April 18, 2005 RESOURCE COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 9:15 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I think we are pretty well in business now and we will start. I am Harry

Harding, District of Bonavista North, Chairman for the Resource Committee

Estimates.

The Committee members may introduce themselves by name and district,

beginning with the Vice-Chair.

MR. REID: Gerry Reid, MHA for the District of Twillingate & Fogo.

MS FOOTE: Judy Foote, MHA for the District of Grand Bank.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, MHA for the District of Windsor-Springdale.

MR. O'BRIEN: Kevin O'Brien, MHA for the District of Gander.

MS JOHNSON: Charlene Johnson, MHA for the District of Trinity-Bay de

Verde.

CHAIR: We have one other member, Eddie Joyce, for the District of Bay of

Islands. I guess Eddy will probably join us later.

Now I would like to welcome you as well, the minister and his departmental

officials, and I would like for you to begin the introductions of your people by

name and the position they hold in the department.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome all of the other members of the Committee who are all my colleagues

in the House. I will start by introducing the staff of my department. To my

immediate left is Paul Dean, Deputy Minister for the Department of Environment

and Conservation. To his left, Bill Parrott, Assistant Deputy Minister for

Lands. To his left is Bas Cleary, who is Acting Assistant Deputy Minister for

Environment and Conservation. As most of you know, Ken Dominie is off recovering

from bypass surgery and Bill is replacing Ken while he is off. Behind me is Jim

Hancock, who is the Director with the Wildlife Branch in Corner Brook, and Gerry

Crocker, who is the Director of Finance and General Operations with the

department. And back to you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

The proceedings will be pretty well standard like we have followed for a

number of years, that the members will be referred to by name rather than

district. The minister will begin debate and he will have up to fifteen minutes.

That will be followed by the Vice-Chair or the critic, who will also have

fifteen minutes. Then we will alternate with the different committee members if

they have questions or want to make any points, and they will be allowed up to

ten minutes at a time.

I want to remind everyone, as well, that this is being recorded by Hansard.

So anytime when your officials speak, I would like for them to identify

themselves prior to speaking.

This morning we are debating the Estimates for the Department of Environment

and Conservation, and I ask the Clerk now to call the first subhead.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01. Shall that subhead carry?

Yes, Minister Osborne, you may begin.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

Well, I would like to, again, thank all of the members of the committee. I

believe this is your first committee meeting, is it, Mr. Chair? I will ask the

Vice-Chair, I think it is the first one for this committee?

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is? Yes. Well, thank you again.

The Department of Environment and Conservation, as you know, has grown, I

guess, about three times what it used to be under the previous Department of

Environment. Previously, there was an annual budget in the range of about $8

million. It is now over $25 million. There is also about three times the number

of employees in the department. We have taken in lands, wildlife and land

fisheries, protected areas, parks, in addition to the responsibilities of

environment under the old department, to form the new Department of Environment

and Conservation.

The department is also charged with the responsibility of the new sustainable

development act, which we should be seeing in the near future, which will ensure

that we protect our natural heritage, our natural environment, not only for

today's generations but future generations.

Within the department we have a revenue of about $6 million which supports

the amount, the $25 million, that we spend on an annual basis. The various

divisions of the department: Executive and Support Services have about $2.3

million; Environment Management and Control has about $6.2 million; Lands is

about $5.6 million; Parks and Natural Areas about $3.8 million; Wildlife and

Natural Heritage, about $7 million in annual expenditures.

On that, Mr. Chair, I will keep my comments brief. I know that it is early in

the morning and we all have a very busy day, so I will pass it back to you, Mr.

Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Osborne.

Mr. Reid.

MR. REID: Thank you, Sir.

We will just go through it by heading and subheading. We will start, right

off the bat I guess, Supplies and Purchased Services is over budget in 2004-2005

by quite a bit. I think you will find that on line 1.1.01.04 and 1.1.01.06.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In that, I guess, bringing together all of the various

divisions of the new department, perhaps we should have had those amounts higher

then $2,200 for Supplies and $2,500 for Purchased Services. Even under the old

department, where it was just Environment and about a third of the

responsibilities in previous years, I mean, we were as high as $17,500 for

Purchased Services under the previous Budget and $13,700 under the Minister

prior to that, and $14,000 for the Minister prior to that. So, I guess in

hindsight, we perhaps probably should have had that a little higher. We still

have the same amount budgeted under 2005-2006 and, I guess, ambitious as we are,

we will try to meet that but it is probably unlikely that those amounts will

reflect $2,200 and $2,500 again next year.

MR. REID: 1.2.01. Why the increase of $36,600 in Salaries in 2004-2005?

Is that an extra position?

MR. T. OSBORNE: In Salaries?

MR. REID: Executive Support, 1.2.01.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was my Assistant Deputy Minister for Parks and

Wildlife, Bob Warren, his secretary, an unfunded pension for the position.

MR. REID: Public Relations Specialists, do you have one of those?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Communications Director you mean?

MR. REID: And a specialist.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, that is the assistant to the Communications

Director.

MR. REID: Tina Coffey, is it?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Correct, yes.

MR. REID: Where is her salary in this?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would come out of - I will ask my deputy minister,

but I imagine that comes out of Administrative Support.

MR. DEAN: Executive Support.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Executive Support, yes.

MR. REID: Where is it reflected in the Executive? I do not see it in the

Executive Support.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Gerry, did you want to -

MR. CROCKER: I am sorry, the Director of Communications is budgeted under

Executive Support. There is also an assistant there who is actually budgeted in

Pollution Prevention.

MR. REID: In what?

MR. CROCKER: In Pollution Prevention. There is a position there that

assists the Director of Communications.

MR. REID: So you have a Public Relations Specialist listed under

Pollution Prevention. What is she doing, tidying up some of the bad press

releases that are going out or what?

MR. DEAN: Perhaps I can speak to that. Ms Coffey's position, she

started out as a clerical position in Pollution Prevention and she just had a

very positive aptitude towards communications. So we have, I guess, left her

position where it was. That is where her permanent position would have been, in

Pollution Prevention, and that is where it is for budgeting purposes, but she

does report to the Director of Communications and provides assistance.

MR. REID: Did you hire someone to replace her in the position that she

was in?

MR. DEAN: No, I do not think so.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was prior to, I think, me becoming minister. She was

in that position when I became minister. I am not aware, but I guess for

housekeeping purposes, it is only a matter of transferring the allocation from

Pollution Prevention to Executive Support.

MR. REID: Could you, maybe later on, give us a list of how many employees

you have this year compared to last year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: In the Executive you mean?

MR. REID: No, for your department. Have you lost many employees this year

under program review and things like that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, in fact, it was - Paul?

