of the suggestions but it is

largely to get rid of some of the unnecessary red tape. We found when we talked

to the majority of business people that they didn't have a lot of problems with

the environmental assessment as it was, but just that some times it was a bit

confusing and they needed a little more guidance as to going through and so on.

The environmental network has worked with a number of groups in their particular

area and has given us a report again which I guess isn't public at this stage.

So you can be quite sure that the environmental group would bring forward the

whole idea of paying people to come in and - what is it we call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Intervenor funding.

MS. COWAN: Intervenor funding. Whether or not

now we will go that way, that is certainly going to be looked at.

MS. VERGE: Would the minister explain what red

tape businesses have expressed objections to her concerns about?

MS. COWAN: I don't think that probably at this

particular time. I can't go into detail until it's gone through all the proper

processes within government and the committees and what have you, but I think

that some people found it a little hard to decipher and so on exactly what was

expected of them, and maybe would have preferred if we would have someone there

to guide them through the process rather than kind of say: This is what you have

to do, now do it; and leave them sort of at loose ends. Would that be accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes.

I think that's about all I could say at this

particular time. I can tell you that I certainly share your concern and will

certainly, as Minister of Environment and Lands, do all I can to make sure that

it's extremely protective of the environment, but I feel that I have the backing

of all my colleagues in that particular area. So you will have to wait and see

now when you can criticize, because I guess it will come to the House again.

MS. VERGE: When does the minister expect a bill

to come to the House?

MS. COWAN: I don't know. Our department is not

doing the actual preparation of it.

MS. VERGE: That's what I was afraid of. Who is

preparing it?

MS. COWAN: It will go through the whole Cabinet

procedure. Who is actually preparing it?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are involved with it.

MS. COWAN: We are involved with it, of course.

MS. VERGE: But who is taking the lead role?

MS. COWAN: The lead person is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Okay.

MS. VERGE: But which department, or which

minister -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible) comment here.

MS. VERGE: Which minister, which department,

has taken the lead in preparing this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: You mean the Minister of Environment

and Lands doesn't know which minister or department has taken the lead in

preparing legislation to reform the environmental assessment process?

MS. COWAN: It's coming through the Strategic

Economic Plan, Intergovernmental Affairs and Planning and Priority, but we are

party to all the work that is going on.

MS. VERGE: Well I would hope so. Is it the

Premier who is taking the lead in this?

MS. COWAN: The Premier is the minister

responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs.

MS. VERGE: But why is this an Intergovernmental

Affairs matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Oh, yes, it's all environmental.

MS. VERGE: What does this have to do with

Intergovernmental Affairs?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: It's the Cabinet Secretariat, excuse

me, that is responsible for it.

MS. VERGE: No, it's the elected politicians,

the Cabinet Ministers who are responsible. The Cabinet Secretariat are simply

staff.

MS. COWAN: It would be the Premier, through the

Strategic Economic Plan.

MS. VERGE: So basically the Department of

Environment and Lands has been marginalized in the process of reforming the

provincial environmental assessment folio?

MS. COWAN: No, no, I wouldn't say that at all.

The assignment was given to a particular individual in the resource policy area,

which is the area that environment sits in in the committee structure, and that

individual was given the task of going over the assessment plan, interviewing

various parties that were interested in it, and then brought it back - went

through environment as well, and...

MS. VERGE: So one of the Premier's staff did

the consultation; one of the Executive Council staff did the consultation?

MS. COWAN: Well, that's not uncommon. Ministers

usually have somebody do their work for them. I mean, that's one of the

advantages of being a minister.

MS. VERGE: I believe that it's not uncommon,

but it's a symptom of what's radically wrong with this government.

MS. COWAN: Am I supposed to do it myself,

personally?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Oh, I see.

MS. VERGE: Who was consulted?

MS. COWAN: I don't have a list of those people

with me.

MS. VERGE: What environmental groups were

consulted?

MS. COWAN: Again, we asked the environmental

network to do it. They represent all the environmental groups in the Province,

and provide us, actually, with a good umbrella group to turn to. Government uses

them fairly frequently now when we need input on environmental issues. So they

choose, then, what groups they will speak to within their network, and develop

for us a paper.

MS. VERGE: So it was the environmental network

that the Premier's staff talked to, was it?

MS. COWAN: That is when of the groups. When we

wanted the input from the environmental groups in the Province that was the way

we chose to go about it. The business people, I do not know how they were

chosen.

MS. VERGE: What about the general public? Will

they get a chance to have input when the bill is drafted? Will there be public

hearings on the draft legislation?

MS. COWAN: Again, that is a decision that will

have to be made at the Cabinet level. It has not been made yet.

MS. VERGE: What happened to the round table on

the environment? Have they ever contributed anything?

MS. COWAN: They are reviewing that as well.

When it is ready they will be having a look at it and giving their input as

well.

MS. VERGE: Have they done anything since they

were set up three, four, or five years ago?

MS. COWAN: At the moment they are working on

looking at a program for sustainable development within the Province.

MS. VERGE: Have they produced anything on

paper? Has the round table on the environment produced any report or any

recommendation?

MS. COWAN: Well, they report to the Premier

once a year on what is going on. They have been working on the sustainable thing

for two years now but it is not ready yet for publication. It is quite a major

undertaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Verge your time has expired.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Ms. Cowan, I believe you mentioned that on the

environmental side one of the groups you approached for assistance in the review

of the environmental assessment was the environment network, and they designate

the people to be involved on their side. I gather from correspondence which I

have received a copy of, that the environment network has designated a group

called the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislation Caucus to be their, I think

they call them the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislation Caucus under the

auspices of the Newfoundland and Labrador environment network contracted by the

Department of Environment and Lands to conduct the consultation amongst the

environmental community.

One of the questions they had, and I raise it here

because I do not think it has really been answered. Ms Verge asked you what

concerns there were about the environmental process. Can you tell me who has

identified the flaws in it other than the fellow who wants to dumped garbage in

MS. COWAN: Do not assume it was a chap.

MR. HARRIS: It was a chap, this particular guy.

He has a man's name anyway. I have never met the man.

MS. COWAN: Who are you talking about?

MR. HARRIS: The fellow who wants to turn the

Shefferville mine into a waste disposal facility. He is a chap as I understand

it. I do not know the man and have never met him but he talks like a man and has

a man's name. Other than him who is complaining about the fact that he had to

spend money to comply with the process, what specific complaints are there about

the fact that we have an environmental process, or about the process itself, and

what exactly have you been told by individuals, or companies, as to what is

wrong with it?

MS. COWAN: At this particular stage, Mr.

Harris, I do not think it is appropriate for me to say because we are still

working on it, and I do not want to start making it public for it to be knocked

around when it is not all set down, clarified, and put into some sort of form

that we can debate in the House of Assembly, or take to the public. The choice

will be made but it will eventually come to the House of Assembly.

MR. HARRIS: Well, that focuses on my next point

which is also the complaint of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislation Caucus

who in a letter to you dated March 30 said that to date the review of the

legislation and process has been undertaken with a great deal of secrecy and

that the concerns of government and industry have not been released to the

public. They are very concerned, as am I, of the fact that you, in particular,

as minister, and your department are keeping secret what considerations you

have, and also they state that the results of what the consultation among

environmental groups are also being considered confidential, what is going on in

your department that has to be kept so secret about a public consultation

process, about a matter of concern of the environment and a concern of everybody

in the Newfoundland and Labrador? This ought to be a public process and I would

like to hear what explanation you have as minister, as to why a legislative

process which has been a matter of public discussion, that consultation about

it, and if there are problems with it that haven't been identified publicly, why

is it being kept secret?

MS. COWAN: There is no secret at all. We have

told the public that we are doing it; it's not inappropriate and not a new step

in any way to do a considerable amount of homework before you make something

public, and you know, we don't want to be developing it in a public forum at

this particular stage. We are consulting with the appropriate groups, if and

when the need comes to take it to the public then that will happen, but there is

certainly no effort to be secret, the effort is to do a good job, to have our

homework done, to look at the thing carefully and then proceed with public

review or whatever the decision of Cabinet is to do.

MR. HARRIS: Well, how do you answer the concern

expressed here? The environmental community is concerned that the environmental

assessment process is seen as a hindrance to development and the driving force

of this review is to simplify (streamline) the process at the expense of

environmental protection. Now you started off this process Madam Minister, the

Speech from the Throne brags about how the process is consultative with the

environmental groups, they are all being involved, and yet the people who are

involved are saying, No. 1) there is something wrong with the process because

you are making it all secret and confidential, and you haven't even stated what

the objections to the particular process are, and you are refusing to have a

public process and even allow the concerns and the consultation of the

environmental groups to be considered by the public. What is it that the

department has to hide here?

MS. COWAN: If I were a member of a lobby group

I would probably be doing the same thing, you know, lobbying government to let

me see what they were doing and we have talked with the environmental network,

we paid them to do the study, they acted as consultants for us and in good time

they will be in a position where they will be able to make public comment, we

will be able to make public comment. If some of the members of the environmental

network are not pleased with how the environmental network is handling it, then

that's their prerogative to raise it with the environmental network, not with

me. Now, I may have misunderstood what you were saying but -

MR. HARRIS: Well if this is to be a public

consultation process then why can't the concerns, if there are any, other than

to get rid of the environmental assessment process, if that's the aim of the

business community then we have a problem, but if they have concerns about

particular aspects of it, why not have it discussed in a public debate about it,

but this group says here: we feel the remaining stages of this process not be

conducted behind closed doors but that all sectors of the public must have an

opportunity for input before any changes to the act or process governing

environmental assessment have been proposed or legislated by Cabinet.

Now that seems to me to be a fairly clear statement

of a desire for a bit of transparency which governments like to talk about when

they want to sound like they are being progressive, but in this particular case,

your department and your government do not seem to be interested in letting the

public know what you are up to.

MS. COWAN: First of all, there is no desire to

get rid of the Environmental Assessment Act and to make that statement is

totally erroneous and again designed to curry favour with environmental groups

or to get them worried and scared or whatever, and I think it is a most

inappropriate comment. There is no attempt to get rid of the environmental

assessment process; my goodness, we are living in 1994 when everyone knows that

every decision that's made -

MR. HARRIS: Well, what's wrong with it?

