Resource Committee

2015-08-05

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 15,

The Committee met at 5:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Harding): Okay, we are ready to debate the Estimates for the

Department of Environment and Conservation.

I would like to welcome you all here. First of all, I would like for the

committee members to introduce themselves by name and district.

MR. YOUNG: Wally Young, St. Barbe.

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, Labrador West.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Ed Buckingham, St. John's East.

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

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

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

We will follow the standard procedure. After I call the first subhead the

minister may take up to fifteen minutes to introduce her officials and then give

an overview of her department's estimates for the coming year. Following that,

the critic, the Opposition, will have up to fifteen minutes and then we will

alternate between - for ten minutes each, whoever wants to ask questions.

For the benefit of the officials, this is recorded by Hansard, so whenever

you are asked to respond you need to state your name so that they can identify

it down in the room where they are recording.

Anyway, I will ask the Clerk now to call the first subhead.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01., shall that carry?

Minister Johnson.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, before I go into my notes, I just want to say thank you so much to

Mr. Butler and yourself and for all the committee members. Mr. Butler has been

most accommodating and in the end, we ended up right back where we were, thanks

to the good old fog here in Newfoundland, but just thank you so much for the

whole process and being accommodating and understanding.

On that note, I would just like to say good evening and thank you very much

for the opportunity to discuss my department's estimates for the fiscal year

2008-2009.

Joining me this evening, I have Bill Parrott to my left; he is the Assistant

Deputy Minister for Environment. The Deputy Minister, Bruce Hollett, is out of

the Province on a family emergency so Bill will step up and answer questions in

Bruce's absence. Next, we have Shane Mahoney, Shane is the Executive Director

for Sustainable Development and Strategic Science. Next we have Ross Firth, Ross

is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Natural Heritage. Behind me we have Colleen

Johnson, Colleen is the Manager for Financial and General Operations. We have

John Drover who is the Director of Policy and Planning. We have Denise Woodman

who is my Executive Assistant. We have Allister Taylor, ADM for Lands; and last,

but not least, we have Melony O'Neill, my Communications Director, Director of

Communications.

For the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year, a gross budget in the amount of $48,426,500 is

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

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

wildlife, endangered species, inland fish, water and Crown land resources.

To offset a portion of the cost, related revenue of $18,559,500 is budgeted,

which results in an estimated net total expenditure of $29,867,000.

The gross budget for the department's four main programs is as follows:

Executive and Support Services is $17,464,000; Environmental Management and

Control, $10,499,000; Lands, $6,340,600; and, Wildlife, Parks and Natural

Heritage, $14,122,900.

The Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for four

branches. The first being Environment Branch. This includes pollution

prevention, water resource and environmental assessment. Bill is the ADM

responsible for the Environment Branch. In addition to the head office, we also

have offices in Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor.

The Lands Branch includes Crown Lands, surveys, mapping and land management.

Allister is the ADM responsible there. Our Lands Division has satellite offices

in Corner Brook, Gander, Clarenville and Labrador.

Natural Heritage Branch includes parks, protected areas and wildlife. Ross is

that ADM. The Parks Division is located in Deer Lake, and the Wildlife Division

is located in Corner Brook with a satellite office in Labrador.

Sustainable Development and Sustainable Science manages sustainable

development issues and the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science,

known as IBES, and that is in Corner Brook. Shane, as you know, is the Executive

Director for this branch.

I am very pleased to report that we have several significant issues funded

this year. One of our most important funding initiatives for the fiscal year

focuses on the appropriate management measures for our declining caribou

population. We allocated $3.3 million in funding for this year, as part of a

$15.3 million five-year scientific and management strategy for the Island

Woodland Caribou populations.

This strategy builds upon earlier efforts to better understand and mitigate

the current decline in Woodland Caribou numbers of 40 per cent to 60 per cent

for most herds on the Island portion of the Province, as well as the role of

predators in this decline. This funding will allow us to continue with the

collection of necessary caribou data, initiate a predator caribou ecology study,

implement and enhance the information on education program, increase emphasis on

habitat assessment and begin a provincial-wide regional assessment of black bear

populations, one of the key predators of caribou calves.

Also, we have increased our investment into drinking water quality in the

Province. Just last week, I announced $2.9 million has been allocated to this

department over the next three years to implement the Drinking Water Safety

Initiative, with $1.025 million allocated for this fiscal year. The initiative

will develop a comprehensive overview of drinking water quality issues in

municipalities and communities in parts of the Province and develop a

sustainable plan of action to deal with those issues. A significant component of

this initiative, but not limited to, includes the installation of Potable Water

Dispensing Units, which are basically small scale water treatment plants from

which the residents of small communities are provided high quality drinking

water.

Funding is being provided to support government's commitment to climate

change and energy efficiency initiatives. We received $850,000, which includes

$620,000 for year one of a three-year $2 million Green Fund. The funding will

help support projects and feasibility studies that contribute to energy

efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction, as well as to allow us to update the

climate change action plan and support organizations in their climate change

outreach efforts.

The department also received $720,000 to help improve service delivery to the

public regarding Crown land applications. This funding will help reduce wait

times for inquiries regarding the acquisition of Crown land and add surveying

resources to reduce the processing time required for analyzing legal survey

documents. It includes the addition of three new land management officer

positions, one in each of our central, western and Labrador offices. Also, two

land survey inspector positions will be created. The Crown land application

process will be expedited as a result of this investment and residents of the

Province will certainly have a better access to this natural resource.

So these are just a few of the highlights of our budget this year, and

certainly my officials and I will do our best to answer your questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Johnson.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

First of all, minister, I would like to welcome you and your staff here this

evening and to assure you I am not here to probe or prolong. I have some

questions to ask and once they are answered -and I am sure Ms Michael is the

same way. Sometimes in those estimates in the past they kept going to see who, I

think, could stay up the latest, but that is not my plan. I hope everything

works out for you tomorrow.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: I have some questions ready. When this was postponed I forgot

to get them typed up, so you will have to excuse me, I am going through my

notes. They might not be in order. One might be for one division and the next

four or five might be for someone else, but I hope that is okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is no problem.

MR. BUTLER: That is what I am going into first, just some general

questions.

I know from time to time we heard concerns about pollution from the - by the

way, I will explain this too. Maybe some of my questions could be for another

department because I got caught up yesterday between your department and

Government Services. I do not mind being told I am wrong. So, feel free to do

that as well.

From time to time we hear about pollution from the Holyrood generating plant.

I was just wondering if you can give me an update on that, or does that come

through your department to have a review from time to time? I am not saying it

is a problem there now but I know we have heard it in the past.

MR. PARROTT: At Holyrood there has been a change in the fuel. The mix of

sulphur in the fuel has been reduced so that it significantly reduces the

particulate matter in the sulphur that is being emitted into atmosphere. That

was a major initiative to reduce pollution coming out of that unit.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I guess my next three or four questions are with regard to the used tires

that we have in our Province. I was just wondering - I guess you are probably

still looking at proposals. I know there were a couple of times everyone thought

that everything was very close to being finalized. I was just wondering if you

or your staff can give us an update where we are today with that issue?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is certainly an issue that is not unique just to

our Province. The more research I do you see that this is really a North

American problem. We are working very diligently though to find a solution. As

you know, it was difficult too when you were in government to find the solutions

as well. It is not an easy one.