MR. DEAN: No, we have not lost people this year under program renewal or

program review, or whatever. We did in the Budget that has just passed. We did

eliminate a number of positions in last year's Budget, in 2004-2005, and those

positions have not been filled. They were eliminated last year, but we are not

proposing any further reductions in the current Budget.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The majority of those positions were previously vacant

positions. They have been vacant for a number of years and we just eliminated

the position from the particular divisions. We were not affected under last year's

Budget to any great degree. We tried to cut costs where we could to eliminate

the need to eliminate positions. We were quite successful in doing that.

CHAIR: Ms Foote.

MS FOOTE: I guess what my colleague is asking is: Can you give us a

number? How many employees were there before you became the minister and how

many are there now? Do you have that number?

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many living, breathing bodies were there?

MS FOOTE: Employees, yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, we can get that for you.

MS FOOTE: Get that for us, okay.

You said you have not lost any employees, how many people have retired out of

the department and you have not filled those positions?

MR. DEAN: I can only think of one person who retired in the past year

where we have not filled the position. Other people who have retired -

MS FOOTE: What position was that, Paul?

MR. DEAN: It was a position of environmental biologists in the

Environmental Assessment division. This person retired in June, I recall, of

2004. We did not fill that, and Mr. Parrott informs me there is a secretarial

position in Lands. It is a similar (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Are there other environmental biologists?

MR. DEAN: Yes, there are.

MS FOOTE: How many in the department?

MR. DEAN: I will just ask Mr. Cleary to respond.

MR. CLEARY: Under the EA division, there are seven EA biologists who work

for Environmental Assessment.

MS FOOTE: Okay. So is it the intention to hire someone to replace the one

who retired?

MR. DEAN: No, that particular position, we have made a decision in the

department that we have enough Environmental Assessment biologists. So that

position will stay vacant.

MS FOOTE: I want to go back to the public relations specialist position.

I find it a little odd that it is not listed as a public relations position. Is

that standard practice, do you know, throughout the government that the public

relations positions are not listed as part of the Executive Support?

MR. DEAN: I am not sure whether it is standard practice or not. This one,

I think, is an artifact, if you like, of history, where this particular person

was in a clerical position in Pollution Prevention. We needed help in

communications, and she got assigned as an assistant to the director of

communications. She did eventually get reclassified as a communications

specialist.

I take your point; perhaps it is appropriate that she be budgeted in the

proper area.

MS FOOTE: What salary does that one pay now, the public relations

specialist position?

MR. CROCKER: I do not have the actual position listing here in front of

me, but it was probably in the area of between $40,000 and $50,000.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

You said it was listed in the Estimates under Pollution Prevention. Can you

go to that

section and find it?

MR. CROCKER: The actual position is not listed there. Her prior position

will be still in there. I would have to investigate that to see exactly what - I

know it was reclassified, but I would have to look up the PCN number just to

see. I will have to get back to you with the details, okay?

MS FOOTE: Okay.

CHAIR: Mr. Reid.

MR. REID: Line 1.2.02.12., your Information Technology budget, why is it

up? What is the reason for being over roughly $100,000 in 2004-2005?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was the purchase of additional software and

hardware. That was a one-time purchase that was made under last year's budget.

That will not be required again this year.

MR. REID: Under 1.2.03., it appears to be a $300,000 grant there. What is

that for?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is the climate change initiative that was announced

under this year's budget.

MR. REID: Under 1.2.04., Information Technology, Administrative Support,

this amount has gone from $170,000 to $85,000. In 2003-2004, it was $170,000. In

2004-2005 it was $85,000, to zero this year. What is happening there?

MR. CROCKER: That is the allocation for tangible capital assets in the

area of Information Technology. In the previous year, and also in 2004-2005,

there was $85,000 budgeted for the GIS project. Unfortunately, this year, there

has been no funding approved for that project.

MR. REID: Under 2.1.01., why were Professional Services over budgeted by

$48,000 last year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry. Which one was that, Gerry?

MR. REID: Under 2.1.01., Pollution Prevention.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. REID: Why were Professional Services over budgeted by $48,000?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was a consultant for the St. Anthony project, the

cleanup of the former military site at St. Anthony. We had to take on a

consultant on that particular project.

MR. REID: Under 2.2.01., the Transportation and Communications budget, I

think you had $119,000 and you still budgeted an increase of $35,000. That is in

2.2.01.03.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will defer that one to my deputy. I am not familiar

with that particular one.

MR. DEAN: A lot of the transportation and communications in Water

Resources relates to the gathering of water samples, and field inspections

related to watershed protection and so on. One of the things, the significant

thing, that happened last year was the strike. During that period of April of

last year, and May, we really were not doing a lot of that work. We did try to

catch it up during the summer, but we did not spend as much money in

transportation because of that fact.

MR. REID: Okay.

Under 2.3.02., Voisey's Bay, federal revenue increased in 2004-2005. Why

should you not expect to -

MR. CROCKER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Under 2.3.02.

MR. CROCKER: It is $450,000 budgeted for the Voisey's Bay Environmental

Management Board, and it is cost shared 50-50 with the feds.

For 2004-2005 the revenue is up by $108,000 because the last claim for the

previous year was not received until May, so the revenue could not be written

back against the current year's expenditure.

MR. REID: Under 3.1.01., Crown Land, a $152,000 increase in salaries.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You mean a decrease. We spent less in salaries. The

revised was less.

MR. REID: I am sorry, Minister?

MR. T. OSBORNE: The revised was less than what was budgeted.

MR. REID: Yes, but you have increased the IT budget by $50,000 in that

same division again. Did you spend a lot on IT, or is that normal?

MR. CROCKER: There was $175,000 budgeted for particular software, and the

licence has gone up by $50,000 so there is $225,000 budgeted this year.

MR. REID: Under the same heading, you budgeted $250,000 in revenue but

only achieved $85,000. Is that correct?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, there was $250,000 budgeted for the sale of various

types of maps. Unfortunately, we only got in $85,000. Actually, for next year we

have reduced it down to $150,000 as a more realistic estimate. In certain years

the actual sales do fluctuate, depending on the demand for maps.

MR. REID: You are going to have a sale, in other words, are you?

In Land Management, 3.1.02., again salaries were over budgeted by $115,000 in

2004-2005. This year there is an increase again.

MR. T. OSBORNE: When we brought the departments together, unfortunately,

we did not budget enough for salaries in that particular area. There were no

hirings there. There were the same number of people, so we corrected that in

this year's budget.

MR. REID: In 3.1.03., salaries increased by $163,000 in Surveying and

Mapping.