MS. COWAN: Just a moment, I am speaking -

MR. HARRIS: Now Clyde.

MS. COWAN: - the Chair did not recognize you.

MR. HARRIS: All the ministers seem to be

adopting the Premier's attitude towards people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just confine your comments to the

statement -

MS. COWAN: It's very difficult, Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me control the meeting, and

then I will -

MS. COWAN: It's very difficult, Chair, when you

hear something said that isn't true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I thought the minister should

confine herself to the statement and let me conduct the meeting.

MS. COWAN: Okay. So am I on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. COWAN: I forgot what the next question was.

Okay, I think I responded to them both, actually. Thanks, Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, you still have a

minute or so.

MR. HARRIS: Do I have any more time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a minute.

MR. HARRIS: A minute? Okay.

Minister, I didn't say that they wanted to get rid

of the Environmental Assessment Act, but that the process seems to be treated by

some, in a general way, as a hindrance to development, and they might want to

get rid of the environmental assessment process, not the act, as long as it can

be made less troublesome to them, but in all unspecified ways, and that's the

concern, I think, that's being expressed by the environmental community and the

public, that they're not let in on these things. After the fact, a fait accompli

is presented to the public, and the discussion or consultation or public debate

that goes on doesn't go on until after a decision is made, and by then the

government is committed to a position and, of course, the nature of politics

being as it is, the government then defends it against all comers. You may want

to comment about this again.

I am running out of time and I might as well use up

the rest of my minute to say that it seems to me that if the government was

interested in having a public consultation process before a decision was made,

they would do it publicly, have the input, then make the decision, instead of

having a private consultation, do what they are going to do behind closed doors,

state the final result, and then put up with, I guess, the criticism that might

come afterwards. That seems to me the wrong way to go if the government really

wants to involve the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister?

MS. COWAN: No, I think he has made his point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: I have to come back to the same

question, which is the environmental assessment process and the announcement in

the Speech from the Throne at the end of February that the government, in the

interest of opening up the Province to investors, is going to reform the

environmental assessment process.

The Speech from the Throne makes two particular

statements; one, that the provincial environmental assessment process as

currently administered has, in some circumstances, become unnecessarily

burdensome to economic development in the Province, especially in terms of the

length of time necessary to make decisions on individual project proposals.

That's the first statement and I will come back to that now in a minute.

The second is that consultations with all major

stakeholders on the environmental assessment process have recently been

concluded, and appropriate reforms to streamline the overall process will be

proposed in the new bill.

MS. COWAN: Repeat that? I am sorry, Mr. Chair,

I didn't hear that.

MS. VERGE: The second point -

MS. COWAN: I heard the first.

MS. VERGE: The second point in the Throne

Speech is that consultations have been completed.

Now, on the matter of consultations, the minister

is indicating that somebody in the Premier's office is still consulting, both

environment groups and business people, although the Member for St. John's East

is quoting the environment group named by the minister as having written her,

expressing concerns about the secretive nature of the consultation process.

Is the consultation process still going on, as the

minister earlier said, or was it over before the end of February, as stated in

the Throne Speech?

MS. COWAN: First of all, in the first comment

from the Speech from the Throne, the time frames are something that are being

looked at, and that's the time frames as they impact on government. The

proponent always has as much time as he or she or it needs to prepare

information. The department itself, then, has under sometimes forty days, or

whatever the period specified in the act, to get back to these individuals to

say whether we'll move on to the next step or whether to free them up to begin

their enterprise or whatever.

One of the main things there is, are we giving

government itself too much time to fiddle around looking at all this stuff? It's

not just the Department of Environment and Lands. We looked at the role of every

department because often there are half-a-dozen departments involved in

environmental assessment. We want to make sure that none of them are dawdling in

their job, so that is an extremely important thing and puts the onus right back

in the hands of government.

Re the consultation, it was finished with both of

those, with the business group and with the environmental network, around the

end of February, I believe, or early March. Someone is now doing internal work.

We're working closely with them, from environment, intimately involved with the

thing, so that there will be some sort of a document, then, to circulate through

the committee process.

MS. VERGE: Okay. On the matter of consultation

again, the minister mentioned two groups, the environmental network and the

business group. I'm not familiar with the environmental network. Who are they?

MS. COWAN: I'm sorry?

MS. VERGE: Who are the environmental network?

MS. COWAN: The environmental network is a group

that was established in the Province three or four years ago, I guess, and they

represent a whole group of environmental activists and groups throughout the

Province. For example, SNAGG is a member of it, the Humber group that's

interested in forestry issues. Do you have a list of it there, Mr. Harris, of

who is involved?

MR. HARRIS: The list of the members are not

there, but the ones that I am aware of are the ones that you're mentioning, the

group from Corner Brook, and -

MS. COWAN: Have you got a list or anything

here? I don't suppose we have, no.

MS. VERGE: Actually, this is coming back to me

now. I remember having heard about them before. I think they've had a couple of

provincial conferences.

MS. COWAN: Yes, they're having another one,

actually, very soon.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Now the minister -

MS. COWAN: Twenty-three groups he tells me here

now, my deputy.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thanks. The minister mentioned

MS. COWAN: Oh, and the consultations;

altogether?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. COWAN: You mean not just the environmental.

AN HON. MEMBER: The environmental network had

twenty-three.

MS. COWAN: Okay, the environmental network had

twenty-three consultations. Now I would be glad to provide you with that list,

if you would like. There is no problem with it, it's just that we don't have it

with us.

MS. VERGE: List of groups or list of meetings?

MS. COWAN: List of groups.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MS. COWAN: Because I don't know what the

environmental network did once we hired them to make the report.

MS. VERGE: The minister mentioned consultation

with `the' business group. Would the minister explain who was in the business

group?

MS. COWAN: I don't know how that was carried

out; do you, deputy?

MR. FLEMING: The consultations with business

groups were carried out jointly by our department and the Economic Recovery

Commission, and it involved talking to a variety of people who have been

involved with the environmental process from the business side, including

proponents, consultants, and people like that. It was done over a period of time

and all sort of in one fell swoop, if you will.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Were the proponents of the

importation of foreign garbage and incineration or storage at Long Harbour, Baie

Verte or Schefferville among the proponents consulted?

MR. FLEMING: I couldn't give you the list. I

very much doubt that any of those were because I don't think that any of those

projects were actually registered at that time.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

The minister mentioned that one of the issues

identified for possible reform is the time limits on government, various

departments of government, in their participation in the environmental

assessment process. Which businesses or proponents complained about that?

MR. FLEMING: I couldn't tell you specifically

because I don't know offhand, but the complaints about time frames have been one

of the ongoing concerns, I guess, of proponents, so this is one of the issues

that is being looked at in the overall review. The time frames, as the minister

said, apply more on the government side than on the proponent side, and it is

not uncommon for us on our side to actually slip those deadlines, and to go over

the deadlines, so that is one of the concerns that is being looked at.

MS. VERGE: What effort is being made, I ask the

minister, to ensure that any reform entails adequate time for members of the

public and environment groups to participate in a meaningful way in the

environmental assessment process?

MS. COWAN: You mean, will there be any change

in the time we have for public...

MS. VERGE: Yes. One concern I would have about

shortening time frames is that citizens and volunteer groups will be

shortchanged. They obviously face the challenges of both time and money, and for

the most part are mounting the effort. They are on a purely voluntary basis.

MS. COWAN: First of all, when you open up a

process like this you open up everything. We could find that it comes up short

environmentally, that it should be stronger environmentally. We could find out

we need more time, but one of the things I would like to say about this whole

process, and has been very reassuring to me as the Minister of Environment and

Lands, and I am sure to you the government, I believe, who brought in the

Environmental Assessment Act, that in actual fact it is a pretty good act and it

is working fairly well, and the majority of people are very comfortable with it.

In 1994 we do need to have a look at it and perhaps

see if there are things happening. I have heard time and time again, and I am

sure the others have, that environment is holding up development in this

Province, but in many cases it is showing that environment is not holding up

development in the Province, which has been very reassuring to me. The

assessment of the thing, I think, is going to be positive and that is the thing

we should focus on.

The Act is ten years old, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. COWAN: So it was certainly time that we had

a look at it again.

MS. VERGE: I want to ask about three specific

widely feared projects, namely the implication, storage or incineration of

foreign garbage or hazardous waste material at Shefferville, Baie Verte, and

Long Harbour.

MS. COWAN: First of all I will start at Long

Harbour which is the easiest thing to do. There has been nothing happen on that.

There has been months now since I heard even any rumblings about it so certainly

for the time being it would appear not to be a project that is forthcoming, but

again the proponents could change their minds, I suppose, any time.

As to the two projects in Labrador, I will just get

my notes here to see exactly where we are in different stages of the

environmental assessment. The Winikoff proposal is the one to bring in just

general waste. They were not clear enough really on just what waste they were

going to bring in so that is one of the things that we are asking for more

information on, but the terms of reference for the environmental impact

statement, and we did ask for the full in-depth study on the Winikoff proposal,

that is the Shefferville one.

They were issued on March 1, 1994 and to this point

in time we have not heard back from the proponent at all, so we do not know

where we really stand. We can anticipate various things but until we hear back

from them there is not much we can do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. VERGE: What about Baie Verte?

MS. COWAN: Do you want the other one in

Labrador, too?

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MS. COWAN: That is the Hollinger one. There are

similar projects, Hollinger North, the environmental impact statement was

ordered on Janaury 22. The guidelines have been issued by me on October 28. We

have some provisional terms of reference that were given to us by the Hollinger

group and we are not satisfied with those so they have to continue working on

them, so it is a ways from having either a yes or no.

MS. VERGE: And Baie Verte?

MS. COWAN: That is closer to having a decision

made. We are waiting at this stage for the proponent to bring back a revision of

the environmental project report. There were a number of things we were not

satisfied with. For example, the monitoring of the asbestos waste that would

come into the Province. We wanted more detail on that, so I guess the ball is in

the court of all of those groups at the moment to bring back things to us or to

decide against even going any further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Thank you. I have a couple of

questions. We have had a lot of discussion on the environmental assessment so I

will move on to something else.