We have been meeting with a particular organization. I am very confident that

we are going to get a solution with this particular organization, but I just

want to be cautiously optimistic I suppose because oftentimes you think you have

it and then at the end of the day it falls through. Things are moving along. I

am getting weekly updates and really the hope is that within the next short

order, probably in the next couple of months, hopefully sooner, I will be able

to do an announcement.

MR. BUTLER: I know it is probably in the Estimates there but I would not

know where to find it. I just have a general question. Roughly, how much money

is accumulated from the surcharge on the tires in a budgetary year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Each tire, of course, is charged a fee of $3 up to a

seventeen inch tire. We collect, on average, about 450,000 tires annually. So,

if you multiply that by $3 - somebody quickly?

MR. BUTLER: Multiply that and I got my answer.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Probably around $1.4 million. So, 450,000 tires

times $3 per tire.

MR. BUTLER: The other one I - not in my area because as far as I know

there is no major concern there with the stockpiled tires but from time to time

we get calls with regards to where they are stockpiled. Some people have a

concern, and God forbid if something should happen and there was a major fire

there. They are just wondering, like the communities, or if they are close to

some smaller communities, would they be able to handle that? Is there any plan

in place that some other centre can go there, where the toxic emissions from

this and - are there any concerns about if it should happen? God forbid, we do

not want it to happen, but in a case like that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. There are two sites: one is Bull Arm and

one is Placentia. The tires are stored according to fire safety code. So

certainly that possibility of a fire taking place is certainly minimized. You

can never guarantee that it would not happen but it is certainly - they are

stored according to fire code and certainly the fire departments in the local

areas work with us.

MR. BUTLER: They would be able to handle something of that magnitude, the

local fire departments, or would another force or some other system kick in? Say

if that did happen -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, as you know, with any fire department there is

always that co-operation that goes on, certainly if backup is needed, but we do

have the fire departments engaged in the particular communities. Certainly, if a

fire happened in Harbour Grace, Carbonear would certainly come and help if need

be. So, we would expect that to happen as well.

MR. BUTLER: Fuel tank inspections, does that come under your department?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it does.

MR. BUTLER: The household fuel tanks?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it does.

MR. BUTLER: I know there was a deadline when everyone was supposed to

comply with it. I am just wondering, has that - I just forget what the date was

now, has that passed, and -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It was.

MR. BUTLER: - how has it panned out throughout the Province?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will get somebody to correct me if I am wrong but

I think the deadline was March 31, 2007, and we provided a two-year extension.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, it is a two-year extension.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: A two-year extension to March 31, 2009, and I think

our compliance rate to date, off the top of my head, is 65 per cent. It could be

sixty-one to sixty-seven.

OFFICIAL: It is in that area.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it is in that area.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. On the production platforms off our coast, do they have

independent oil rig monitors on them and, if so, would that be through your

department?

MR. PARROTT: That is federal jurisdiction, so we do not deal with the

offshore.

MR. BUTLER: You would not have anything to do with that at all?

MR. PARROTT: No.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is only when it comes on land is it ours.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

I do not know if this one is on land or not but probably - you can judge this

one both ways, I guess. Like out in Placentia Bay, we have a refinery there now

and the possibilities of another one coming and Voisey's Bay and everything

coming on stream. If there was a major spill out there - and God forbid, I know

in some of the studies I saw that this could occur every twenty years. You might

say: Well, who is going to worry about twenty years time? Is there a plan in

place if something should happen out there? Where that might be on the water,

maybe that is partly federal too is it, or -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yeah, that is federal too. Now, certainly, if it did

come on to land, it would come under our jurisdiction.

MR. BUTLER: So anything that happened on shore would be -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, as Bill pointed out, we do work with the

federal government closely though to monitor what is going on. Certainly, our

environmental assessment process would ask businesses to look at cumulative

effects, but again, for our perspective it would be on land.

MR. BUTLER: I know here in the city, because I have seen it here on this

parking lot and only the last couple of years I have seen the same thing

happening out in my own district now when we have a day to collect household

hazardous waste. I was just wondering, even though those programs - probably

some of them are just beginning. I know in my area it is only the second year, I

think. I may be wrong - in Bay Roberts that is. I know they had one this year.

Maybe it is the first one, I am not quite sure now. I was just wondering, with

those ongoing - outside of that, what percentage would you say of household

hazardous wastes might be still going in landfills undetected, or is there

anyway of knowing that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That falls under MMSB, and certainly it is not part

of this. So I do not have that information in front of me, but going by memory,

I can tell you that the average person generates about seven litres of household

hazardous waste. Through the money MMSB has funded, we have avoided a couple of

hundred thousand litres of household hazardous waste from going into landfill.

What the percentage of the total is, I can undertake to get that for you. Again,

I would have to go to MMSB to get it.

This year, I think, MMSB put $250,000 into this program. It is a very

successful program and more communities are taking us upon it, but I would have

to find out what the actual percentage is we are keeping out.

MR. BUTLER: Now this one is probably in conjunction with Municipal

Affairs as well because it has to do with municipalities, but I guess then it is

probably tied to your department. If it is not, that is fine. Would you be able

to tell me how many communities in our Province now, through inspectors, which I

would think would probably be through your department, are on a boil order at

this time? Would that have anything to do within your department?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The boil orders we could tell you, yes.

This year, our drinking water annual report was just released last week and

there were - and if you have it there you can correct me if I am wrong. I am

going by memory. There were 223 boil orders in 153 communities.

Does that sound right?

MR. PARROTT: That sounds correct.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Just to give you a bit of history, in 2001 there

were about 223 boil orders in about 220 communities. So we have come down

significantly. While it says 223, there are about 170 of those that are

long-term boil water advisories. They have been on for years. The other

fifty-odd are if there were mechanical problems or if a line was shut-down, more

short-term reasons, but the 170 are more the longer-terms, and there are many

reasons for that.

MR. BUTLER: That was my next question.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: See, I am reading your mind.

The reasons for that - well, some communities just do not have a disinfection

system in place. Others have disinfection systems but they are not working

properly, or they have chlorine and they are not using it. Some communities just

choose to have a boil water advisory and boil their water rather than use water,

because they do not like the taste of chlorine.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is one of the reasons as well. As I said, the

short-term reasons, if there are repairs being done to the line or if there has

been a heavy runoff and you need to flush the lines and those types of things.

MR. BUTLER: With regards to, you mentioned chlorine. In each community -

I understand now some of them do not do it for that reason, but the ones that do

have chlorine in their systems: How often are they inspected, and how are those

inspections done in the various communities?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The water operations and any service in the

community, as you know, is run by the municipalities themselves. So they are

responsible for checking the daily chlorine levels and the residual levels that

come out.