MR. PARROTT: It is the same explanation in Surveying and Mapping. When

the branch moved from Government Services, the salary budget was underfunded.

There has been no change in the number of employees. This is just a reflection

of the actual salary costs.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, my colleague wants to ask a question.

MS FOOTE: I just want to go back to 1.2.04., Administrative Support,

Capital.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 1.2.04.?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

Further to what my colleague was asking, you have the amount for your IT

support, or Capital and IT support, gone from $170,000 down to $85,000. You were

saying - I am sorry, was it Terry?

MR. CROCKER: Gerry.

MS FOOTE: Gerry.

Gerry, you were saying it is because you did not get any funding for what

system again?

MR. CROCKER: The GIS project.

MS FOOTE: What is that going to mean for the department?

MR. PARROTT: This is a GIS project in Water Resources. I think it was a

two or three year project to map all of the watersheds and the sampling

information. I believe the project has been significantly completed so the

information is now available through the department, and the next plan is to

make it available throughout government on the various Web networks.

MS FOOTE: Do you want to run that by me again? It is either my hearing,

or your voice is awfully low.

MR. PARROTT: The GIS is an electronic database, a map, to show the

watersheds, the protected watersheds, the watersheds throughout the Province for

the rivers and network, as well as the water sampling that goes on in the

department. This information is now collected electronically so that it can be

analyzed and transmitted throughout the department and throughout government

very readily, so the information data is available for all users in government.

MS FOOTE: You are saying there is not going to be any kind of bad impact

on the fact that you did not get -

MR. PARROTT: I cannot speak to the full impact. I know that the money

over the last two years has been to cover the cost of the development of the

system. The system has essentially been developed. The future will be

enhancements which will not require as much money.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

Section 2.2.02., Water Quality Agreement, is this agreement part of the

hiring of the people we have looking at the water quality throughout the

Province? Does that fit in there somewhere?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry. Could you repeat that, Judy?

MS FOOTE: The people you hire to look at water quality throughout the

Province, do they come under this agreement? I am assuming that people who look

at water quality throughout the Province fall within your department.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have a Water Management Division. Much of the water

quality specialists, the people who do water quality monitoring and so on, are

within that division. I guess this agreement is over and above that.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

How many water quality specialists do you have?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Paul?

MR. DEAN: Just a point of clarification on the water quality agreement.

The water quality agreement looks at what we would call ambient water quality,

general water quality, in our lakes and streams. We have permanent monitoring

stations throughout the Province, and this is not drinking water quality. This

is to create a database of what is the overall quality of water, and is that

changing as a broad environmental indicator? We do this jointly, or in

partnership with the federal government.

In terms of the drinking water quality, those people would be under Water

Resources Management. There would be as many as, off the top, I would say, eight

or nine people involved in various aspects of water quality, and that could be

everything from actually doing the sampling and testing the chemical parameters

to doing training in individual municipalities, or taking our mobile training

program on the road.

In terms of the sampling in the municipalities and at the tap, if you like,

for bacteria, that is done by the Government Service Centre, and they apply the

standards. So, our sampling program would be less frequent than the sampling

program done by the Government Service Centre with respect to drinking water.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

So that is the difference between the responsibility of both the departments.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just to, I guess, expand on that, under the water quality

agreement, as Paul was just saying, that is primarily ambient water quality.

One of the things we picked up on, for example, with the elimination of

leaded gas, where all gas is now unleaded, for example, out on the Humber River,

the ambient water testing out there is showing a decrease in lead content in the

water.

That is the type of data we get under this agreement. We obviously do not

test every water body throughout the Province, but we test some of the major

water bodies such as the Humber River for indicators of what is happening within

the environment and how it is affecting the environment.

MS FOOTE: Is this an ongoing agreement, or is there a time frame?

MR. DEAN: I think we have had this agreement in place for nearly twenty

years; so, from that point of view, it is good data because it gives us some

historical perspective on the kinds of things the minister just mentioned.

As I said, this is done in partnership with the federal government so in some

cases they will pay for a particular piece of equipment and we would look after

collecting the data and monitoring that particular piece.

CHAIR: Do any of the government members on the Committee have a question?

No?

Mr. Reid.

MR. REID: Yes, under 5.1.04., this Biodiversity centre -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 5.1.04.?

MR. REID: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is 5.1.06., Gerry.

MR. REID: I am sorry.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, the Institute for Biodiversity, that is 5.1.06.

MR. REID: Yes. Have you officially said that that is going to be going to

Corner Brook?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. REID: So, it is definitely going to Corner Brook?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. REID: How many employees have been hired there yet, any?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There is - and I will ask Paul to correct me if I am

wrong, but I believe there are two employees under the Institute for

Biodiversity in Corner Brook. They will be two full-time employees, Paul?

MR. DEAN: Yes, that is correct, and we will be advertising for those

positions shortly. They are just in the process of being classified for.

MR. REID: So, they have not been hired yet?

MR. DEAN: They have not been hired yet, that is correct.

MR. REID: Where will they be working?

MR. DEAN: They will be based at Grenfell College in Corner Brook.

MR. REID: Are you going to have anyone related to this Institute in St.

John's?

MR. DEAN: The Institute itself will supervise a variety of students. That

is one of its main thrusts, and some of those students will be in St. John's

just because the programs are not available at Grenfell College. So, if someone

is doing a PhD in Caribou research or whatever, then by virtue of the programs

and the supervision, that person would have to at least be enrolled at the main

campus rather than Corner Brook, but if someone is doing an honours thesis or an

honours study, then that could be done at Corner Brook.

MR. REID: You have no one hired yet but those you do hire will be located

in Corner Brook?

MR. DEAN: They will be located at Grenfell College, yes. We are working

with the college on making the appropriate space available at the college.

MR. REID: You put $500,000 into that, did you? Was there $500,000

allotted for that this year or something?

MR. DEAN: I believe the total is $300,000.

MR. REID: So what is that going to be spent on? That is salaries and

everything, is it?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 5.1.06, actually, it gives a list of how that

$300,000 is going to be distributed. Page 112 of the Estimates Book.

MR. REID: All right.

5.1.05. If you look at Transportation and Communications, in 2003-2004 you

spent $86,000, 2004-2005, $150,000, and it looks like this year it is going to

$329,000. Is that correct?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, that is correct. We had $260,000 budgeted in

2004-2005. The revised was $150,000. That was as a result of certain projects

not being started, but the budget this year is at $329,000.

MR. REID: That seems to be a big increase, doesn't it, year over year

over year?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, I think part of that is - and I will ask Jim to

elaborate a little bit, but I think part of that, under the Trans-Labrador

Highway we are going to need helicopter time for the monitoring of the caribou

which was part of the Environmental Assessment requirement for the

Trans-Labrador Highway. The caribou herd up there is an endangered herd. Part of

what came out of that assessment was the need to do satellite collaring and

tracking and so on.