Many, many years ago, the government of the day,

1924 to be exact, gave control over the land where the St. John's regional water

supply is now, the Bay Bulls System gave control of the land to the predecessor

of Newfoundland Light and Power, and there has been a continuous dispute since

1977 between the authorities for the regional water supply and the Province and

Newfoundland Light and Power, as to who exactly makes decisions relative to the

water system. What I am specifically referring to is that in instances where the

Newfoundland Light and Power wants to get more water for their power generation

in Petty Harbour, they claim that they have the exclusive right to determine

when the gates will be opened, and on several occasions there have been

instances where the water supply in Bay Bull Big Pond has gone down to levels

which were unacceptable to the municipal authorities, and in terms of water

management, I ask you the question: what is the status of the protocol, and has

there been any attempt in the last several years to resolve what the Province

says is its legal right and what Newfoundland Light and Power says is their

legal right?

MS. COWAN: Yes. It is certainly not off the

agenda but I am going to let the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment and

Lands, Dave Jeans respond to that.

MR. JEANS: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Hodder, that issue has still not been resolved,

and it has been some time since I have been involved in discussions that involve

municipal affairs and Newfoundland Power. It has been government's position that

the rights for water supply area take precedence and as I recall some of the

details, the rights that Newfoundland Power had in actual time, had actually

expired and were not renewed, so to make a long story short, that is still not

resolved. Government feels that it's case takes precedence over the power

company's case for water.

MR. HODDER: At the time that we were discussing

this, you and I had discussed this several years ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Okay. The information that we

received at that time was that the authority for the water management rested

with your department, therefore that is why we would ask the question here

because when you talk to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

they will say to you that any decision or resolution should emanate from the

management side of it, which in other words essentially says that this is an

issue where your department should carry a leadership role. It is an issue that

affects the whole entire Northeast Avalon and there is some fear on behalf of

the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl that somewhere down the road,

this matter may have to be resolved in an atmosphere of confrontation and if we

could avoid that, and of course, we know that by the turn of the century, if

development continues to proceed in the western part of the City of St. John's

and in Mount Pearl, the Southlands, in that area, that there would be more and

more water demanded.

By that time it is anticipated that the resources

that are available to the St. John's regional water supply at Bay Bulls Big Pond

will only be able to fill the municipal requirements, and while there are

auxiliary watersheds in Thomas Pond and other areas, it requires extensive

monies to access these, and there was some desire on behalf of the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the cities that this matter be resolved in

the mid-nineties before it becomes a crisis, or becomes a significant impediment

to development in the latter part of this decade.

MR. JEANS: Yes, Mr. Hodder, it's been at least

six months, or over a year, since I have been involved in that issue, but my

recollection is that it was the department's position, and reinforced by

government, that the Province, through the Department of Environment and Lands

and its water management division, does have the preeminent rights for the water

in that watershed, and that the use for drinking water takes precedence over

power development. I believe that the company has been written, stating that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes they have.

MR. JEANS: And there has been, to my knowledge,

no formal denial or imputation of that position.

MR. HODDER: The reason there has been no formal

denial of that is that (

a) they disagree, and (

b) they have control of the

gates. So therefore when they want to get more water, it's their gates, they're

all computerized, they can open and close the gates from their operations in on

Columbus Drive. They don't even have to go up to the site to access or to cause

the flow to get higher or lower, so control is in their hands now and they would

not agree that the Province has first use. They would say that so that the

Province would not push them, but when push comes to shove, which it will by the

turn of the century, I am saying to the minister, and saying to you as the

advisor to the minister, that this is an issue that needs attention because it

won't go away, and we know that Newfoundland Light and Power - or I know, from

my days when I was chairman of the authority there - that there is going to be

need to probably bring in legislation, that there will be a claim for

compensation, which could run into probably millions of dollars, so therefore it

is an issue that the Province needs to resolve in a definitive manner, and

that's with due recognition to the Premier's opinion, to the legal advisors in

the Department of Justice and, of course, with recognition as well to the

opinions of Newfoundland Light and Power.

MS. COWAN: I will make a note of that, Mr.

Hodder, and we will revisit the issue because it has been, as Dave said,

probably a good year since that letter was written, so we certainly should

review the legal status of not having had a response to that letter and see

where we stand on the issue, so thank you for bringing that to my attention

again. I know that's one of your pet peeves - I was remembering it as you spoke

- and I will certainly look into it.

MR. HODDER: Okay, I have a couple of other

questions in the minute or so that I have left, two minutes, and I will keep it

in the same area, and that is the cleanup of St. John's harbour. It's been

recognized - in fact there's an editorial in today's paper - and we all

recognize in the region that this is a substantive problem. It hasn't improved

in the last few years. I am wondering if your department has initiated any

studies, what they are doing to try to address the issue, and whether this issue

is indeed part of any provincial\federal dialogue as to funding.

MS. COWAN: First of all, it is certainly a

major concern of the department and a major concern of the city as well. We have

someone from our department who sits on the committee that rose from the green

plan that is looking at the whole thing and costing it and making various

decisions. Not to actually clean it up, but how we could go about cleaning it

up. It has not moved too far from that particular area at this time. I had

meetings with the City of St. John's not too long ago, and I guess with the

mayor of the City of Mount Pearl as well, I can't remember. There were a number

of individuals there and we did discuss the project and the urgent need for it,

and the fact that the steps that have been made to date, while being positive,

in a way exaggerated the problem.

Because once the Liberal government in Ottawa

changed and became a Tory government the money was stopped. It was stopped at a

time just when we had brought over - I say "we" generally, I would have nothing

to do with it at that stage - but all the Quidi Vidi sewage and so on was being

brought to the Harbour rather than shooting off from out in that area. We have a

lot more in the Harbour now than we had a number of years ago.

It is something that is very worrisome to me. I

would like to see it addressed. I was hoping that perhaps it would be something

that would come forward under the infrastructure program. I don't know at this

stage if it has. I can't as minister tell the City of St. John's or the City of

Mount Pearl, whatever, what they have to do under the infrastructure program. It

is certainly something that as minister I would be pleased to see, if we could

make some more positive steps in the right direction. Perhaps not clean the

whole thing up but - what is the cost of it estimated at, how much?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty-eight

million dollars, calculated (inaudible).

MS. COWAN: So it is obviously going to have -

MR. HODDER: That was in 1977 dollars, was it?

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HODDER: The $150 million, that was in

dollar values of some years ago.

MS. COWAN: Yes. We have $158 million down here

in my briefing notes at this particular stage. Possibly if we were going to just

get it upgraded again, so that we had a secondary treatment plant, that would

add on probably another $50 million to it, which would be the ideal, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr.

Hodder's time is up and I now recognize Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam

Minister, I first of all want to congratulate you on the steps that you've taken

since you've become minister to help clean up the environment, especially with

regard to car wrecks and general garbage I suppose you would refer to as litter.

The car wrecks of late have been very noticeable by their absence. With regard

to the litter there has been a campaign - I believe it has already started -

with regard to pop bottles and this type of thing. I believe one of the local

canning industries in the Province, one of the soft drink industries, has taken

an active part with regard to cleaning up the environment. Could you sort of

elaborate and tell us where it stands right now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: What we have here is that actually

the program will be kicked off on the May 24th weekend. That will see the first

of our advertisements - I shouldn't say "our," because it is not government

advertising, but the Canadian Soft Drink Association has been authorized by

government to undertake a program which has worked well elsewhere in the

Province to clean up the type of litter that we have in our ditches. Largely

litter that is created by - the biggest offender I guess is the fast-food

industry. So that type of litter, the litter that is associated with all

packaging, and which includes beverage containers as well.

The program has an educational thrust. We hope that

it will make everyone in the Province aware of the need to clean up the

environment, that they have a

part in it, that it has to become part of their

value system, that other people won't clean it up for them. That we have to all

as individuals start to think before we toss a tissue or a bottle of pop or

whatever out the window. That will be under way on May 24th.

It is coupled with a program that is being put in

place by a group called the Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative,

and that is a group of people consisting of grocery associations, independent

grocers - oh, there is a whole raft of them. Retail association, all kinds of

people. The Canadian Soft Drink Association belongs to it. They are going to be

working again to develop a business plan that government will have to agree to

and they will be actually putting money into the Province to build on existing

programs within municipalities that have to do with waste management issues.

Largely in this area at this time in the recycling area. They will also help us,

these groups, to find markets for the materials. It is all very well to collect

plastic but if you don't have anybody to sell it to you are in a bad

predicament.

We are not asking the municipalities to put any

money into this. We are asking them perhaps they could provide some in kind

services. Maybe a depot within their municipality, where goods, waste materials,

could be taken and stored until the appropriate individuals can come to truck it

away.

That is the initiative I think that will be

exciting and will go some distance towards dealing with waste management in the

Province and keeping the amount of garbage that is going into our dumps reduced.

We have in fact a two point program. On that is going to deal with the litter on

the highways and by-ways and so on of the Province accompanied by another

program which is going to look at what goes into our waste disposal sites and

try to reduce that.

MR. WHELAN: Recently speaking with one of your

officials and getting away from this type of ecological question, and to a sort

of a different type, and it has something to do with the ATV regulations as it

affects bog lands. I noticed here that there are certain hydrological monies set

aside for studies into the environment. I was wondering if there has been any

hydrological surveys done with regards to bog lands and how the use of ATVs will

affect water drainage from the bog lands and water levels with regard to

watershed areas and areas that would be affected, or that would affect any town

water supplies. I was wondering if there were any studies with regard to the

affect that the ATVs have on filtration with regard to bogs. Do you have any of

those studies?

MS. COWAN: Dave can respond to that in a minute

on what the monies for the Water division are going toward. I think the largest

amount of information that we have about the damage to bogs and wetlands come

from what the people who use them have told us. It is the same as the people who

fish in Newfoundland knew what was going to happen to the fishery, and if we had

listened to them in the beginning, to the individual who went out every day to

fish, that we probably would be in better shape if we hadn't waited for the

scientists to give out the information. A lot of it has come just through our

own observations of people out in the Water division, for example, noting that

how if you run an ATV over a soft spot time after time you will create a new

stream. Most of my pictures that I have of ATV damage you will see the water

running along in it. You create new waterways which brings silt into the brooks

which can transport animal faeces and so on into the brook without the

filtration process that would be in a normal stream.