Our department, what we do is we do bacteriological samples and samples for

any chemical contaminants. In fact, we are the only Province in the country that

does it, and we get a lot of recognition. Last year alone we did 19,000

bacteriological samples and about 2,950 chemical. The water quality operators,

or the water operators at the local level, they check the daily levels of the

chlorine; now, having said that, we do provide them with a lot of training.

We have mobile training units. Last year we had, I think it was 149 sessions

around the Province. Every year we hold the annual operator training program in

Gander, and everybody goes to that. It is a really good event where we - this

year, for instance, with the contaminated chlorine issue, we showed them how to

look for it on the bottle to ensure that it is a certified product, because it

is something that our department requires them to do, is carry a certified

product, but they need to know how to check that.

MR. BUTLER: Yes. So the inspectors would go in and check the water,

probably in different areas of the town or community, or whatever?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The government inspectors -

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: - could go in quarterly, in some cases?

MR. PARROTT: Inspections are split between the Government Services

centre, the environmental health inspectors. Health inspectors carry out the

inspections for bacteriological issues and the environment inspectors inspect

for chemical. So the ratio of inspections is based on the size of the town and

the number of people using the supply.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: And all of this then gets reported to the town and

on-line.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

What percentage - I know there is, I will call it a surcharge, and maybe it

is not. I know that is on tires. When it comes to our bottles and different

containers, I guess there is still a surcharge, is it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The eight cents you are referring to?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: What percentage of beverage containers is being recycled in

the Province now? I would think it is fairly high from what you see around.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, we are doing really well. We are at about 69

per cent to 70 per cent.

MR. BUTLER: Is that right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Uh-huh.

MR. BUTLER: A lot of mine are only just general questions.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I am waiting for you to get into the nitty-gritty.

MR. BUTLER: To our Provincial Parks - Provincial Parks is yours, isn't

it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, it is.

MR. BUTLER: I know being a camper myself over the years, many years there

were a lot of vacancies. What is the vacancy rate now, would you say, throughout

the parks that are operated by the Province? That must be fairly high too, the

numbers of people going there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I would have to get the exact number of the

averages. I know for this weekend in a lot of parks there are no vacancies, of

course being a very busy weekend. Butterpot is sold out. I have a list of the

others, I just got an update. A lot of them are sold out. The parks are doing

very well. This new parks reservation system certainly made it smoother for

people, especially from outside the Province or visitors, or even locals. Having

that ability to pre-plan and do a reservation on-line or over the phone

certainly makes it easier for trip planning, but I would have to get you the

average vacancy rates.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They are very widely used, no doubt.

MR. BUTLER: Just one more short one, seeing the clock is running out,

then I will turn it over to my colleague.

Seeing you mentioned Butterpot -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: How they made out?

MR. BUTLER: Out of curiosity, out of the numbers of people who were

grandfathered into the previous system - I am not going into any detail on this,

just a general question. How many of them do you think got in through the

regular system now? Was there many of them who did not make it, out of the ones

that thought that they should be there because they were grandfathered in?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: There was originally thirty-one grandfathered in, in

2005, and then over the few years that went down to twenty-five. So last year

there were twenty-five grandfathered in. The last report that I had is eighteen

out of those twenty-five got their sites back through the reservation system,

four or five were not interested and had indicated that they were not interested

this year, and my understanding is that one just wanted a monthly site. So in

the end -

MR. BUTLER: So they all got in.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: In the end, I think most people were fairly

satisfied, but the point is they got in in a fair manner. Everybody had equal

opportunity and access and they got in there fairly.

MR. BUTLER: They are there for the year now, the same as they always

were.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

CHAIR: We will give Mr. Butler a break now and give Ms Michael up to ten

minutes or whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, and thanks to the minister and to all

her staff for being here.

I was going to do some line by line because some of my general questions come

out of that, but I just want to follow-up on a couple things that Mr. Butler

asked about.

Mr. Parrott, if you would not mind, could you give me just a bit more detail

on the Holyrood generating plant and the degree to which there has been a

difference. Have there been discussions with the community to see if they are

seeing a difference? Are they satisfied with what is going on?

MR. PARROTT: I do not have a lot of detail on that here right now but we

can certainly get the information out of the department's records.

MS MICHAEL: I would be very interested in that, if we could have that

information, please.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: With regard to the two things, the communication with the

community as well as what is happening with what is coming out of the stacks.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

The other one that I will come back to - then we will get it finished - I do

understand that with Placentia Bay it is going to be difficult because, of

course, the bay itself will be under federal jurisdiction, but we all know that

the potential for accidents is going to increase the more we have activity in

that bay. I know some of this will get, hopefully, dealt with through the

environmental assessment processes that will go on with regard to each of the

projects, but to what degree is your department, and maybe the federal

government too, together looking at the cumulative effects of what is happening

in the bay?

MR. PARROTT: We have looked at, in the environmental review for Voisey's

Bay, Long Harbour, there has been a component of the cumulative effects of what

is happening in the bay with the enhanced tanker traffic, as well as the marine

life that is in the inner part of the bay.

In terms of the environmental assessment that was done for the oil refinery,

there was onshore and the coastal littoral was reviewed under the provincial

study, as well as migratory birds and game birds that transit between both the

ocean and the land. Anything on the water is covered off under the federal

environmental assessment process. So we have had participation in that; as well

as during the provincial process, on the advisory team that advises the

minister, there has been federal representation from Fisheries and Oceans, as

well as Transport Canada and Coast Guard.

MS MICHAEL: At this moment, do you sense an openness on the federal level

- because they are the ones who would have to do it - to put more money into

monitoring of the bay and having emergency services available that would be able

to deal quickly with spills and that kind of thing, because what is offered now

is not going to be enough as the traffic increases? So, are they going to be

willing to put more resources in? Then, when it comes to on-land stuff, will the

provincial government be ready to put more resources in?

MR. PARROTT: One thing in this department this year in the budget, it has

provided us one engineering position for an oil spill engineer, and we plan to

dedicate that position, initially, totally to Placentia Bay and the possible

impacts that a potential oil spill could have. The federal government has

several committees set up. I cannot speak to if they are going to put money into

it but they certainly seem to be quite willing to enter into an open dialogue

with the Province, as well as the various groups who use Placentia Bay and have

an interest in Placentia Bay, from the fishers, as well as from environmental

groups. There has been a lot of dialogue back and forth amongst all the groups,

and the lack of equipment and the potential for a spill has been paramount and

has been enunciated by provincial representation at these meetings.

So, at the end of the day, we certainly hope that there will be a better

capability in Placentia Bay - especially with enhanced traffic, that we could

see a spill. Hopefully, with better shipping lanes and things like that, we

could get to the point where there is no spill at all. That is our goal, to make

sure that we do not have an incident. So we are recommending things to make sure

that it does not get to the fact that there is a spill.

MS MICHAEL: That would be my hope, that you would have so many

preventative measures in place that hopefully we would avoid spills at all costs

if possible.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: With respect to the Voisey's Bay environmental

assessment, that is one of the reasons why they have to go through the process

again and resubmit because we were not satisfied with their submission, and one

of the areas that we were not satisfied with was the cumulative effects piece.

We are very diligent and this is a key priority to ensure safety is the utmost.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it is. It is a serious one.