Jim, that Transportation and Communications would reflect the helicopter time

for that project, or in part?

MR. HANCOCK: That activity, 5.1.05. Wildlife Ecosystems Monitoring, is a

whole series of cost-shared arrangements that we have with a whole variety of

partners. There is a lot of fluctuation from one year to the next, depending on

what is the dollar value of the various projects that are negotiated. But,

Minister, that particular project you referenced about the monitoring of the

Mealy Mountain Labrador caribou herd in relation to the Trans-Labrador Highway,

most of the T and C money for that would be actually budgeted in the research

activity and only some of the -

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. HANCOCK: Yes.

So the reason for the fluctuation in that particular activity relates to some

of the other cost-shared arrangements that the division has entered into, not

necessarily only just the project that the minister referred to.

MR. REID: Like, which ones?

MR. HANCOCK: For example, one of the projects that has been ongoing for

quite some time in that activity is the monitoring of the George River caribou

herd in relation to the low level flying activities in Labrador. One of the

conditions in the release of the Environmental Assessment for that, going back

to the late 1980s, was that the Department of National Defence has to monitor

the location of the caribou and take proper avoidance activities while they are

planning their flights sorties.

We actually carry out the work for the federal government and they provide

the funds. The scope of that project varies from one year to the next. Usually

the final agreement is not negotiated until partway through the fiscal year.

That accounts for some variation too, where we have to budget for the maximum

but we can only spend according to the agreement that is put in place. So that

would be one of the types of projects that would be done there as a partnership.

We also have partnership with the federal Department of Justice for the

delivery of the hunter education program, for example. There are actually about

twenty-five or thirty different cost-shared arrangements. I have just

highlighted two. If you require more information I would be happy to keep going.

CHAIR: Ms Foote.

MS FOOTE: Under the Provincial Parks,

section 4.1.02. - actually, Park

Development. I am interested in the $250,000 that was approved to upgrade La

Manche Park.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I figured you would ask that, Judy.

MS FOOTE: I am wondering if you have a list of priorities for upgrades to

provincial parks in the Province? If, somehow within your department, you have

looked at the various provincial parks and determined what it is you are going

to be supporting next?

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have closely looked at all of the parks. There are

only three parks in the Province that do not currently have comfort stations.

Obviously, they would be a priority. La Manche is one of those, and of the three

La Manche has the highest rate of usage. So, obviously, that was the priority.

There are three without comfort stations. There are a number without dumping

stations, of which one of them is the park in your area. Obviously, once we get

the comfort stations put in place we will be going after the dumping stations,

which would be our next priority.

MS FOOTE: Okay. Is there a list of the parks and the priority in which

they fall that I could have?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, the three parks that do not have comfort stations

at present would be the priority for the short-term. Over the next two to three

years we are hoping, within that time, to come up with some additional funding

as well. I have pushed very hard for additional funding for park upgrades. Some

of the parks need extensive upgrades.

Last year, in last year's Budget, we did get new picnic tables and so on

for a number of the parks. We have made some expansion to Butter Pot Park, as

far the number of sites out there. We are going to expand that again this year

because that is very heavily used, which will increase the revenue under

Provincial Parks.

I am hoping, Judy, that if not next year - we are going to have a look at

Frenchman's Cove for next year, but if we do not get to it next year,

certainly the year after that. It does need a dumping station, there is no

question. There are a number of parks that need dumping stations. We have not

put those on the short list. The three without the comfort stations are the

three we are really going to focus on next.

MS FOOTE: As you know, Frenchman's Cove is the only provincial park on

the Burin Peninsula, and with a lot of - of course without the dumping station,

you will not find people who drive these RVs stopping there. I think that is

really taking away from the park itself. There is a group called the Friends of

the Park, and I am sure you have heard from them, who have been working very

hard to try to ensure that the park is kept up to standard.

I am curious, as well, where we are with the whole initiative by the golf

association down there, Grand Meadows and the provincial park. I know they have

been working together as a group and I think the environmental assessment is on

now with respect to that, to the other nine holes. Can you give me some idea

where that is in the scheme of things?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, right now it is currently still under environmental

assessment. We have received -

MS FOOTE: How long does that take?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That should be complete this month actually.

MR. DEAN: I can ask Mr. Cleary to speak, but I understand that a

recommendation is being prepared for the minister in the very near future.

MR. CLEARY: We see a recommendation to the minister in a matter of a few

days. The assessment is fairly well clued up. So, it will be a matter of a few

days, probably early this week, that we will have a recommendation to the

minister.

MR. T. OSBORNE: As you know, I have just returned from vacation, but

prior to making an announcement - and I do not know if you want to do this

privately or if we will do it now - but I mean prior to making an announcement,

obviously, I am going to speak with both yourself and Clyde Jackman to find out

your views on the golf course as well and how you feel your constituents -

whether they want that or not, obviously, but before I do that, I mean if the

recommendation under Environmental Assessment is that it does not go, there is

probably not much need to pursue it any further. If the recommendation is that

there is nothing under Environmental Assessment to hang it up, then I will be

consulting with both yourself and Clyde.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Under

section 5.1.04., Wildlife and Natural Heritage Research.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, 5.1.04?

MS FOOTE: 5.1.04. My colleague talked about the Institute for

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science. I am wondering, why were the Estimates for

2004-2005 for this division changed and monies that were allocated, taken and

moved into the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystems and then announced for

the Institute? Is that a correct reading of that? Was there actually money that

was moved from one system for the Institute?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, the money for the Institute for Biodiversity was new

money. That was money that was approved under the Budget for this year. The

$300,000 you mean?

MS FOOTE: In the departmental salaries, you have decreased the temporary

and other employees by $114,000. Why is that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 5.1.04?

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They were vacant positions that we were hoping to fill in

2004-2005, but they had not been filled. So, we have budgeted for those

positions again this year. They had been positions that have been vacant for

some time.

MS FOOTE: Okay. What were they?

MR. DEAN: For example, one of them is a senior biologist for Labrador.

That position was vacant for some time, so that position is currently advertised

and going forward. I think there is also a big game biologist for the Island

portion of the Province. Our lab in Corner Brook is just getting ready to be

operational, so there is a position for a lab assistant in Corner Brook.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We had anticipated that lab being open prior to now but

that will be open, obviously, under this year's budget as opposed to last

years.

MS FOOTE: So those would be temporary positions and not permanent?

MR. DEAN: No, they would be permanent positions.

MS FOOTE: Why is the Transportation and Communications budget being cut

by over $500,000 when the last two years it has been $1.1 million?