We have those kinds of observations, I guess, more

than scientific fact. I will let Dave talk to you just a little bit about it. We

have an agreement with the federal government to study water, and that may be

where you are seeing some of your monies there listed in the budget. That is

largely to do with the studies of flooding and so on, but I will let Dave

elaborate on that.

MR. JEANS: Thank you, minister.

As the minister mentioned, we have a joint program

with the federal government which is a water management agreement, just recently

signed or just over a year ago and that's a $3.25 million cost-shared 50/50

agreement. A good portion of that is devoted to a continuation of a program we

had a number of years ago dealing with flood risk mapping. We found that there

were a number of communities that we hadn't mapped, studied and evaluated with

respect to flooding risks beyond the seventeen or eighteen, I think it was, that

we did with the original program. The remainder of the funding is for studies in

various water related areas. Some of it will be a couple of side studies related

to the ACAP program that the minister mentioned with respect to the St. John's

harbour in looking at circulation models, currents and so on with respect to

sewage disposal.

As far as bogs are concerned the literature is

pretty extensive in terms of the kind of damage that ATVs and other kinds of

vehicles do to bogs and marshes. So we haven't devoted specific studies to those

areas. We have the information, it's available and also, as the minister

indicated, you can visually see the kind of destruction that these machines do.

We have had a number of studies on bogs that are related to harvesting of peat

because we want to see what this does to the ground water levels in terms of

siltation to down stream water supplies because as you know, bogs and fens are

really the holding areas for waters for rivers and lakes. So I trust that

perhaps comments on your question.

MS. COWAN: It's interesting to note - if I just

may, Mr. Chair, to throw in here - that we in this Province are one of the worst

provinces in Canada for flooding. It always seems to come to people as a

surprise but I guess because we've lived with it so long we don't think of it,

but we actually do have significant flooding problems as compared to other

provinces in the nation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister.

Before I go on I would point out to the officials

and anyone else, that we who are here everyday realize that the mikes here are

very sensitive. You don't have to touch them, once the light comes on they're

perfect. Actually touching them could cause some problems for our friends up

there that transcribe because the gentleman who's recording will give me a hard

time. So I want to make sure that everybody is aware of that.

I'll now recognize Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. I'd like to talk a

little bit about the beverage container industry. I know that the minister has

made a recent announcement after dragging the soft drink industry kicking and

screaming into some room to make an announcement because she was being

criticised for there being little action.

MS. COWAN: Being criticized for what, Mr.

Chair?

MR. HARRIS: You are being criticized or your

department is being criticized, I suppose you implicitly were being criticized

because there was very little action on plans to contain the beverage

containers.

First of all, is the minister aware that official

federal and provincial statistics from Environment Canada and from our own

departments reports, back in 1991, that it's estimated that approximately 13 per

cent of the waste in Canada is made up of non-reusable beverage containers? In

fact, the ministers own department or extrapolations from a report produced by

the ministers own department, estimates that in Newfoundland 15 per cent of all

solid waste going into Newfoundland land fill sites are beverage containers,

these include; tetra packs, aluminium cans, plastic, one way glass containers,

over 10,000 tons of beverage containers each year added to Newfoundland landfill

sites, and that's 10,000 metric tons.

Is the minister aware of that being the extent of

the problem? Now, we're not talking about Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes, or fast

food or anything else, but just one-way, non-reusable, non-returnable beverage

containers alone, that that's 15 per cent of our whole landfill, that that's the

extent of the use of non-refillable containers in Newfoundland.

MS. COWAN: The figures vary according to who

does the study, I suppose, and the different methodology and so on but, yes,

generally I would say that's the -

MR. HARRIS: The 15 per cent comes from a study

done by -

MS. COWAN: That we did.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, done by Rick Conway, Report on

Beverage Container Recycling in Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of

Environment and Lands, November, 1991.

MS. COWAN: There have been other studies since

then that have showed different things, but you are in the ball park.

MR. HARRIS: Well, we're talking substantial

garbage here. We're not just talking a few extra bottles. Now I assume that's

what makes it to the landfill. I don't know what else ends up in the woods.

When the minister was considering the alternatives

that were available, did she and her department look at what the other provinces

have done? Eight of the ten provinces have programs, very extensive programs.

The report I have here, which is an early 1993 report, says that most provinces,

except for Manitoba, Newfoundland and the two territories, have legislation

covering deposit refunds on beverage containers.

MS. COWAN: Ontario doesn't.

MR. HARRIS: Well, according to this, they use a

different system because they have taxes on - in their environmental protection

act they require the soft drink industry to produce 30 per cent of its products

in refillable containers, so I guess refillable, recyclable, reusable, it's

legislated, there seems to be legislation there, but I am wondering why the

minister had to go to Texas to find a program that would suit the soft drink

container industry. Why wouldn't she do what other provinces have done, such as

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or New Brunswick, which has a comprehensive

program which I think the minister was praising a couple of years ago.

In that Province only containers that are

refillable and recyclable are permitted to be sold, and they have a deposit

refund system requiring consumers to pay a deposit at the time of the purchase,

and if it's a refillable container the consumers receive the full refund on

their deposit, and if it's not refillable but rather recyclable they receive a

50 per cent refund, and the other half of the deposit goes in equal parts to the

beverage industry to help offset the recycling costs, and the other part goes to

the Province's environment trust fund to support waste reduction initiatives and

education.

That program, for example, seems to be fairly

comprehensive. There are other provinces which have ones which also have a lot

to make them attractive. The overall theme seems to be that if you have this

kind of system you get a return rate which is very, very high, 80 per cent and

90 per cent - I have seen 95 per cent mentioned in some cases - where you have

the systems of returns.

It also creates employment because people get

involved in setting up businesses to collect these bottles and return the

bottles or containers because they are given a certain value that the people

find uses for them because it's money in the system that goes with that. Of

course, that doesn't count the savings to the taxpayers, which is estimated at

$7 per year per taxpayer, which goes just to support the landfill costs alone,

not counting the energy costs or whatever, of these non-reusable containers, so

I wonder, what was it that helped the minister discover this program in Texas?.

Is that -

MS. COWAN: First of all, I belong to the

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and the current approach being

taken across Canada, just forget the Texas thing for a minute, is to move in the

direction that we are moving. The provinces that have refund deposit systems are

not pleased with the way they are working; sure, they are cleaning up some of

their problems with pop bottles and beverage containers but they are not

addressing all other types of litter, and it is very obvious when you visit

these provinces and very obvious from the litter studies that, litter is a major

problem in every province of Canada, and in fact in many provinces a greater

problem than it is in this particular Province if you are just counting pieces

of litter.

In fact, these provinces where the refund deposit

system or other types of legislated actions have taken place have not been seen

to be effective. This of course was recognized by the Canadian Council of

Ministers who felt, and which I think is something that the NDP will be most

pleased, is that we have to start cracking down on big business and on the

people who are actually producing this and not put the entire burden on the

consumer, and so the initiative was taken with the Canadian Packaging

Stewardship Initiative to reduce the amount of packaging that goes into waste

sites by 50 per cent by the year 2000, and also at that time, the assurance was

given that we would not legislate until the year 2000. There are certain

benchmarks that have to be met as we move towards the year 2000, those are being

met and to date have been surpassed in many areas so this is the way we are

going.

Now I might say that it has been very easy for

businesses that are involved with packaging to make these initial steps and meet

the initial goals because it is easy to take the toothpaste out of the box and

get rid of the box, but then you are going to have to, in the next ten years or

so, find out how to reduce the size of the toothpaste tube or something to that

effect or the weight of the toothpaste tube and so on, so we are entering into

the difficult phase now, but to date the packaging industry has found if they

can meet the requirement of reducing their packaging garbage by 50 per cent,

that they would prefer that than having themselves regulated, and it certainly

seemed appropriate to leave the initiative to them.

Now in our case, in this Province, we will not wait

to legislate to the year 2000 if we don't find this working out with the program

that we can now put in place. Now as far as choosing Texas, Texas is a program

that - what was it? Don't mess with Texas. We are the first province in Canada

by the way, to use the Canadian Soft Drink Association model, and they did some

research to find out some of the programs that have been effective elsewhere and

this one was found to be very successful and Texas apparently - I haven't

visited there - is not unlike Newfoundland in its rural component, it has a lot

of rural people and spread out around the state and this program in Texas did,

in the first couple of years of the program, clean up 70 per cent of the garbage

in the by-ways and highways and so on. I could go on and on about what aspects

it does but I won't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Well, I listened to you very

patiently.

MR. HARRIS: Oh. Well you can go on as long as

you like.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish the minister would clue up

because the time is expired.

MS. COWAN: Fine; I think I said everything I

wanted to.

MR. HARRIS: We only have ten minutes between us

you see, and if you take up my time I have to come back another day but that's

okay.

MS. COWAN: Feel free, Mr. Harris, feel free.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Madam Minister, the real answer as

to why you chose the Texas program is because everything is bigger and better in

Texas.

MS. COWAN: That is right, so they say.

DR. HULAN: I want to commend you and your

ministry for taking the steps you have taken with regard to the ATV regulations.

They are probably not going to satisfy everybody but they are certainly a large

step forward and something that was long in coming for some time. I am sure

after further consultation and work on the rules as we go down the road they are

going to be well accepted in the Province. All of us have some problems with

them in our districts but I suppose that comes with everything that we do for

the first time.

I was interested in you comment on flooding and I

just want to make a comment on that before I ask a question. Flooding is

becoming a major, major problem in the Province and one of the reasons for it is

the way in which we have gone through the clear cutting operation in our

forests. Of course flooding is not only a problem for high water problems but

every time we have flooding we have soil erosion. It takes about 100 years under

Newfoundland's climatic conditions to replace one inch of topsoil, 100 years

minimum under our climatic conditions.

This year on the West Coast of the Island the

rivers were higher than they have been in history as people remember. Major

destruction was done on the alluvial flats of Robinsons River for instance,

probably to the tune of $20,000 to $30,000 a number of times there, and it is

all due to the fact that every time you cut a tree you increase the instances or

the rate of run off and erosion. The flooding problem is certainly a major

issue.

I have a number of small line items and various

subheads that I could ask you about but the one thing that really takes my eye

in this document is under 3.2.01, Land Use Planning. Maybe you or one of your

officials would like to speak to that because I will have another question after

that.