We are monitoring that closely. As a matter of fact, it was only last week

that Voisey's Bay invited us down for a briefing.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: You probably knew that, and I had an opportunity to ask a lot

of questions.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They have been doing public consultations in the

community as well.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

I hope they are better than my experience when they were doing them in

Labrador around the mine because sometimes - I am not in touch with the ones

they did this time, but sometimes - my experience as a panel member, with regard

to Voisey's Bay mine, was that many of the information sessions were more window

dressing and pr than giving really good information. I hope they have learned to

do better information sessions than they did back then. They have a lot more

experience with us now, so I would hope that - I am not making any statement on

them, it is just going back to my experience.

I think what I will do now is do some line items and then I will have some

specific questions besides, just budget as we do some of the lines. The first

two are pretty straightforward. There is nothing that spectacular there, but if

you go to 1.2.02., Administrative Support - I will give everybody time to get

your papers.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, I am good.

MS MICHAEL: Is everybody ready? Okay.

The first one I am looking at is subhead 02., Employee Benefits. Through this

process last year too, I learned through this process that employee benefits

means something different almost in every ad and in every department. What do

employee benefits mean here and why did it go up so much in the revision last

year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will get Colleen to explain the overall what

employee benefits means, but the reason for the $50,000 increase last year was

to cover injury on duty billings from Workers' Comp. If you want more as to what

employee benefits are - you can go ahead, Colleen.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: For this section, the employee benefits, the entire

budget is for Workers' Compensation payments. That is what the entire budget is

used for.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. For the whole department?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. For everything under Environment and -

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Yes, it is.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

What was that again, please, Charlene, with regard to why it was over budget

last year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It was an increase to cover injury on duty billings

from Worker's Compensation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Obviously, you do not expect that again, so you are

back down to the $55,000.

Under Purchased Services, which is subhead 06., it seems like you have a

standard budget line here of $157,100. Even though you only spent $30,000 in

2007-2008 you are going back up to that. What would be the normal services that

you would be purchasing under this head?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That would be for, one of it is the leased - maybe

all of it is leased is it? All of it is leased accommodations. Last year we were

expecting an increase in the cost of leased accommodations and that did not

occur last year but we are expecting it to occur this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. It looks like a big increase then.

Where would your leased accommodations be?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: We have leased accommodations for several of our

divisions within - we have some currently in Labrador, Corner Brook, and Deer

Lake. Some of our Crown lands offices are leased accommodations.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under head 1.2.03., I have questions almost on every line along there.

Subhead 01. Salaries, the budget led in 2007-2008 was $688,100, spent only

$600,000. It looks like maybe a position was not filled, but this year's budget

is going up to $747,100. Are you planning new hires, or what is going on there?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year we did not use $88,100. There were some

temporary and other employee positions that did not get filled. For the upcoming

budget, the $747,100, that is an increase in salaries for two new positions we

are creating under Policy Development and Planning. That is really focused

around the Green Fund.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

In this head, what are employee benefits for in this head, subhead 02.?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I think part of it in this head - but I will get

Colleen to elaborate -is for conferences and the like.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: All of the employee benefits, outside of

administration, are for conferences and registration fees.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: You're welcome.

MS MICHAEL: Which is similar to some other departments?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so I will not ask about them anymore.

Thank you very much.

Transportation and Communications is probably self-explanatory. If you are

going to have new people hired, you are probably going to have more

transportation and more travel. What is the breakdown between Transportation and

Communications about, or do you know? What percentage goes to travel, what

percentage to communications?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Colleen will get that for you in just one second.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

The first department to give us an answer, if you have it.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: It is all travel.

MS MICHAEL: It is all travel.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: T here is no communications.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, very good. Thank you.

Last year you did not use - you used about half -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: $51,300.

MS MICHAEL: Right, but you do have to keep that there, so that is fine.

Under subhead 05. Professional Services, you have gone up substantially in

this year's estimate to $154,000 and you only spent $40,000 last year and had

only estimated $64,000, what do you have planned that would bring it up so high

this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It has increased by $90,000 and this was part of our

Energy Plan and Blue Book commitment. The $90,000 is to develop a database

around greenhouse gases and also to do a climate change update and also to do

the Northern Strategic Plan and how it relates to climate change and adaptation.

MS MICHAEL: What would actually be the content of the database around the

greenhouse gases?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: John, would you like to -

MR. DROVER: We are developing a database for the Province that would look

at such things as energy use and how that translates into greenhouse gas

emissions and our reductions from our Large Final Emitters, and basically how

monitoring a lot of programs and progress made in the years. We will also

incorporate into that things related to adaptation, such as increased rainfall

and sea level rise, things like that. It primarily would relate to energy

related and how that relates to greenhouse gas reductions in landfills and

things like that as well.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is an important piece of information to have,

because it provides us with baseline data; because, if we are to apply targets

in the future, we need to know where we are.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

How are we right now with having that baseline data?

MR. DROVER: I am sorry; I didn't hear the first part.

MS MICHAEL: What is the status right now in terms of the actual baseline

data that we have for the Province around greenhouse gas?

MR. DROVER: There are databases throughout government. Transportation and

Works probably have some on their own buildings, that kind of thing. In our

case, on the greenhouse gas emissions, we rely on data collected by the federal

government, under their system.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

So this will give you the capability of getting much more of our information

ourselves.

MR. DROVER: Yes, it would.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. That is good.

Under Grants and Subsidies, what would be the nature of those Grants and

Subsidies? While you might want to give us an idea of the nature of them, and

where some of the money goes, rather than going through a whole list, would it

be possible for us to get a list of, at this time, who does get money under the

Grants and Subsidies?

I would like some idea, though, because it is going up significantly from

last year's expenditure. Not from last year's estimate, but from last year's

expenditure.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: A lot of it is the ecoTrust fund, which is the $23

million fund $23 million or $24 million $23 million, I do believe. A lot of

that didn't get spent last year, so in this year's budget you will see some of

that.

Also in that is $720,000 that I referred to for our Green Fund, and there is

$240,000 as a base for our climate change grants, outreach, and things like

that. Then, the bigger chunk, other than the $240,000 and the $720,000, the rest

of it is all ecoTrust.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Would you mind making that available to us, that list of all the details?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, that is no problem.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The only real thing that we have there is only one

application that has been approved to date, so it would be a short list. It is

for methane recovery at Robin Hood Bay, and that was in the amount of $1.6

million.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: So we are really encouraging people to apply,

because this is a keen area of interest.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

If you also, though, could give the breakdown of the different funds - you

have the Newfoundland Green Fund, so much for that - what all makes up the

$9,757,200.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, there are those three items, but we can get you

those, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Just to have it on paper.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I think I have used up my time, Mr. Chair, for the moment.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Does anyone over here have a question, or not?

No? Okay.

We will move back to Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I guess it was about a month ago now, we sent a

letter wondering if we could get a copy of the proposal submitted in reference

to the Caribou Action Plan. I was wondering, is that forthcoming or are you able

to release it even? Even though we requested it, that doesn't mean to say that

you can release it.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will speak to it and then if Shane wants to add

on.