MR. DEAN: I will ask Jim to speak to that, but I think we have done some

moving around of the transportation budget. Some of this relates to big game

surveys, and some of that is budgeted out under management planning.

In 5.1.03 you will see an increase in Transportation and Communications and a

decrease under Transportation and Communications in 5.1.04.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, I think someone had mentioned earlier, the

transportation based on what research we are doing will fluctuate from year to

year anyway. That is a normal thing within the Wildlife Division.

MS FOOTE: Helicopter time, and -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Pardon me?

MS FOOTE: Helicopter time, and -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

Supplies were over budget by $185,000 in that particular heading.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was satellite collars that were purchased as a

result of the requirements under Environmental Assessment, and just tracking of

big game.

MS FOOTE: What would you be using in the way of Professional Services? It

was over budget by $50,000. Now you are cutting it back by $100,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Gerry?

MR. CROCKER: The Professional Services are usually contracts that we

would enter into with various areas of specialized research to help with data

analysis, usually, and the modelling. It is the type of expertise that you

probably would not need on an ongoing basis in-house, but things that you have

to draw on from time to time. Some of that work was done over the last few years

but we anticipate doing less and less of that.

MR. HUNTER: I have a question.

CHAIR: Mr. Hunter.

MR. HUNTER: Does that include some statistics that you gathered on the

coyote population? That question you just answered, would that include the

scientific research for coyote predation and population, and stuff like that?

MR. CROCKER: Not necessarily.

Most of the work that we are currently doing, and planning to do, related to

coyote and their population dynamics within the Province would be done within

out own department. There isn't any professional service for data analysis on

that particular aspect.

MS FOOTE: Purchased Services, over budget by $107,000, now you are

cutting it by $92,000. Can you elaborate on that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will let Paul expand, but it has gone from a budget of

$142,000 last year to $157,000, so it is actually an increase, but the -

MS FOOTE: It was over budget last year, though, from the previous year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It was over budget. That was additional advertising and

printing and so on.

Paul, did you want to...?

MR. DEAN: One of the things with the project on the Mealy Mountains in

the Trans-Labrador with respect to the impact of the Trans-Labrador Highway and

the Mealy Mountains herd, that is a multi-year project, and in order to get the

research done this year, 2005, we had made some up front expenditures. As the

minister referenced before, buying the collars, for instance, and placing a

(inaudible) in the field to carry on with that research program, in order to

keep it on track, we had to spend that money, essentially, before the end of

March this year in order to get the program running and get some base data.

MS FOOTE: So I am assuming you are not anticipating a need. You are

cutting it back by $92,000.

MR. DEAN: There will be an ongoing need. We will need to replace some of

those collars and so on as animals die, or whatever happens, but there is a

certain amount of up front spending to get the program up and running and then

you can do it with normal maintenance; I will put it that way.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is not a cut in that particular allocation. It is just

that there was a spike last year. There was an increase in the amount that we

spent last year.

MS FOOTE: I guess we cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring that

monies that are needed are allocated for this area. I think we all appreciate,

in Newfoundland and Labrador, that this is an area that we need to make sure we

do not under fund if at all possible.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

We have actually done quite well in last year's budget and this year's

budget, actually, in wildlife science and research. We have maintained our

funding, so we see the need for that as well. We have continued that. In fact,

this year, on the Trans-Labrador Highway, we have actually gotten additional

funding for this year's budget.

MS FOOTE: In

section 5.1.05., again with the Wildlife Ecosystems

Monitoring, where is the salary account in the Departmental Salary Details for

this? I couldn't -

MR. CROCKER: The salary details do not reflect the permanent position;

there is only a temporary allocation.

MS FOOTE: In 2004-2005, we are looking at about $150,000 in

Transportation and Communications, and in 2003-2004 it was $86,300, but still we

are looking at $329,300 if you combine the two. Are you going to need that this

year for transportation and communications?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, Judy, those fluctuate from year to year, the need

within Wildlife, but there were a couple of projects that did not get started

last year that we anticipate having started this year.

MS FOOTE: What were they?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Jim?

MR. HANCOCK: One of the projects that we have been trying to get started

there for a couple of years is some work with - it relates primarily to the Red

Wine caribou herd, but it also has other components of ecosystem biodiversity

incorporated with it. It has worked with the institute in Labrador, the

Institute of Environmental Monitoring and Research, and that is where the

primary source of funding is supposed to come from, but we still do not have the

final approval from that group to fund that project.

MS FOOTE: Just some general questions, if you don't mind.

What savings did the department realize as a result of the public sector

strike? Do you have any idea of the dollar figure there?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have no idea.

MR. DEAN: I think it was $507,000 that was frozen in salaries. We did not

estimate the related spinoff from that for Supplies, Purchased Services,

Transportation and Communications. Basically, what was done is, government

accounting froze the salaries only. I think it was $507,000.

MS FOOTE: Can I get you to table that for me?

The cost of overtime and expenses for management during that period as well,

could I get that tabled?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Sure.

CHAIR: Mr. Reid?

MR. REID: Back to the first question that my colleague asked you about

how much did you realize during the public sector strike, and you said that they

froze salaries at - what did you say? - $500,000. Obviously, there must have

been far more savings than that in the department when you consider you have all

these people in the field, and some of them would have been using helicopters

and stuff. Because, if you look at Purchased Services, the savings realized by

the department must have been far greater than $500,000. Am I correct?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Those surveys still have to be done. Whether they were

put on hold or not as a result of what happened last year, those surveys would

still have to be done. In the long run, no, we would not have said we are going

to cancel a survey because there was a work stoppage for a month. We would have

continued on with satellite collars, helicopter time, and so on and so on. It

may have delayed things, but it certainly did not eliminate the need for those

things.

MR. REID: Yes, but obviously, in the normal daily operations of your

department, there would have been travel, communications, and all of this stuff

that would not have been used during that period of time that - ongoing. You

talk about some studies that will still have to be carried out, but there are

things that are routine, that happen every year, year over year over year. Any

idea of how much money was saved on that?

MR. DEAN: A lot of our work is of a seasonal nature, if you can

appreciate. For instance, we do a lot of big game surveys and wildlife in the

winter months. The only thing I can think of, Mr. Reid, in terms of savings,

would have been in the water programs. In the spring of the year, in April and

May of last year, we did not do a lot of that work so there would have been some

corresponding savings in transportation and communications in the water work

because our water program is ongoing throughout the year.

A lot of the other stuff, we have a very professional and dedicated staff,

and as soon as the strike was over they were playing catch-up and they really

did pull out a lot of effort in pollution prevention, for instance. They would

have met all of their objectives for the year, so I do not think - we would have

played catch-up and we would have spent most of those monies. The only exception

I can think of in that would have been in the water program, whereby we really

did not spend the allocated amount.