MS. COWAN: What is that again, now?

DR. HULAN: It is on Page 93, Land Use Planning.

It says: for the development of policies and programs aimed at satisfying

existing and future demands for land. What is under that subhead?

MS. COWAN: Just what would we be looking after?

DR. HULAN: Yes.

MS. COWAN: I will turn that over to Ms Wakeham

but first of all I say that this is something that has been needed for a number

of years in the Province and Barbara has been really setting her mind to dealing

with it. It is looking at a variety of things. One being cost, what we charge

people for buying land and that type of thing, but to look at the whole area I

will let Barbara because she is a walking encyclopedia on land use. I will let

her answer the question.

MS. WAKEHAM: The land use planning unit

basically wasn't established until about 1978, prior to that there was no

planning with respect to certain types of developments. What the land use

planning is trying to do right now is maintain a controlled system of allocation

based on the needs of municipalities, based on the needs of individual

developers and based on the needs of individual departments. Essentially what

the land use atlas does is set aside certain lands for certain activities. So we

have agricultural land planning which is done in conjunction with various

departments. We have forestry lands planning, we have subdivisions that are done

with respect to municipalities, we have planning with respect to the watersheds

and other things that are done with the other sections of the Department of the

Environment and Lands.

We also have a system which was established in 1980

called the Interdepartmental Land Use Committee and that committee, which was

established by the previous administration, has representation from all

departments of government and they deal with all major proposals that are put

forth for any use within the Province with respect to large use of lands. So

they deal with agriculture, wilderness reserves and agricultural reserves. They

deal with ecological reserves, they deal with the watersheds, they deal with any

form of protected areas in terms of the types of activities that can go on in

those areas. The intent is to maximize the use of the land without establishing

any negative effects. So the intent is to either allow for sequential

development or allow for multi-use of the land so we get the maximum return to

the benefit of the people in the Province.

There's not a large planning staff within the land

use management division. They also undertake a cottage lot development and have

for quite a long time but they deal mainly with the proposals and with the - we

deal also with the land issue itself based on the size of the environmental

assessment. So we will look at the compatibility of a particular piece of land

for the use of that land as a separate issue from the environmental impacts that

may be associated with that land. It's a system of constantly updating. The

staff update every single day. It's a daily updating in plotting and mapping of

the actual uses that are occurring on that land. They deal basically with the

internal - from governments requirements from major proposals and the Crown land

administration deals with land use planning from the public side. So they'll

take the applications from the public and they, together with the land use

management, will do the allocations.

DR. HULAN: A couple of years ago, as you know,

I chaired the task force on the agri-food industry in this Province, on an

industry that has such great potential although not recognized yet enough but

will be in turn and time.

In that study we noticed, in particular, the lack

of an intergraded land use plan policy for the Province. I'm aware of the

interdepartmental committee on land use but up to that time and I believe right

up to now from what my knowledge of the events that has taken place, still

points to the fact that we don't have an intergraded land use policy for the

Province, is that right?

MS. WAKEHAM: We don't have one at the moment.

There is a lot of work going on with other departments to look at the issues in

terms of coming up with a comprehensive land use policy. That will deal with

intergraded resource management under the auspices of a set of parameters. That

work is ongoing, it's not completed.

DR. HULAN: Yes because that's very significant.

If we are going to, as you were saying, make the best use of all possible areas

of land then that gets down to the point that in this Province we have ample

agricultural land for a very viable agri-food industry. An industry that we can

put in a place of export from this Province, not only for self-sufficiency - as

long as we think of self sufficiency that's as far as we will go but

unfortunately up to this point good areas of agricultural land have been taken

and used for other things. Therefore the interdepartmental committee is in place

but I personally don't think it is working. It is not doing the job properly, as

far as the agri-food industry is concerned certainly. I can name you many

instances (inaudible) around this Province.

That must not happen. Because although we have

ample land for agriculture, and food production must be our first consideration

rather than cottages or anything else, we don't have enough agricultural land to

waste and let go for other purposes. I will be very interested in seeing how

this thing develops in the very near future because it is very needed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Thank you, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think about right now would be

a good time for a break. I think we've coffee arranged in the government members

common room. The minister and her officials are invited to take part with the

Committee to see if we can get a nice feeling going between them over the coffee

break so we won't have any acrimony when we come back. Everybody will be fine.

I would like at this time to thank Mr. Matthews and

Dr. Hulan for filling in for our two regular Committee members who had a

previous arrangement who are now back. Thank you, you did a great job. We will

adjourn now till 8:45 p.m. at which time you will hear the chimes and we will

come back and start again.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The meeting will now reconvene and I will call on Ms.

Verge to start off.

MS. VERGE: I've got a few relatively short

questions. If the answers are reasonably brief perhaps I can conclude in another

ten minutes.

The federal government's TAGS program, the successor

to -

MS. COWAN: Which program?

MS. VERGE: The new package, TAGS, is supposed to

involve federally-funded green teams. In other words, make-work projects of an

environmental nature. Has the minister or her department been consulted about

the green teams or the work to be carried out through these projects? If not,

will the minister be volunteering the advice to the federal government about any

priority projects for employment of qualified fisheries workers?

MS. COWAN: We are aware of it, obviously. The

department hasn't had any input as yet. I've had some input in my capacity as a

Cabinet minister but as a department we haven't put our minds to the task yet,

but it hasn't been run by us.

MS. VERGE: Will the minister be volunteering

recommendations to the federal government for projects to be undertaken?

MS. COWAN: Yes, I will be.

MS. VERGE: What are the minister's priorities for

these projects?

MS. COWAN: That is a matter now that would have to

give a bit more thought to. Certainly I have my own personal priorities, I

guess, but I would want to sit and discuss them with my officials to make sure

that they are done in the order that I think they should be. Then of course it

would be taken to Cabinet as well.

MS. VERGE: Would the minister give us some idea of

her own thinking?

MS. COWAN: No, I don't think so at this stage.

John, the Deputy Minister, was just saying to me too that there will be an

opportunity in this program for local development of projects so that some of

them will be bottom up as well as top down.

MS. VERGE: Last year the minister told the

Committee that she and her officials were in the process of developing for the

Province a quote 'overall waste management strategy.' Has that been completed?

If so, may we have a copy? If not, when will it be completed?

MS. COWAN: Okay, one of the things I was really

pleased about in this budget process, you will note it there, is that we have

$150,000 this year for doing the basic study, so we will be either hiring

consultants or people to work within the department, or a combination of both,

so I am very pleased about that because it is much needed in the Province and is

the first step to getting the whole area under control, and the focus of the

thing will be the three r's - reduction, reuse and recycling.

MS. VERGE: How does the minister expect the soft

drink industry funded advertising campaign to further these objectives of

reduction, reusing and recycling?

MS. COWAN: I guess the first thing, it's an

anti-litter campaign. The soft drink thing is an anti-litter campaign.

MS. VERGE: So the objective is to transfer the

waste from the woods to the dumps?

MS. COWAN: No, not necessarily. That's where the

CIPSI part - the Canadian Packaging Stewardship will kick in, to see in what

manner we can best deal with these to get away from some of the problems we're

encountering with too much stuff going into our waste disposal sites. So that

will be a step in dealing with that, but that would be only a small step. The

whole waste management strategy is going to identify more far-reaching efforts.

MS. VERGE: Okay, the strategy will be more

far-reaching, but we'll probably have to wait for a long time to get it. In the

meantime, I am asking: How will the soft drink industry funded advertising

campaign, due to start on the May 24th. weekend, further the objectives of

reducing, reusing and recycling?

MS. COWAN: Well it doesn't, and that's why the

CIPSI part makes it attractive. The soft drink aspect is largely an anti-litter

program; it's not largely, it is an anti-litter program, so on its own it's not

adequate and that's why government didn't want to go ahead with it until we

could get this packaging group working with it at the same time. We wouldn't

have gone ahead with just the soft drink association proposal. We felt there had

to be an intermeshing, as you suggest.

MS. VERGE: The anti-litter advertising campaign

due to start on the May 24th. weekend presumably will try to change attitudes

and bad practices, but we've learned many times over that educating people isn't

enough. We learned that, for example, with seat-belts; we've learned it with

tobacco. It isn't enough for people to know that they shouldn't litter or they

shouldn't smoke or they should use seat-belts. People basically have to be

coerced. What is the minister proposing in the way of better enforcement of

existing anti-litter laws?

MS. COWAN: I guess first of all I would say that

I've thought of it in comparison to the seat-belt, too, and smoking and what

have you, and I see it as sort of a different issue. (Inaudible) where life is

at stake, and where you might want to come down much more heavily on people to

get immediate responses to things.

In the litter thing it's not a health or safety issue.

I have, I think it's in this last year, too, maybe it's because I was a teacher

for twenty-two years, but I really feel education is significant. This program

is going to be aimed at the age group who are the worst litterers, and that is

it is going to be aimed at young men between the ages of fourteen and twenty-six

- I think twenty-six, but somewhere in that area - and that is the group that

really needs the education because they do the most littering.

The young children in the schools today seem to have

assimilated, if that's the word I want, a value system that is thinking in a

more constructive way about what they do with litter and that type of thing, so

the program is going to focus on these young men. We don't know if it is going

to work but I am quite frank with you that we hope it will work; it has worked

well in Texas, we have in our hip pocket other ideas that can be hauled out if

this doesn't work, and that's why we built into the agreement with the Canadian

Soft Drink Association, that there will be certain targets that they will have

to work toward if those aren't met, then we will revert to some alternate

method.

MS. VERGE: But surely, enforcement of anti-litter

laws has to go hand in hand with education and -

MS. COWAN: Oh yes, you asked that. Yes, you know,

that's something that I have pondered as well and it may come to that. The

provinces where they have anti-litter legislation have not been that effective

in cleaning up litter; as I mentioned earlier, there are provinces that are far

worse than ours when it comes to littering and they have, many of them,

anti-littering legislation so, Lynn, I will be continuing to monitor that and if

there is a necessity for anti-litter laws to be brought in and to be enforced

rigidly - right now we have -

MS. VERGE: Don't we have anti-litter laws?