A lot of it was internal discussions and going back and forth, but our

intention is, in the very near future, to release a public document as to the

actual plan.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Along the same lines, I guess, and I apologized to Shane Mahoney the other

day when we had the statement here in the House. I guess, being politicians,

sometimes you get away from the actual fact; I guess I tied what so many million

dollars could do for other needs, and I apologize. I congratulate you sincerely,

Sir, and I meant it at that time, for the award that you did win.

I know back, I don't know how long ago this is, I think I was at a meeting

when I worked with John Efford and there was some issue ongoing, and I had

charts there then showing the caribou population versus when our good old buddy

the coyote came on stream, and it seemed like from that time it was downhill.

I know studies have to be done, but is it a known fact - or maybe not a known

fact, but I know there are other issues in relation to it - the coyote, would

that be the main predator when it comes to our caribou? Maybe there are other

issues not relating to predators at all, but I was just wondering if you could

explain that a little for me.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is certainly one of the main predators. Black

bear and lynx would be other ones. In some parts of the Province coyotes would

be the most significant predator,

whereas in other parts it could be lynx and it

could be black bear; but, on average, from the studies that have been done,

Shane, is it somewhere around 20 per cent of the predators are coyotes?

MR. MAHONEY: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Even with all the predators, regardless of what the study

shows, I guess why this is happening - we know that the population of caribou

was up at a certain point, so I guess the population of those other species are

the cause of it now. Whether it is the coyote or the black bear, they must be

increasing as well in order to cause this destruction.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, that is a really good point because that is

what our study is going to try and determine. We know, as studies have been done

in the past on caribou calf mortality and calf recruitment, we know that calf

recruitment has significantly reduced, and we know that the main reason for that

is predators. What we don't know is the number and abundance of predators. So,

before we are to apply any predator reduction strategy, you need to know how

many coyotes do you want to take out, or how many black bears, a percentage of

what?

We don't know what the total number is, so there is not enough information

right now on the number of coyotes, the number of black bears, the number of

lynx, and that is one of the things that the study is going to do, to get

population estimates for them so that you can know how many to reduce it by in

order to be effective.

Shane, if you want to elaborate, you are certainly the expert.

MR. MAHONEY: I think, Minister, you did quite a good job.

MR. BUTLER: The other issue in relation to that, when all of this

surfaced and we heard different individuals had different opinions, and that is

like every topic, I guess, that comes up on the board, I don't know if it was a

phone call or some correspondence - and I can't say it was an official in P.E.I.

because I might be misleading you - but it was someone in P.E.I., and apparently

they had a problem with coyotes as well and they say it is very, very difficult

to reduce their numbers; they are so keen in what they do and how they do it.

I was just wondering - I am sure you must have the expertise on that as well,

and know what they went through - if it comes out in this study that the coyote

is in certain areas, is there any plan how you would handle that? They had

difficulty up there, and I am just wondering: Is there anything in mind if it

comes out to be the coyote and a certain amount have to be taken out? What is

planned to do that, if they had difficulty with it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Do you know what? It is not only them but there is

difficulty all over. Coyotes are here, and they are here to stay. They usually

have pups by one year old and, when they do, they can have litters of anywhere

from seven to twelve, and they can do it yearly. They can pump out pups yearly,

so they are not going anywhere

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Pardon me?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) reference to a statement I made in the House today.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Okay.

So, you know, one of the key components of our strategy is the education

component, and numbers for hunting are on the decline. A lot less people are

participating in hunting, and it is certainly a very important wildlife

management tool. Imagine if we didn't have people trapping beavers, and the

impact that would have on municipalities in terms of flooding and so on. So, one

of the key focuses for us, for the long-term, is education and communication. In

fact, we have already started with that. Just recently the department has held

sessions on how to properly trap a coyote, because it is not really well known

knowledge in the Province. We have done that with some of the rod and gun clubs.

We have done that with the outfitters. Certainly we need to get more people

actually hunting and trapping these animals as well, so that will be a key

component.

The other component is, once we have some information back from the first

year of the study and we are able to then go in and reduce the predators,

certainly involving the outfitters and the trappers to assist us in helping us

do that is one way that they can be part of this and understand how complex this

issue is.

Is there anything you would like to add?

MR. MAHONEY: Only that the efforts to control, if you will, or manage

coyote populations across the North American continent have resulted, in the

last century, in about 20 million animals being taken from areas as far away as

Southwest Texas and New Mexico, all the way up to Canada now, where they have

expanded their range.

They are extraordinarily difficult to reduce to low numbers. Also, what we

have to understand and appreciate is that the effort to reduce predation is

complex, ethically charged, and also the challenge before us will be, if we can

be successful, that Newfoundland and Labrador may have to commit itself to a

very, very, long-term commitment to this kind of activity to be effective.

We are very much, I think, in kind of a Greek position in the sense that we

have to choose the greater good, and we are trying to apply all of our

techniques with professionalism and responsibility to all of the animals - to

bears and coyotes and lynx, as much as to caribou - and yet to safeguard the

critical resource, the iconic resource that caribou represent for our people and

for our Province.

It is not easy, and the experiences elsewhere have proven to us that

simplistic solutions, despite often delivered with great passion, commitment and

honesty, cannot be applied with effectiveness. This has been the experience

elsewhere.

MR. BUTLER: Well, I hope Greenpeace doesn't get on the side of the

coyote.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They just might.

MR. BUTLER: They just might is right.

Minister, back to another issue now, I know you made a statement that there

would not be an extension to the teepee incinerators, and I hope I got this

right -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is right.

MR. BUTLER: - in lots of isolated communities, and I know there are

several in the Province, I am wondering, are you working in conjunction with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs? No doubt you are. If the deadline comes tomorrow

that you cannot do this any more, and they may not have a plan how this can

resolve itself quickly, is there a possible extension then if something like

that should happen in some of those really remote communities that I am

referring to?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is a commitment that was made under the

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The commitment was made in

November 2003 to have all of the teepee incinerators or conical incinerators

reduced by December 31, 2008. At the time, when we made the commitment, there

were forty-one teepee incinerators on the Island. Now we are down to

twenty-five.

The reason that the government made that commitment is because 27 per cent of

all of the dioxins and furans that are emitted in Canada come from these teepee

incinerators, so they are not something that people should want in their

backyards.

Having said that, we are working very closely with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and we are doing that now; we are not waiting for the last minute so

that people and communities will not have alternatives in place. So, we do have

a committee in place between Municipal Affairs, Government Services and our

department to work with the communities and help them seek alternatives.

Certainly, the funding for consultation studies and so on would come from the

Municipal Affairs Department, but we are going to be aggressive and I have given

direction to staff to get out and do that consultation now. It is eight months

away; we still have time. I do not want to leave this until the last minute.

MR. BUTLER: The other issue, and I am going to try to get this right

because I was told in the House I was saying it wrong, the New Harbour landfill

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I say that tongue-in-cheek because

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, you can call it a dump right now.