MR. REID: Thank you.

CHAIR: Ms Foote.

MS FOOTE: Speaking of staff again, I want to go back to an earlier

question on that.

When I asked if you could get me the numbers in terms of the staff there used

to be versus the staff you now have, I would also like to have a breakdown of

that, of the staff in each of the various divisions within the department. I

guess I am going back to the public relations specialists again. For my own

interest, I would like to know who is in what division.

Media monitoring for the Department of Environment and Conservation, could I

get you to table that for me as well, including costs of the transcripts and

newspaper and magazine subscriptions for 2004-2005?

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I am not mistaken, I think there was a request put in

by your party for that information anyway Paul, was there?

MR. DEAN: My understanding is, I think there is a government-wide request

on this nature and I think we have provided that information, whether it is

tabled or not. I will check and see whether that information is tabled.

MS FOOTE: As long as we get it. I do not mind what avenue it comes

through, just as long as we get it.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

MS FOOTE: I did, I guess, ask that question, too, about the employees,

the breakdown of permanent, temporary and causal.

MR. DEAN: Yes.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

The other thing would be - and I do not know how much you do in terms of

contracting out work - if we could get some indication of the number of

contracts that have been let by the department this past year?

MR. DEAN: Just a point of clarification. Are you talking about

contractual employees or contract work?

MS FOOTE: Contract work.

Well, both, I guess. Now you have me thinking.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We only have one contractual employee, I think, is it?

MR. DEAN: There are three I can think of, Minister. There may be a few

more.

MS FOOTE: Well, I will take that information as well.

MR. DEAN: Just a point on contract. I guess the major contract work that

we did last year and will continue this year is the cleanup of the St. Anthony

project. We spent close to $1 million, and we would spend close to $1 million

again this year for that particular project.

MS FOOTE: I noticed the increase in fees for parks. What are you

expecting in terms of additional revenue as a result of that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That revenue does not come back to the department. That

goes into general revenue.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would not give any direct benefit to the department,

but I guess in -

MS FOOTE: What was your revenue for last year from provincial parks?

MR. CROCKER: The sale of park permits is under current account revenue. I

think it was around $770,000 that came in last year.

MS FOOTE: Is that an increase or a decrease from the previous year?

MR. CROCKER: That would be an increase over the previous year. I think it

was around $752,000 in the previous year.

MS FOOTE: Is there a projection for this coming year?

MR. CROCKER: I am sorry, what was that?

MS FOOTE: Is there a projection for this coming year in terms of

anticipated revenue?

MR. CROCKER: Actually, the revenue that is in current account for park

permits for next year is $767,000. That would probably have been provided

earlier in the year by - I think it is fiscal policy who look at the current

account revenues.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

It is a safe bet that it will be higher than $767,000, obviously.

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) a large part on the type of year we have for

tourism. This year we actually fared fairly well, I think, compared to the other

Atlantic Provinces, but our parks visitation was down by probably 3 per cent

this year compared to the other Atlantic Provinces where it was down 8 per cent,

9 per cent and 10 per cent.

MS FOOTE: You did see an increase in revenues, though.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, we saw an increase in revenue as a result of the

increase in fee. We were only down 3 per cent overall within the provincial

parks this year. I am hoping that we will not be down this year over last year,

but it really depends on a number of conditions. If we have a good year weather

wise, our numbers in provincial parks are generally up. If the weather is not so

good - people make the decision on a Friday afternoon. If the weather for the

weekend is not going to be good, they are not going to the park.

MS FOOTE: Have you looked at the fact that, because you have increased

fees, you have fewer people using the parks? Has that factored into any of your

MR. T. OSBORNE: No.

In fact, if you look at the other Atlantic Provinces, our decrease compared

to the other Atlantic Provinces is much less. The other Atlantic Provinces faced

a much larger decrease in park usage than we did. I think it relates more to

weather and the number of visitors who came to the Province. The tourism numbers

that came to Province, in fact, were down greater than the park usage was down.

If you look comparatively at the tourism numbers into the Province and compare

that to the number of users at the parks, the parks actually did quite well.

MS FOOTE: What were the tourism numbers down by? Do you know?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I don't have those numbers.

MS FOOTE: We can ask your colleague. I didn't know if you just -

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know that we fared very well compared to the tourism

numbers generally.

MS FOOTE: Does the department have a breakdown in terms of the number of

locals that use the provincial parks versus the number of tourists?

MR. T. OSBORNE: We can estimate that, to a large degree.

Do you know offhand, Paul?

MR. DEAN: Yes, that information does exist. I am sorry, I cannot say what

that is but I think we keep fairly good records at the parks of the residency of

the people, and that goes into the tourism statistics.

MS FOOTE: Could we get that tabled as well? I think that is relevant in

terms of the usage, the revenue you are anticipating, and how Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians avail of their park system versus Atlantic Canada, because you

are doing a comparison there. It would be interesting to see that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If you look at where the numbers were down, there were a

number of parks where the visitation was up over last year. We actually had an

increase in visitation in some of the parks.

If you look at the areas where the visitation was down, tourism in general in

those areas was down, on a percentage-wise basis, but La Manche and Butter Pot,

those parks, for example, the visitation was up in those parks. There are

thirteen camping parks. I am going on memory here, Judy, so don't stand up in

the House and ask me questions. I will get the exact numbers, but I believe

eight of the thirteen -

MS FOOTE: Don't rule it out.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If memory serves me correctly, eight of the thirteen

parks had an increase, Paul?

MR. DEAN: I do not recall the exact numbers, Minister.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, I am going on memory there, but I believe it was

eight of the thirteen parks had an increase in visitation.

MS FOOTE: Speaking of Butter Pot, with the increased usage, is there any

intention to expand the park?

MR. T. OSBORNE: We did that last year. We put in nine additional lots

last year.

MS FOOTE: What was the fee you took away? The seasonal - what was it that

people were -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, the seasonal sites.

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In Butter Pot we put in nine additional sites last year.

I believe it is fourteen additional sites we are putting in this year at Butter

Pot.

On the seasonal fees, there are thirty-one seasonal sites. We are increasing

that this year to forty, but over and above the thirty-one seasonal users last

year there were seventy-eight people who had requested a seasonal site and were

not able to get it at Butter Pot. That has been an ongoing and contentious issue

for a number of years because of the number of people that apply for those sites

versus the number of people that get them - the thirty-one that have been

grandfathered in - so we have made the decision to increase the number of

seasonal sites out there as well.

MS FOOTE: Okay.