MS. COWAN: Well not as such. Under the Waste

Materials Disposal Act, people can be charged with littering. We don't have an

actual act that talks about general kind of tossing stuff out car windows and

that kind of thing, but we can prosecute people under the Waste Materials

Disposal Act. I am not sure if that is adequate, and so it is something that is

being considered.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a question about

the railway then, which I understand was finally transferred from the federal

Crown to the provincial Crown -

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet I know what question

(inaudible).

MS. VERGE: - in the past year. There are several

people in the Province including Rural Development Associations and people

involved in the tourism industry who have been advocating the maintenance of the

railway bed for a trail for recreational use, but people are seeing the railway

land being frittered away, taken for a variety of uses, encroached upon by

householders, is the Department of Environment and Lands in charge of managing

that former railway land?

MS. COWAN: Right now the Department of Environment

and Lands is making sure that, or trying to make sure because it is a big job,

that land is frozen. I realize that there are problems with different things

that are causing the rail bed to deteriorate; we will prosecute anybody whom we

can catch stealing any of the ground, the gravel and stuff that is around or

using it in a way that they are not supposed to. In the meantime, while that is

in a frozen state, we are also not giving anybody any access across the railroad

track or offshoots, what do you call them, by-ways?

MS. VERGE: Trunk lines?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: The branch lines, unless it is with the

approval of Cabinet and you know, that is very tricky to get. We are being quite

stringent about that. At the moment, while that's taking place we are looking at

the concept of the Rails for Trails.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I thank you. Ms. Verge's time

has expired.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister made a comment about how she thought that

the New Democratic Party would be happy to see that there is somebody cracking

down on big businesses instead of making the consumer pay. First of all, I

should say that the minister's rhetorical comment about the NDP being opposed to

big businesses is very far off the mark. We are not at all opposed to big

businesses but we are interested in making sure that they pay their fair share

and that we don't subsidize their profits, as I pointed out to the minister,

that we were doing at a tune of seven dollars per taxpayer for landfill alone. I

understood from the minister's program that the consumer was in fact paying for

this by one cent being added to every soft drink being sold. They even had

accountants collecting it and that they were going to dole out the money so that

the consumer is paying directly for the cost of this anti-litter education

program. Am I right or am I wrong?

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible) added on all soft drink

bottles, yes or all soft drink containers.

MR. HARRIS: Is the consumer paying that or -

MS. COWAN: The consumer is paying that yes. I

guess maybe paying, Jack wasn't the right word, but taking responsibility would

probably have been a better word to use then paying.

MR. HARRIS: And would the minister regard a

voluntary industry program as cracking down on big business?

MS. COWAN: They have been asked to do it in a

voluntary way hoping that I suppose - it's again this whole system of changing

people's values. However, they have the additional threat that if they don't do

something about it legislation will be put in place to force them to do it.

Actually, we have the legislation ready in our Province now. It came to the

House last spring and under that legislation I can order anybody in the Province

who is not complying with, say the CIPSI program or whatever to do so but we are

hoping and it would appear that everybody is going to come on board.

MR. HARRIS: Are you sure you have that power,

minister? I understood that that legislation gave you the power to order them to

give you information and that was all.

MS. COWAN: Yes, I haven't got a copy of the act

here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes, it is power for -

MR. HARRIS: - how to make regulations to order

them to give you information and that's all.

MS. COWAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: I would suggest that you check with

your officials on that because that was the criticism that I made last spring

when legislation was brought in and it wasn't answered by the minister or

anybody else.

MS. COWAN: Okay, John are you able to give an

answer?

MR. FLEMING: The packaging act does give the

Lieutenant-Governor in council authority to make regulations regarding a whole

variety of issues regarding packaging, including regulations of a certain type

of packaging, the distribution of packaging and all that manner of things as

well, not just information.

MR. HARRIS: I beg to differ on that but I won't

make an issue of it any further at the moment.

The studies that I have seen reports of and the

conclusions that are reached as a result of an analysis of the deposit return

system show that the rate of return in the beer industry for example in the

bottle refund system is a 98 per cent return rate. In the United States, nine

states have passed beverage deposit refund laws with container redemption rates

ranging from 85 to 97 per cent. They're very significant numbers, very

significant assurance that these beverage containers do not end up either in the

environment as litter, in the countryside or in landfills at a great expense to

the public and to the taxpayer. Can the minister tell us what studies she has or

what studies the Canadian soft drink lobby produced for the minister and what

her estimates, based on those studies, are of the rate of return or success rate

for this voluntary program that's being undertaken by the industry by adding a

cent to the cost of soft drinks?

MS. COWAN: I'm not quite sure what the question

is.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister tell us how many soft

- what is the rate of return -

MS. COWAN: What do they anticipate?

MR. HARRIS: - anticipated in terms of, well, I

guess, recyclables. There is not one single product sold in Newfoundland today

other than beer in the soft drink beverage industry that is refillable. We only

have some recyclable and lots of one way glass containers and other things like

that. I want to know whether the minister can say what is the percentage return

rate that she expects to have with these tetra-packs, which I understand are

recyclable, with some of the cans, which I understand are recyclable. What is

the return rate that the minister has been promised by the Canadian soft drink

industry in their lobby as a result of the programs that they've proposed?

Because now we can compare those figures to the 98 per cent that we have for

beer, to the 85 per cent to 97 per cent that we see in studies from the American

states that have these systems, as opposed to Texas, you know.

MS. COWAN: First of all, we don't look at it in

rates of return, we are looking at it in reduction. That is why we have the

CIPSI program feeding into it.

MR. HARRIS: The CIPSI program is about other kinds

of packaging. I know they are trying to disguise the problem but I want to talk

about the 15 per cent of the landfill, the ten tons per year that is beverage

containers. I want to know whether the minister has been told by CIPSI or

whoever they are, the soft drink lobby, what percentage of the containers that

are now the 10 per cent to 15 per cent of our landfill site, what percentage of

that, what in terms of rate of return, of those soft drink containers are now

going to be recycled as a result of the minister's program?

MS. COWAN: No, because this is an anti-litter

program for getting litter out of the ditches and wherever else it accumulates,

in brooks and so on. It is not a program aimed at just soft drinks and other

drinks.

MR. HARRIS: Why would the minister not put a ten

cent a can deposit system in place for cans that would result in all of these

cans being returned, or 98 per cent of them, the way that the beer bottles are

now returned? If I, or if a member of the public, was wandering along a road or

street or whatever and saw a half a dozen beer bottles there is a substantial

likelihood that they would be picked up because they are worth ten cents each.

You can bring them to a store and you can get sixty cents for them. People in

fact do that - I don't think they make a living at it - but people go around

doing that and they return those things. They collect them. Obviously lots of

organizations collect them because they are very valuable to organizations when

they have volunteer labour to pick them up. Why wouldn't the minister do that

and ensure that perhaps 90 per cent, 95 per cent, 98 per cent of soft drink cans

or beer cans or other cans would in fact end up in one place? Then they could be

possibly used for recycling or other purposes. Why wouldn't the minister do

that?

MS. COWAN: Because I'm not fond, Mr. Harris -

maybe you are - particularly of tripping over Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes. I

don't like to see Sobey's bags or other grocery bags flying from trees, which is

very common now. I don't like to see all the other - Vienna Sausage cans in the

woods when I go out for a walk. I want to get rid of all the litter. I certainly

don't see us putting a deposit system on every type of packaging that we have in

this Province. Yes, the brewing industry does get a good return, traditionally.

It was something that was started in the very early days of the brewing industry

so it is a tradition to take the beer bottles back. I don't think it would be as

attractive if people didn't largely buy beer by the case and take a case back,

in which they get a considerable return, and we usually buy more beer at that

particular store when they return their bottles. That wouldn't necessarily

happen with the soft drinks.

First of all, I've got a teenager and ten cents to him

is nothing. He would want to have fifty pop bottles, and he doesn't have the

energy to go and pick them up. I really think the deposit systems are not

necessarily the way to go. I shouldn't be insulting my son, but watching the

habits of young people over the years, ten cents to them is pretty

insignificant, even a little kid. I don't see that there would be a great

incentive to return one pepsi or coke bottle, can or whatever, for ten cents.

Now I still say, Mr. Harris, that if, indeed, we have

to - deposit refund regulations are in my hip pocket, and if I have to drag them

out, if this proves to be wrong, then I will drag them out, but I feel

comfortable that we're heading in the right direction, but I'm not the kind of

person who says that this is written in stone, and if we have to change

direction or whatever then I am only too happy to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Harris' time is up. I will now recognize Mr.

Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Madam Minister, this one cent charge

on soft drinks that is now in effect -

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. HODDER: That is collected from the retailer?

MS. COWAN: I have no idea. It has nothing to do

with government. It's an initiative of the Canadian Soft Drink Association. I

haven't bothered to find out about it. One of my officials may know, but it's

part of their initiative; it has nothing to do with me. If I had been bringing

in a deposit refund it probably would have been ten cents, which is a good deal

more than a cent, because we would maybe not give back the full ten cents. If

one of my officials knows, I am quite happy to have them comment.

MR. HODDER: Okay. My point is that I know it's

being collected at the retail level and just want to bring the attention in the

comprehensive sense to government that this has been passed on from the

manufacturers to the wholesalers to the retailer and, once set, is not something

that can affect the cost of a soft drink, so therefore it becomes a disincentive

to local business. It's causing concern for the small convenience store operator

because he feels that he can't put his prices up. I have had convenience store

operators who believe that this should have been - if it's there and it's being

put on - it should be an initiative by the government and should be collected at

the wholesale level rather than carry it through to the small retail store.

I only make that point to say that this is another

example of ways in which our policies infringe upon the small businessman.

MS. COWAN: If I could, Mr. Chair, make a comment

to that, it wasn't exactly a question, but we also did a study through ITT of

your small corner grocery stores, your stores of that nature throughout the

Province, and ITT found that those small stores did not want a deposit refund

system because they didn't have the room to take the bottles in and store them,

and that kind of thing, so I think this is the lesser of two evils. If they

don't like it, they have other ways that they can solve the problem.