MR. BUTLER: - from the pictures we see in the paper, and you know as well

as I do that I live fairly close to it and I drive by it, for the life of me I

can't get away from calling that place a dump; but, then again, we will go with

landfill. I am just wondering if you can give me an update on the New Harbour

landfill with regard to when it will close, and the cleanup, I guess, of the

contaminated soil. I had another question - I will put them all into one - is

there a tender called?

The other thing you can touch on - because I know you are well aware of this

situation - I know I read it somewhere, and I don't know if it was in your

statement, and I will use membrane for a better word, that was going to cover

the site so the rain could not get down through, I am just wondering if you can

give me an update on the full situation.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I sure can. Whatever I forget, you can fill in for

me.

As you know, I was the member for that district. I lost them in the last

election, unfortunately, so I have been very familiar with the issue of the New

Harbour dump. As to when it will close, that is really up to the committee that

is in place.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, I used the word dump.

There is a committee in place, and we are very committed to working with them

and we have worked with them closely, but it is not until they decide where they

want to bring their waste, and those studies, as you know, are ongoing right

now. Municipal Affairs has provided funding for a consultation study. They

originally looked at Robin Hood Bay, now they are looking at Winterton, so until

that is complete our hands are tied, really.

In the meantime, though, in 2005 we did provide significant funding for a

leachate control system, so that has been done and that is in place. We also

have committed to doing compaction and grading once the site is closed, but

again that has to wait until the decision is made. We have ordered the

geomembrane cover, and that is sitting right now in storage until it is closed.

We have also put out a tender for the PCB removal, the PCBs that are greater

than the CCME limit of 33 parts per million. That tender did close on March 12,

and we are just doing our due diligence piece now before we award that tender.

Once the dump is closed, we have committed to doing continuous monitoring of the

site and ensuring that there are no issues that arise there. So by the time all

is said and done, we, our department, will spend almost $1 million on the New

Harbour dump to close it out.

Did I forget anything?

OFFICIAL: I don't think.

MR. BUTLER: Just a brief one before I turn it over. That is a good

explanation.

In relation to the same area and from the same site, I notice we had a map -

and we probably had the wrong map, which -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have all the answers for you, by the way.

MR. BUTLER: All right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I do not know if you have the letter yet.

MR. BUTLER: You are prepared for those, aren't you?

I was wondering if the waters in Dennys Pond have been ever tested to say

that nothing went in there from there? I guess the map was a concern with those

new cabin lots being sold, or put up on tender or draws or whatever, for Dennys

Pond. On that map it did not show the site of the New Harbour landfill. It

showed a dump further down the bay in an area.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering, is that map correct, or will that be

revised? I am not saying it was an intentional thing so you could sell cabin

lots there because the dump was not there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, and the purpose of that map really is to show

where the cabin lots are. The purpose of that map was not to show where a

landfill would be or anything else. It is strictly for people to know where the

cabin lot is. That map is a map from 1981, and it is a federal government map.

The reason why we use federal government maps is because they are the only ones

available with that scale, to delineate exactly where the cabin lots are.

As to your question about water samples, that is something that the Lands

Management Division certainly does. They do conduct water samples before this

development would proceed, and there is a buffer of 1.6 kilometres. In this case

it was 2.8 kilometres away. So that was not an issue, but water samples were

conducted. Also, the Lands Management Division also consulted with our Water

Resources Division, who has also done water quality samples, and there were no

issues as to the water quality there. This is all public information. I do have

the letter drafted to go back to you and it says exactly that.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I will turn it over to my colleague now (inaudible).

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Let's go to 1.2.04., please, Sustainable Development and Strategic Science.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: In four categories, subheads 01., 03., 05. and 06., all of

these were very much underspent in 2007-2008. I guess it is because you have not

fully gotten into what you want to get into, but I will let you speak to it.

In Salaries, in Transportation and Communications, Professional Services and

Purchased Services, there was quite a bit of underspending last year, but most

of those subheads have gone up even beyond what was estimated last year. So what

are your hopes for this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Under the Salaries, last year it was really an issue

of delayed recruitment. That is why that did not get fully spent there. For this

current year, we are creating new positions and these new positions are directly

related to our Caribou Strategy. The hope is to have all of those positions

filled this year. So we will use that money.

Under Transportation and Communications; there was a decreased requirement

there for air services and travel. That is the reason for that to decrease.

Also, that number is up again this year. Again, that is just strictly due to the

Caribou Strategy, and that will be used for travel costs for new staff and also

air services support for doing the census, the capture and the collaring of the

caribou and also of the prey. It is pretty intense and a lot of helicopter time

involved with that.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Under Professional Services; again, we did not have

the need last year to fill all of that and that is why that number is down. The

number is up again this year, and that is money for the Caribou Strategy. That

would be for purchases such as field research support and expert advice and

consultation.

Under Purchased Services; last year we did not spend $32,000. That was a

reduction in advertising, printing and leasing costs. That number is up this

year by $50,000, and that again is for the long-term Caribou Strategy. That

would be for things like printing and advertising costs for the strategy and the

field work component.

MS MICHAEL: So the Caribou Strategy is going to be the biggest sort of

thing this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. It is big in that particular subhead and also

you will see it in wildlife as well.

MS MICHAEL: Yes. Do you still intend to set up an advisory committee with

regard to the sustainable development and strategic science, because I thought

that was part of (inaudible)

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The round table?

MS MICHAEL: - and the round tables?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Do you have a

schedule set up for the round tables yet?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is not complete yet, but the hope is to have that

round table in place in the very near future.

MS MICHAEL: There will be public consultations when the round table gets

set up, that is still part of the plan?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, that's right. That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: But nothing finalized yet?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Nothing finalized yet, but we are getting there.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

I can move on then to 1.2.05., the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Science.

My biggest question there is with regard to the research that will go on in

biodiversity and ecosystem science. Is there any co-operation between your

department and the institute at all with regard to the research that they do or

do they just set up their research plan, or do they look at what the needs of

the Province are with regard to the research? Does your department work with

them in doing that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will let Shane speak to it, but we certainly do

work closely. In the case of caribou, for instance, there is certainly need

there for more information on caribou and those students would do those types of

projects. Shane, you can elaborate.

MR. MAHONEY: The institute is actually government owned and so all of the

people who are working there are actually government employees.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I did not realize that.

MR. MAHONEY: The personality of the institute, I guess, it was designed

and set up actually to do exactly what you are wondering about. The institute

itself does not decide upon research priorities. In fact, it is there to serve

all government departments. So government departments come forward with

questions that they need answered and the purpose of the institute is to provide

a formal mechanism whereby individuals who are focused on this find the best

academics, not only in our own university but anywhere around the world, who can

assist our own government departments and agencies to get the answers to the

questions they need.

So there are some, I guess, misconceptions perhaps about how it is

structured, but it is actually government employees that are housed at the

university, but they are there to serve, in fact, all government departments.

So, IBES sets no priorities. It accepts the priorities of government and then

works on behalf of those.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. That is clear. I really was not aware that that is

how it was set up.