According to the information that I have been given, only 50 per cent of the

landfill sites in the Province have controlled access, and only 25 per cent have

attendants, so uncontrolled dumping has made it impossible to manage the site,

leading to fires and contamination. Does the government have a plan to put more

attendants in place and try and regain control of those landfill sites?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Most of the landfill sites are operated by the

municipalities, so that would be a municipal responsibility whether or not those

sites are manned.

MS FOOTE: At the end of the day, as Minister Responsible for the

Environment, I would assume that you have some say in that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, I guess -

MS FOOTE: Or concern, if not say.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is probably a better use of words: concern. Yes, we

do have a concern.

My colleague in Municipal and Provincial Affairs is now - MAPA are

responsible for the Provincial Waste Management Strategy, as you now, and they

are now finalizing their plans on the Provincial Waste Management Strategy, but

the overall strategy, our goal - and there has been a reduction in the number of

landfill sites in the Province. There has also been a reduction in the number of

incinerators in the Province, but the overall goal is to reduce the landfill

sites that are in the Province and certainly focus on the ones that are less

appealing.

MR. REID: I only have one more question, and that pertains to dumps. I

can't let you go without talking about the New Harbour dump. I used to trout

fish around that, as a young boy. When you were Opposition critic, that seemed

to be in the news every day. What is happening over there now? Is that being

cleaned up, or is there no evidence of -

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is in the news again today.

MR. REID: Is it?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. REID: What is happening over there? Because it seemed to have been a

big issue a couple of years ago, and every now and then you hear about it. What

has changed over there? Anything?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, I guess my primary concern in Opposition was why

the transformers went to the site. That was my beef. There has been testing out

there. In fact, the department has spent in the range of $100,000 in testing on

that site. There is not a problem with PCBs.

Now, if you were to ask me today: Does that make my concern over the

transformers disappear? I am still upset that those transformers went there. I

am still upset that government allowed them to go there. They were not the right

site to accept transformers. Having said that, the test results - all of the

test results, with the exception of one - show that the PCB count at that site

is below what is considered acceptable. There is only one that is above the -

what is considered acceptable is fifty parts per million. There is one count out

there, one test result, that shows fifty-two parts per million. When you look at

that in general and weigh it against all of the test results being below, it is

not a cause for concern.

The other issue that has been raised by a local environmentalist out in the

area were the heavy metal counts in the area. The government, back twenty years

ago or more, did geological surveys throughout the Province, I guess in hopes of

finding other Voisey's Bays or finding Voisey's Bays, you know finding the

ability for mineral exploration and development. Those geological surveys

throughout the area showed elevated metal counts throughout that area. So those

elevated metal counts, if you look at the background information on New Harbour

and weigh it against the test results that are out there now, the picture is not

as ugly as it would appear on the surface; if you were to just look at the test

results and not weigh it against the geological information that has been

gathered by government twenty years ago. I guess an example of that is, three or

four years ago there were high arsenic counts in well water out in the Harbour

Main area and that is, again, a result of the geology of the area. I mean that

had nothing at all to do with contamination or pollution.

If you were to ask the question: Is there some heavy metals and so on

migrating from that site? Absolutely! But no different than any of the other

230-odd landfill sites that are throughout the Province. I mean there are

landfill sites that were much better managed than that. There are landfill sites

that were much more poorly managed than that particular site. There are landfill

sites that have heavy metals migrating to a greater degree than New Harbour and

there are landfills that have heavy metals migrating to a lesser degree. So New

Harbour would be considered, you know, average compared to a number of the other

landfill sites throughout the Province. Does that mean that I am not concerned

about it? Absolutely not! I am concerned and we are working with a group of

local service districts out in the area to try and find solutions for that

particular site.

MR. REID: Have the ponds in that area been tested?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. REID: So, are the fish fit to eat?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: When you talk about the geological structure and the arsenic in

the water over there I am beginning to wonder why I ate those fish over there

many years ago.

MS FOOTE: Now we know what is wrong with you.

MR. REID: But, seriously, when you talk about heavy metals and stuff like

that, are the incidents that higher in the ponds around that dump than it is

elsewhere? Should people have a concern?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I mean, the heavy metals in that area were high before

the dump was ever put there because of the geology. Has the dump added to that?

Yes, to some degree it has.

MR. REID: Yes, but if you are talking about heavy metals being present,

whether they are natural or from the dump, the question I ask is: Should people

like myself have been concerned about that years ago and again today?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I mean, I will let -

MR. REID: Should they be trouting over there? Should there be a warning

posted along on the New Harbour barrens that: Eat the fish at your own -

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will let my deputy minister answer that. I am not a

biologist but my understanding of biology from high school is that bivalve fish,

for example, act as a filter and they would retain what they filter through

them. A fin fish is different and generally do not bioaccumulate a number of

these metals and so on. But, Paul, if -

MR. REID: You have convinced me that I am not eating trout on the New

Harbour barrens anymore. I do not know about you, Charlene.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: The surveys that were done were done by the geological survey.

As the minister says, most of those surveys, in fact, were done before the dump

got operational. So, it is a good baseline. It is a good piece of science and

gives you baseline data before a lot of human activity. Not unusual, there are a

number of anomalous areas of the Province where metals are higher or other

things are higher, but these are metals in the lake sediments, in streams and in

sediments that would not necessarily translate to high elevated metals in the

water itself.

So, I think in terms of eating the fish, unless that is your exclusive diet,

I would say you probably do not have a lot of risk of exposing yourself to

higher metals than you would in any other location in the Province. So, I would

say you are not at risk. I believe DFO has done a little bit of work on the fish

as a result of complaints out in the area and I do not think there is anything

of significance.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In fact, if memory serves me correctly, as well, and Paul

correct me if I am wrong on this, but there were both water samples taken and

sediment samples - you know, the sediment on the bottom of the ponds and so on.

The water samples that were taken, I believe, came back acceptable.

MR. REID: One thing I can say about that dump, it is certainly an eyesore

on the landscape in that area. It is absolutely ridiculous.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Oh, it is (inaudible) yes.

MR. REID: With any amount of wind, that is spread over quite a large

area; of garbage being airborne and stuff on that whole region there on the

Tilton barrens heading to New Harbour.

You talked about how we are going to close down incinerators and the

landfills around the Province. Is there any movement on the one that is proposed

to close down, the one we have here in Robin Hood Bay and move it outside,

because we sort of get different opinions about that? If you listened to Andy

Wells recently in the media, it certainly sounds like he does not want to go

that route. He would prefer to continue with the dump in Robin Hood Bay than to

move it out, I think, towards Holyrood.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are continuing with the environmental work at the Dog

Hill site, which will do two things. First of all, if Robin Hood Bay is to close

it will let us know if Dog Hill is an acceptable site as an alternative.