One of the things, too, that is a problem when you

start putting deposit refund on soft drinks is the old level playing field,

except they call it the share of the stomach in the grocery and drink business,

so they are afraid that people will stop drinking pop and start to drink bottled

water, or they will start to drink milk. Then the people who sell milk are

afraid that if something happens people won't buy milk, and this kind of thing,

so it's difficult to bring in this kind of deposit refund system, particularly

in the economic climate that we have in this Province which can't absorb - the

Province is not like southern Ontario or whatever that can absorb the shockwaves

of what could happen with employment figures as well. We work in a very

different economic environment here, which makes it even more difficult to make

some of these decisions. That is why I like this stewardship program, because it

sort of gives you the best of both worlds as we hope it will.

MR. HODDER: I will only just say to the minister

that many of these small convenience store operators, I know that they don't

want to be involved in the deposit refund, but also they feel that the

initiatives undertaken by the industry and sanctioned by the government in

essence boil down to a disincentive and a negative for the small businessman.

MS. COWAN: What do we do about litter? I mean,

these people -

MR. HODDER: No, no, they are not disputing the

fact of the program. They would tend to support the program. Their complaint is

that the manufacturer is passing it along to the wholesaler who passes it along

to the retailer, but they in turn cannot pass along one cent. One cent is not a

transferrable thing to the consumer. Therefore it becomes a nightmare for them.

They feel that they, and not the consumer, are paying that one cent per unit.

There is some concern expressed to me by friends of mine who are in - you know,

small convenience store operators. They feel that all of it is really falling on

their shoulders, and the way the price arrangements go that they feel that they

can't pass this one cent along to the consumer.

MS. COWAN: Why can't you?

MR. HODDER: Pardon?

MS. COWAN: Why can't you? I mean, we pay taxes on

things that give us one cent and two cents and (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I'm just saying that they find that

they have difficulty transferring it.

MS. COWAN: There is nothing I can do about it. As

I said, it is an initiative of the industry itself, but I certainly am

interested in hearing what you have to say (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: The other thing I wanted to talk about

in the few minutes I have is that I find it difficult to understand why the

department would still be into Cottage Land Development, under

section 3.2.02.

When we were talking privatization that - I can understand the department

regulating, I can understand the department saying to a group of people: If you

are going to develop this particular site you have to have it as a comprehensive

development and you can't just simply push roads along, there has to be some

kind of a land plan that has to be followed and it has to have gone through the

appropriate environmental studies. Why is it necessary for the department, even

though it recovers its cost, to be spending $245,000 in this budgetary year on

cottage land development?

MS. COWAN: I don't know, to be perfectly honest.

It is a question that I've asked myself from time to time. Should we be involved

in it? Historically, a lot of these programs were set in place some years ago

and are going to be brought through to fruition. As far as the future of this

kind of thing, I'm not sure what it will be.

MR. HODDER: This is -

MS. COWAN: We certainly have voiced as a

government that we would like to get away from government initiated business and

have the private sector, to move (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I would encourage the minister to look

at that particular program.

MS. COWAN: I am.

MR. HODDER: I fail to see the rational thought

process behind it. Historically it may have been that - particularly in the

Avalon area where there were roads being pushed all over the place, and cottages

were being developed without proper assessments done, and the department in its

early years came onto the scene and had to make all kinds of adjustments. But

why should your department be up developing lands in Deer Park or Middle Gull

Pond or wherever?

MS. COWAN: Yes, it is a good question. I welcome

it.

MR. HODDER: It is $245,000 that - although you

recover it, the private industry should be looking after that

MR. HODDER: Its $245,000 that, although you

recover it, private industry should be looking after.

The other thing I wanted to speak about is the liquid

waste disposal. What is the status of the relationship between the City of St.

John's and the disposal now at Robin Hood Bay and how are the other

municipalities in this region now coping? Are there ample agreements in place or

do we have septic tank -

MS. COWAN: You're talking about septic tank

(inaudible)?

MR. HODDER: - disposal taking place late at night?

MS. COWAN: You're talking simply about septic

waste are you, liquid waste?

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Well I wouldn't be surprised that

people are doing it late at night and I wouldn't want to deny that. It does

happen and we know it happens. We have it drawn to our attention frequently. We

try to find out who's responsible for it and lay charges. As you know from your

experience as mayor and your involvement in the thing, the people on the Avalon

Peninsula have been directed not to do that and to use the facility on the

Foxtrap Access Road, to have the waste treated and then dumped into the ocean in

a much better state then it is to just go directly in but I think there are

people who still have the attitude that they can just do whatever they like with

their sewage and are still doing that. I hope that gradually that will fade out

but it is a problem.

MR. HODDER: It continues to be a problem. We all

hear rumours of the late night operators and we hear comments - I don't know

whether we do any good by continuing to talk about it in a public forum but I

don't know where else we can do it.

MS. COWAN: To give people the idea.

MR. HODDER: Yes, yes and -

MS. COWAN: But more people are willing to report

it now, which I think is an interesting sign, because obviously more people find

it offensive and are ready to report it to us, then we can act on it. So as more

people recognize it as a problem and start reporting, I think that it will

dissipate. I hope it will dissipate over the next -

MR. HODDER: My final question for the evening has

to do with Come By Chance.

MS. COWAN: Oh yes.

MR. HODDER: I drove by there on Sunday in fact and

the - I call it the stench -

MS. COWAN: Yes, there was a fire there and -

MR. HODDER: Well I drove by there on Friday -

MS. COWAN: Oh before the fire, okay.

MR. HODDER: - and I drove by there on Sunday after

the fire.

MS. COWAN: There's no doubt there was a stench. It

was worst on Sunday I gather.

MR. HODDER: - and probably a little worst on

Sunday. What is the status of the modifications to the equipment there? I

understand that the company is living up to the policies that are there but many

people believe the regulations that are in effect, the law of the land, many

people believe that if they're living up to the current law then the law itself

is in need of being changed.

MS. COWAN: Well Come By Chance is indeed a problem

area. As you know, they have filed for protection under the Bankruptcy Act some

time ago and when that happened we saw a real problem emerging there then with

them buying a high sulphur content crude and that kind of thing and a general

let down on maintenance and what have you. We are not particularly pleased. They

started with great furore and interest in cleaning things up after several

meetings that we had with them last fall - it was last spring - and it seemed to

be making headway. They started buying a sweeter crude which cut down a lot of

the problems. It's very frustrating for an environment minister. They have

trouble with their sulphur recovery plant. It had a fire in it awhile ago and of

course as soon as the sulphur recovery plant can't operate then you need a

sweeter crude right off the bat and they often don't have that on site. The

smell that you refer to, was it a rotten egg smell or more like a car oily motor

smell?

MR. HODDER: I cannot remember breathing from the

time I entered.

MS. COWAN: They are different things and the Esso

2 problem gives you sort of a very distinctive smell. There has been an

improvement in that area but the smell disturbs people. It is coming from this

compounding basin and it is also coming from the machine that separates oil and

water, the API separator. We are not satisfied with what the refinery has done

in dealing with these problems. Again, to be perfectly honest with you, I am

disturbed and I have written a letter to Mr. Mifflin who is managing the plant

at this time and requested another meeting with him.

Now, since I have written that letter there has been a

fire out there and the plant is not operating. I will still obviously be meeting

with him but I do not know the extend of the damage of the fire at this stage

and how it will impact on future operations of the facility.

MR. HODDER: As the minister is well aware this is

a very critical issue for many people who live in that part of the Province. It

is a persistent thing that has been there for many, many years. People have

concerns over their health, and as you know the thing that is being promoted all

across the country now is what they call healthy public policies. Healthy public

policy means that the regulations which emanate from your department have to be

monitored for their impact on health and people in the macro sense, so that

people do have real genuine concerns about long-term effects and, I think, the

pressure upon government is if the regulations that now exist do not address the

issue then there is need for new regulations, or new legislation to give the

minister the power to cause this matter to be addressed effectively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you finished, Mr. Hodder?

MR. HODDER: I am finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is your last question for the

night. Thank you, very much, Sir.

Ms Verge.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a couple of

questions, and this will be my last topic on environment of the Department of

Environment. In highway construction, does the Department of Environment, the

environmental protection part of the department, have any authority over highway

construction when highway construction involves significant alteration to the

landscape?

MS. COWAN: First of all the new highways and so on

have to go through the Environmental Assessment Act. Right now we are doing the

Goulds by-pass, for example. I will let one of the officials elaborate on it,

but in most cases the legislation is not incumbent on the Crown.

Dave, I will let you speak on that exactly.

MR. JEANS: We work very closely with the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation so that in the case of new

highway construction, river crossings, bridges, culverts, and so on, engineering

design specifications are reviewed with the department so that the final works

are in accordance with our requirements.

MS. VERGE: Where are the environmental

requirements set out?

MR. JEANS: Well, the Department of Environment and

Lands Act, which as the minister noted normally does not bind the Crown, but on

a volunteer basis the Department of Works, Services and Transportation still

provides us with the kind of information we need with respect to watercourse

crossings, bridges, culverts and these type of facilities and we have the

engineering design criteria within our water resources division that know the

sizes of culverts required and the construction practices needed to insure that

watercourses are not silted up in the area and perhaps it is seen at the time

during construction the siltation fabric in the ditches at the side as they are

constructing the highways and this is to prevent siltation from runoff in areas

under construction affecting the downstream watercourses.

MS. VERGE: Apart from looking at watercourses,

does the Department of Environment and Lands look at other aspects of highway

construction?

MR. JEANS: Generally, with respect to garbage

handling and disturbance of vegetation, there are guidelines that the

contractors must abide by that are provided by the Department of Work, Services

and Transportation, and these are environmental guidelines to which we have had

input in the past. They are pretty common with all types of construction

activities.

MS. VERGE: Okay. What involvement -

MS. COWAN: Do you feel there is some inadequacy in

that particular area (inaudible) answer to the question?

MS. VERGE: Well I am quite disturbed by what's

happening in the Humber Valley. The provincial Department of Works, Services and

Transportation using federal money is in the process of four-laning the

Trans-Canada Highway between Massey Drive and Deer Lake. The work that has been

completed in the Corner Brook area above Riverside Drive, I believe, has

resulted in a significant flooding problem and last spring, during the election

campaign, there was flooding on Riverside Drive; this year, there was not only

flooding but a landslide and I am wondering if the Department of Environment and

Lands was involved in any way in looking at that recent, new, highway

construction.