If we could go back up to 1.2.04. again, please. I had meant to ask about

this, and Roland just saw it as well. Under subhead 07., Property, Furnishings

and Equipment. You have quite a large budget there this year, $459,700. I am

suspecting it has to do with the Caribou Strategy, since everything else there

did.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, and it would be for the furnishings of new

staff. It is also for ATVs, which will assist us, and vehicles and snowmobiles

and the like.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much.

Under 1.2.06., the only question here - I have a couple, I think - under

Purchased Services 06., there was no money budgeted in 2007-2008 for Purchased

Services but $1,139,300 was spent. What was that about, and has there been a

transfer of expenditures from that line to another line? It looks quite weird as

a budget item there right now.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will attempt to answer it. I am not going to

pretend to be an accountant, so Colleen, you can certainly fill in. I think this

was a case of, under the Parks Renewal Program there was a four-year, $1 million

per year fund, and basically what it appears to me has happened was last year

all of that money was put into property and furnishings, but as you went through

the process and spent the money, then it was subdivided into the appropriate

categories.

Colleen, you can certainly add to that, but that is why you can see, line 07.

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, only $329,000 was spent and $1.448 million

budgeted, but then you see under Purchased Services, and the other headings,

they were properly attributed to the proper categories.

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: Correct.

MS MICHAEL: But what was the accounting reason for doing that?

MS COLLEEN JOHNSON: For some reason the partial capitalization has always

been budgeted under 07., and it has just never been corrected. Vehicles for the

department are also included in this, which is actually what the 07. account is,

it is for vehicles.

Parks recapitalization does not have any Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

The majority of that is for construction services, which would be 06.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: It looks like a big change has happened, though.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is quite a learning experience in government

accounting, let me tell you.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I believe that.

Okay, 2.1.01., Pollution Prevention. I find the heading curious, because when

you read what it is about, pollution prevention is only one of many things,

because the appropriations provide for the development of plans, programs,

standards and activities concerning environmental emergencies, waste management,

petroleum storage, industry, pollution prevention, air emissions, environmental

science and pesticides. I would have expected a broader heading, but I

understand.

Under Salaries, you are going up somewhat from last year to $2,152,300. Is

that filling vacancies or new positions?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is new positions. Bill mentioned earlier the

oil spill engineer for Placentia Bay.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is in there. We are also hiring a new position

for contaminated sites.

MS MICHAEL: For what?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Contaminated sites.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Subhead 04. under the same head. You seemed to have unexpected supplies in

last year's Budget and you are back down to $51,000 this year. What was that

about, the $200,000?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That was the money spent for contaminated sites. It

was the geomembrane that we purchased for New Harbour landfill.

MS MICHAEL: Under Purchased Services, last year you only spent $100,000

even though you have $1 million in that category and we are going back up to $1

million again. What happened last year that that was not used?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year we had intended to spend that money on New

Harbour dump - landfill - but as I explained earlier, the committee had not made

a decision to close it. So, because of that, we really missed the opportunity

there and we have to wait for them to decide what they are going to do. The

intent is to spend the money this year.

The other project that we were focusing on last year was Northwest Point.

There were some issues there in terms of weather and it just did not get done by

the time the tender went out and we were into bad weather season for there, so

that did not happen.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

We will not tell Minister Denine that you are saying dump.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: They call them landfills until they are properly

(inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: That's right, exactly, which is your point.

Thank you very much. I have run out of my time.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Are you finished?

MS MICHAEL: I have run out of my time.

MR. BUTLER: You can go ahead another while if you want to.

MS MICHAEL: Can I?

MR. BUTLER: Indeed you can. We are not going fighting over time here

tonight.

MS MICHAEL: You and I do not fight over anything, I don't think.

I just want to look at a couple of points that are written here.

I would like to know what discussion is going on inside of the department

with regard to ornamental pesticide bans. Is there any big discussion going on?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have had some meetings with various organizations

such as Landscape Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Cancer Society, and I

have met with some individual pesticide companies, the Lung Association, so I

have committed to reviewing it.

We know recently what was announced in Ontario, but even prior to that I did

commit to reviewing it. There are numerous groups that want to come in and meet

with me and businesses, so it is going to take a piece of time.

Before I make any decision, and our government makes any decision, I want to

make sure that the proper consultation piece is done, so that is where we are.

We are in the consultation process.

MS MICHAEL: Good.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: As you know, with the House open, there is very

limited time to attend meetings, so right after the House I am going to clue up

all of the rest of them in short order after the House closes.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

I don't know the answer to this one, and it is more based on a personal

experience of living here in the city. If a municipality does not have

regulations with regard to pollution going into the air from people burning

things on their property, and that kind of thing because, the only regulation

that the St. John's municipality has is that you can burn things on your

property as long as you have a mesh over the barrel and flankers don't go in the

air, but there is nothing about the pollution, the possible pollution, of

burning things within the city - are there provincial guidelines with regard to

that? Does the Province work with municipalities around that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Bill, do you want to speak to that?

MR. PARROTT: Yes, there are guidelines on what can and cannot be burnt,

and there are directives that have been issued by the department pertaining to

burning, to prevent things like plastics, tires, or wall coverings. Anything

that has a plastic base or causes great contamination other than, really, wood,

we provide those municipalities when they require it.

As well, there are new regulations pertaining to wood-burning stoves. The

stoves that are being sold now are more efficient, so it reduces the

contamination coming from wood-burning appliances.

MS MICHAEL: So, even if a municipality doesn't have those guidelines

actually written into their own regulations, the provincial is still there.

Then, is it the municipality's responsibility to make sure that people live by

them?

For example, if I complain about something being burned and I go to the

municipality, can they go and check on it or will they do what they said to me,

when I did go to them: That is not our responsibility; we don't have any bylaws

with regard to what goes into the air.

MR. PARROTT: The Municipalities Act and, of course, the various city

acts, provide the municipal governments with the ability to regulate such

things, so that is where it normally is regulated, but some communities do not

do it and a lot of times the Government Services Centres who do inspections on

behalf of the Province get complaints about these things; but, usually by the

time you get a complaint, unless you are on the site when the person is burning,

especially if it is household garbage right behind the house or something, it is

over, and at that point in time, then, all the inspectors can really do is issue

notices to make sure it becomes an education process, then, to educate people

about not burning these things in the future.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I have finished that

section now.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

This is a question I didn't even anticipate asking when I came here, but we

were talking about the New Harbour site. I was just wondering if there was

someone Charlene, this goes back not before your time but before your time of

being minister. I worked with another minister at the time and it was in our

district at the time, Makinsons, and that was a site, it was a scrap yard or

whatever you want to call it, for cleanup. To be honest with you, back at that

time I didn't realize those PCBs in those Light and Power what do you call them

- ?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Transformers.

MR. BUTLER: Transformers even went to the New Harbour site back at that

time, and I attended many public meetings in Makinsons. I forget the gentleman's

name - I don't know if he is in the department now; I think he is retired - he

used to go out to the public meetings, anyway.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Was it Ken Dominie?

MR. BUTLER: That is who it was.

Anyway, we used to attend those meetings and I can remember seeing him up

there taking the soil. I don't know whether they were actually burning the soil,

but there were supposed to be treating it, putting it in drums, and it was

supposed to go away to the mainland somewhere.