Secondly, whether Robin Hood Bay is to close or not - which, at this point, I

cannot answer - it would still only have a useful life of another twenty, maybe

twenty-five years. So, eventually, you are going to have to find a regional site

anyway.

We are continuing with the work at Dog Hill, and then regardless of what

happens with Robin Hood Bay, we will have Dog Hill identified as either a site

to be used in three or four years or a site to be used in twenty years. The city

and the Province have conducted a survey of the Robin Hood Bay site, an

engineering study, some environment work done which showed that the Robin Hood

Bay site has a natural containment -

MR. REID: The ocean.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, I guess by natural containment, the contaminants

are not getting down in the groundwater because of the base, the bedrock liner,

if we can call it that. Yes, there are contaminants going out into the bay.

There is no question about it.

We were not satisfied with all of the findings in that particular study. As a

result, because of the city's request to continue to use Robin Hood Bay, we

have conducted, or are in the process of conducting another study which will be

a peer study of the original engineering study that was done at Robin Hood Bay.

I can tell you this, that as Environment Minister, Robin Hood Bay will not

continue to operate in its current state. If that does continue to operate - if,

at the end of the day, that is the determination, that because of its natural

bedrock containment, natural attenuation and so on, that it is an acceptable

site - the damage is done, so to speak, to that site, whatever way you want to

paint the picture - there would have to be containment, there would have to be

leachate collection and treatment, and a whole bunch of other things.

If, at the end of the day, the city is able to convince us through

engineering studies and likewise, that the site is acceptable, then it certainly

would not be acceptable to me in its current state. I would require, and I think

the Province would require, a number of steps to be taken to contain and treat

the leachate from that particular site.

MR. REID: I just want to make a final comment, and you do not need to

respond to it or anything. I have been around here now for the last ten years or

so, and no disrespect for your department because they can only operate on what

they are giving from government, but in terms of closing landfills and

incinerators around the Province, we have been a dismal failure. We talk about,

down the road we are going to do this. I have been listening to that for the

last ten years, but it seems to me that very little is being done in that

direction.

MS FOOTE: Just a final question. I do not know if the plan is to freeze

us all, so we will not ask many questions or we will get the flu, but it is

freezing here. Absolutely freezing here!

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is.

MR. REID: Fix the environment.

MS FOOTE: Just one last question, of course, and it relates to the

situation in Lawn with respect to the chlorination system there. I understand it

is your department that inspects the chlorination facilities?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is correct.

MS FOOTE: I understand as well that it is supposed to be done three times

a year. Is that -

MR. DEAN: I do not recall the frequency, but we will go at anytime on a

request to help any municipality if they have a problem with their (inaudible)

system.

MS FOOTE: I think that is the issue. I think that is the point, is that

apparently it is only happening when you are called on or when a problem occurs.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am not sure of testing the facility itself. I know that

any municipality that is chlorinating - I mean under the multi-barrier approach

to water protection in the Province, one of the things that we have instituted,

and just last year, in fact, we are requiring that any municipality that are

chlorinating to do daily residual testing of the water to ensure that the water

that is being consumed is safe.

MS FOOTE: How many communities do we have on boil order now, do you know?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I cannot answer that right off, Judy. The number

fluctuates from week to week. I would not want to answer that now because -

MS FOOTE: We will get your colleague. We will ask your colleague.

(Inaudible) that is a good choice of words.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The only time a boil order is put in place - if there is

chlorination taking place and the residual testing on chlorination shows that

the system is properly being treated and chlorination is actually getting from

the plant to the tap, if we can use that analogy - if the testing is showing

that the chlorination is getting through the system, there is no need to boil

water, but if there is a crack in the system or a leak, or if there is

contamination somewhere through the system - even if there is chlorination,

sometimes we require a boil order if there is contamination getting into the

system somewhere along the route.

For example, St. John's from time to time have boil water advisories in

certain neighbourhoods and 99 per cent of the city are getting chlorination but

because one neighbourhood - there may be a waterline break or whatever, that may

demand that there be a boil water advisory within the city because there is

contamination getting into the system. That would be the same with any

municipality. If the chlorination is working, and it is working properly, there

is no need for boiled water. If either there is no chlorination, or somewhere

along the line there is contamination getting into the system, that is when we

require a boil water advisory.

MS FOOTE: I guess I was under the impression that it was a regulation

that you would check chlorination systems three times a year. I know with the

situation in Lawn, it was horrendous and it went on for weeks - it went on for

months, in fact. One of the issues at the time, I think, through MPA - and I am

not sure of the breakdown in terms of what responsibility MPA has with respect

to environment, and conservation has with respect to Government, Services and

Lands, but it just seemed to be that trying to get it dealt with took forever.

Then, of course, you look at rural communities and their financial basis such

that they can hardly afford to do some of the things that need to be done. Then

there was an issue with, that if they were in arrears to the municipal financing

corporation, then it could not be dealt with. So, I guess, I would like to think

that somebody has -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Those issues last year, I think, were dealt with by MAPA.

Minister Byrne, I think, dealt with those issues as a result of - well, I guess

the situation you just described.

MS FOOTE: Yes. I guess I would like to think that somewhere there is

somebody making sure that three departments, or someone takes responsibility for

ensuring that we do not have people exposed to these dangers, and they were

considerable at the time.

MR. T. OSBORNE: But there was a boil water advisory though at that

particular time, Judy. When the chlorination system was down, there was a boil

water advisory. So, I guess from an environment and conservation perspective,

again, as I described -

MS FOOTE: Tell a five-year-old in school that they have to boil the water

when they are going to a drinking fountain in school. It does not work. It is

really important that someone takes responsibility for that, with all due

respect to boil orders.

That's it for me.

CHAIR: Any further questions from the Committee members?

Does the minister have any concluding remarks?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, just to thank the Committee for your attendance and

the questions today, and to thank you, Mr. Chair, for conducting the meeting,

and to thank my staff for being on hand and their comments and remarks;

obviously, the Page and the House staff as well.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We will call the subheads.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to 5.1.06, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01 to 5.1.06, inclusive, carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.06 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Shall the 2005-2006 Estimates for the Department of Environment and

Conservation carry without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

OFFICIALS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried, without amendment.

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

without amendment.

CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister and his officials as well. Also

the members of the Committee, our Table Officer, our Page and the people with

Hansard, whom we do not see.

I just want to remind the Committee members, our next meeting is this evening

at 7:00 p.m. here in the House. We will doing the Estimates for the Department

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Labrador Affairs.

This meeting is now adjourned.

On motion, Committee adjourned.