MR. JEANS: I am not aware that we had been

contacted with respect to that landslide, but we may well have at the officials

working level.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Now further up the valley, yet to

be reconstructed, are the areas of Little Rapids and Pasadena. One version of

the department's plan for Little Rapids, which was unveiled at a public meeting

a couple of months ago, involved the new, four-lane divided super highway,

taking agricultural land from Hammond Farm, and then actually going through what

is now Strawberry Hill. In other words, taking the Hill for fill, that was the

reason given by the government official, and then building two culvert-style

interchanges for access to the new divided highway at the western and eastern

ends of Little Rapids.

As we move further east, the current plan, as the

minister would know from discussion in the House of Assembly, is to put the new

super highway in a deep pit or trench through the middle of Pasadena. Pasadena,

as most people realize is quite flat and the thinking of the minister is that

the divided highway would go under a level community road with the tractor

trailers and the woods trucks whizzing along eighteen feet below ground level

where Lakeland Lodge now stands.

Now the minister hasn't produced any engineering

design, plans or specifications, I rather doubt that any exist. Has the

Department of Environment and Lands been involved in any of that discussion,

thinking, planning or whatever it is Mr. Efford and his people are proposing?

MS. COWAN: We're not aware of it to date. Now it

wouldn't go up to the environmental assessment branch because we only do that

with new roads. As far as having -

MS. VERGE: But no, this will be a brand new road.

It'll be a four lane divided highway in a different location.

MS. COWAN: Yes, but I guess it's part of the

Trans-Canada corridor though is it?

MS. VERGE: Basically it will be a replacement for

the present Trans-Canada Highway but it will be brand new construction.

MS. COWAN: The work that's being done on the

Trans-Canada has not been subject to the environmental assessment process.

MS. VERGE: But how is that distinguished from the

Goulds by-pass road or any other new highway construction?

MS. COWAN: I guess because it's a brand new road.

MS. VERGE: But this is a brand new road -

MS. COWAN: I'm sorry - can you make a distinction

there please?

MS. VERGE: But why would you want to make a

distinction? I mean in both cases there are new highways being built or being

proposed.

MR. JEANS: It depends on whether this is in a new

corridor that's outside, say a 500 metre right of way, as to whether it's

required to be registered under the Environmental Assessment Act. It also

depends on the length of the road - so this, to my knowledge, hasn't met those

requirements. So our only concern - it would not be subject to the assessment

act but it would still be, with respect to bridges, culverts and water course

crossings, be subject to our involvement through a normal permitting process. As

I indicated earlier, voluntary because this is a Crown department rather than a

private corporation.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I said that was going to be the

last topic but just one quick question. The Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill in

Corner Brook, the Kruger Mill in Corner Brook, the department has many times

extended the deadline for the new boiler that's supposed to curb air pollution

and in particular cut down on the sooty particulate emission from the mill. The

Premier has said publicly that to help out the company with its current cash

shortage, he would consider giving them concessions on environmental

requirements. What's the status of the current Department of Environment and

Lands compliance

schedule or requirements for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper? Do

you think we'll ever get that new boiler completed?

MS. COWAN: I hope that we do some day, yes. All

the improvements that we have been making over the years, your government when

it was in power, it was very halting, very slow, largely, I guess, due to the

financial position of the company. As far as the status of the bark burner at

this particular time, I can't really comment on it. I'm not sure what the date

is -

AN HON. MEMBER: June '95.

MS. COWAN: - June '95, so that's all I can really

say at this particular stage. Just where they are in that process I'm not quite

sure.

Okay, John is just saying that they spent $32 million,

you probably know that as well, for that area of the $40 million estimate.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. First let me say to Mr.

Fleming that I was wrong and he was right about the packaging material act. What

I was talking about was the minister's power; what the deputy minister was

talking about was the power of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council of course does have the power to make regulations

in respect to packaging standards. In fact, it also has the power to make

regulations requiring the payment of a deposit on a package or class of

packaging. We really don't even need to pass legislation. We merely have to have

a Cabinet install such a system, which is good news if there was any will on the

part of the government to take such action.

Can the minister, since she seems to have let the

House of Assembly know it before, and the Committee know now, that somehow or

other the deposit-return system is no longer in vogue or - I forget exactly how

she put it, but it doesn't seem to be the - people aren't very happy with it.

Can she tell me what governments across the country have gotten rid of their

deposit-return systems for soft drink containers in the last couple of years?

MS. COWAN: None of them have, as far as I know,

but some of them are now looking to involve the same type of education program

as we are. Because they have realized that it hasn't addressed the litter

problem as adequately as they had intended. That the beverage containers, yes,

they make up a good amount of the litter stream, but there was all the rest of

that litter left. So you will see a number of other provinces following in this

way. Also, Nova Scotia, which doesn't have the deposit refund, is currently

looking, and has announced this publicly, at the same program that we are

putting in place here. Manitoba as well, and Ontario, and British Columbia.

MR. HARRIS: So there is nobody getting rid of

their deposit-return system?

MS. COWAN: Not at this particular stage, no.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. In fact, New Brunswick just

brought it's in in 1992.

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: In fact, New Brunswick just brought

it's own in in 1992.

MS. COWAN: Yes, they are the most recent one.

MR. HARRIS: I suppose this may well be a

rhetorical question, but then I won't refer to your own son. This mythical

teenager, this mythical lazy teenager to whom ten cents means nothing, do you

think this mythical lazy teenager to whom ten cents for an aluminium can means

nothing is going to be affected by a waste program that tells him to pick up

after himself?

MS. COWAN: I think it is a possibility, yes.

Obviously, Mr. Harris, if I didn't think that I wouldn't be having the program

introduced. I keep saying that if it doesn't work then we will have to use some

other methodology. But it seems right now that the -

MR. HARRIS: How will we know if it works?

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: How will we know if it works? What is

your measuring target?

MS. COWAN: The Canadian Soft Drink Association had

a study done in the Province last year or so, so that they now have bench mark

figures.

MR. HARRIS: Do you have it?

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: Do you have that study?

MS. COWAN: Yes. I've seen it. It is not a study

for government.

MR. HARRIS: Can you give us a copy of it?

MS. COWAN: No. You can phone the Canadian Soft

Drink Association and they may release it to you. It is not in my power to

release.

MR. HARRIS: So you don't have the study, and that

is how you are going to decide?

MS. COWAN: I have the study. They released it to

me, but I can't release it to you.

MR. HARRIS: Why can't you give us a copy of it? If

that is what you are going to use to decide whether or not it has been

successful or not - surely it is not a secret study, is it?

MS. COWAN: Oh no. It is not a secret study.

MR. HARRIS: So why can't we have a -

MS. COWAN: I guess it isn't. I don't know what the

Canadian Soft Drink -

MR. HARRIS: Why can't we have a copy of it?

MS. COWAN: Because I didn't initiate the study. It

doesn't belong to me.

MR. HARRIS: Madam Minister, can you tell us in the

Committee -

MS. COWAN: Actually, I should say in defence of my

son Jeff that he is not lazy.

MR. HARRIS: I'm not talking about your son, I'm

talking about -

MS. COWAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: - some mythical lazy teenager to whom

ten cents means nothing. There aren't a lot of them around to whom ten cents

means nothing. I'm sure that those who do feel that way - for each one who does

there are probably lots of others who would quite eagerly go out and collect

bottles or save them and bring them back to deposit at recycle centres in order

to get the ten cents. There may be some who don't but I suspect - as I've seen

in other provinces, and I say to the minister, I lived in Alberta for a number

of years a long time ago, fifteen years ago, at that time Alberta had a

deposit-return system for which you would get five cents for wine bottles, you

would five cents for beer cans, there was no burden on the stores, the liquor

stores or the convenience stores. There were separate recycling businesses or

separate deposit refund centres.

People eagerly, on Saturday mornings brought their

empties and they might even have used Sobey's bags to do it and keep some of

them I suppose off the trees as well, so there are a lot of alternate ways of

doing things and I have to say that I don't have a lot of assurance from the

program that has been put forth, particularly where we have no information about

what the targets are, what the baselines are, what method is going to be used to

judge the success of this program, and I have to say that I and many others are

greatly disappointed with that.

MS. COWAN: May I make a comment?

Mr. Harris, I will give you the name of the woman who

is the President of the Canadian Soft Drink Association, if you would like to

call her when she is in Newfoundland, I am sure she will be happy to sit down

with you, in fact, I am sure she will be delighted to go through some of these

questions which you have.

MR. HARRIS: Oh I am sure. I would like a copy of

that study; I kind of know what she is going to say because I guess I have heard

the minister saying most of what this person would probably say, but I wouldn't

mind seeing that study because that seems to be what the minister is prepared to

use to judge the success of the program and I think that that's of considerable

public interest, and I would like the minister to get the permission if she

feels it necessary, in order to release that document and to release that

document to the House or to the committee. Is the minister prepared to seek the

permission to do that if that's felt to be necessary?

MS. COWAN: Well I think it's the only thing to do

you know, I would do the same thing for you if you had done a study for me or

for anyone.

MR. HARRIS: No, but I want to know, is the

minister prepared to seek that permission and make the study available?

MS. COWAN: Certainly, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Moving on to a couple of

other issues; there are so many; unfortunately time might not allow all of them

to be dealt with.

The situation at Come by Chance, and I know that the

minister has had difficulties with that company and I also know that there are

financial considerations involved. It seems however that the message of the

government is that if you have financial difficulties that we would allow the

environment and the neighbours to suffer. It has happened in Corner Brook, it's

happening in the neighbourhood of Come by Chance refinery, and whether it be

sulphur odors, whether it be air quality emissions, whether it be impounding

basin problems or the process itself, there seems to be a fair degree of

leniency on the part of government with respect to that oil refinery.

What I want to know is that since there are

discussions going on to sell the refinery to a new owner, in fact, I think there

may be some sort of a deal that's waiting to come down, what kind of confidence

can the public have that this new owner or any potential owner of the Come by

Chance refinery is going to be treated any differently, whether it appears that

all a company of that kind has to do is plead financial problems with the

government and get treated leniently; what kind of assurance

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1994-04-26
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga42session2_1994-04-26_ssc-el_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	397921e3cce0c525afd0dafd953327ec745c5999

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).