When all of this broke recently, and you read in the papers about all of the

canisters that went from Makinsons, I thought, to be honest with you, that they

were cleaned up there. So, really, there was nothing done with them up there at

that time, only just carried over there and buried as they were?

I don't want to stir up any (inaudible) about this, but I was just wondering,

trying to piece it together.

MR. PARROTT: I have not delved too deeply into the old files of the

department. We have spent our time, since I have been in the department, working

to make sure that the dump at New Harbour is cleaned up and remediated to

standard. If you would like some information on the old Makinsons cleanup, the

files are certainly there and we can get it for you.

MR. BUTLER: I know the site was cleaned up in Makinsons, but I thought

the transformers were cleaned up on site, or to a certain degree, because they

had people in there and they had all kinds of equipment there, washing, burning,

or whatever. Even if they buried them over there, I didn't think there was

anything in them. Number one, I didn't think they went there; but, no, it is not

an issue that you want to go back and check your files - I don't mean it that

way - but I thought someone might have you know, I am wondering now what that

crew did when they were there. Maybe they did nothing with the soil or any of

it.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Obviously, some of it got there.

MR. BUTLER: It was a company from outside of our Province, I understand,

that came there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Obviously some of them got to the dump, because

there have been a couple that were found above fifty parts per million.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I agree with you on that part of it

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: but to know that there was a company come in and had the

contract to clean up that site, and they had transport trucks there, putting it

into it, and then, when you learn about it after, transformers were carried

under the disguise of darkness and buried over there, it is unbelievable to know

that if there was a contractor cleaning it up, that something like that should

happen and they got away with it at the time, I guess, is what I am trying to

say.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have heard all the different stories, too, so we

just have to deal with it, now that it is there.

MR. BUTLER: I understand there was an environmental assessment done and

approved on the new refinery for Placentia Bay, in that area, and I was also

under the impression and you probably know the difference in this; you are a

minister, and I don't want you to let any secrets out that you might know to

my knowledge, at the time there was no major investor in place. I was wondering,

with no one in place to look after that there, will it be a problem to ensure

compliance when should someone have been in place out there before this was

all approved or the assessment was done? Maybe I am not making sense in what I

am trying to say.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Do you want to have a go at it?

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

Could you just qualify the question?

MR. BUTLER: There was an environmental assessment

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: done and approved. I think I saw that, right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: In my understanding there is a refinery going there. We hope

it is, anyway. What I am trying to say is, where there is no investor on knowing

who to be dealt with, if there was someone there saying I want to build this,

and you do the assessment and tell them what they had to do, is it ever a

complicated thing to have them comply? They are coming in after the fact, more

or less?

MR. PARROTT: Okay, there is no investor.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We were dealing with the Refinery Corporation. That

is who we would deal with, the Newfoundland Refinery Corporation, so they are an

entity that we do deal with.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Where they go, then, for their investors, that

really is not something that we are not that we are not concerned with it.

From an environmental perspective we are concerned.

MR. BUTLER: And they are there, right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: There is a corporation that we deal with.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

The other thing, and I can't believe I am going to ask this question, because

I worked with a minister when the new highway went through here, went through

Pippy Park and everything, and I remember all the fuss about the environmental

issues, that the highway shouldn't go there and so on. Here I am now asking a

question, and at that time the minister and the government of the day were

defending it, that this was done properly and so on.

Now I am going to ask you a question: Do you think the Torbay Bypass Road -

and I know it was only this week we had a letter from a resident that was sent

to the mayor of the town. I don't know if it was cc'd to you or not, but I can

get you a copy of that - where they are concerned about the wildlife and the

environment where that road is going through. The assessment has been done for

that road, hasn't it, and received a green light?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I would have to check, Mr. Butler, to see if that

was filed under environmental assessment. Nothing has come across my desk, to

the best of my knowledge, since I have been minister. Maybe it was done prior to

me being there. We will have to check, but it may not file for EA until they

actually have their site plan in place, but again I will have to check for you.

MR. BUTLER: The Minister of Transportation and Works advised me today

that - I think the tender is let for cutting the site.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We will get back to you on that one in short order.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

You mentioned, and in conjunction with

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We will check it out. We are not

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

You mentioned, I think you were part of an announcement about the Drinking

Water Safety Initiative, $2.9 million.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I think you touched on it in your opening statement, so my

question was: What will be done with I think it is $1.025 million that is

allocated for this year? I am just wondering how that will kick off the program,

I guess, if you can elaborate on it a little?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Sure.

We are going to work really closely with Municipal Affairs, and the other

part of that funding, of course, is the $6 million annually from Municipal

Affairs, so a total of $18 million over three years. They will be responsible

for the actual capital. We will be responsible for working with each of the

municipalities, devising what the best plan forward is for them.

We know, in looking at SaskWater in Saskatchewan, that these potable water

drinking units are certainly something that can take care of drinking water

quality issues immediately, but it is not the only solution. There may be a case

of you need a filtration system or a chlorinator or something like that, so part

of the money is to be spent for staff to work with the communities to devise the

proper plan.

The other piece of the money is, while we were focusing on communities less

than 500 in the beginning, the other I think it is a couple of hundred thousand

dollars is to do a detailed analysis of what to do with the communities over

500. The other part of the funding would be for vehicles and also staff.

MR. BUTLER: One of the recommendations that -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: And consultants, sorry, the consultants as well.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

This year, at the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Convention, one of

their recommendations they put forward to be considered by government, and I

have to read this because I might get it wrong: Government considered a transfer

of Crown Lands within municipal planning areas to be turned over to the

municipality for economic development.

I was wondering, has that come to your attention and how do you look at that?

I don't think they are just looking for the Crown Land for the sake of looking

for it, but if they had plans. I have dealt with Mr. I am after forgetting

your name now.

MR. PARROTT: Bill Parrott.

MR. BUTLER: - Parrott on this issue sometimes in some municipalities out

in my area. They argue about the fees back and forth and so on. It is at a

minimum amount, I know, but has there been any consideration given to their

resolution?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I just recently had a meeting with Graham Letto, the

president, and two other representatives of Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador. They put their case forward to me and I had some questions and some

information that I am looking back from them. Right now, they have to gather

that piece of work and bring it back to me.

Their main issue is that they feel that is inhibits development, and I really

want them to show me how, because there are many cases where, in the Province,

the cost of Crown Land does not inhibit development. We see land going in Norris

Point and other small communities for $18,000 a hectare, so it is certainly

selling there.

I kind of asked them to get me some more information and solidify their

position.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

I am going to have the name of this program wrong, but this is what it

started out to be called. It has nothing to do with your department at this

point in time. Under the former Liberal Administration in Ottawa, they came up

with a plan they called the home heating efficiency program. I know when the new

government took over they put it on hold and then they announced that there

would be a program. It was to be administered through Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing.

Back at that time, the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, Mr. Simms

- there was a letter sent out saying that the applications would be available

April 1, I think it was 2007. Naturally, everyone gets wind of this. I have

seventy-five people on a list now I think it is around seventy-five who are

waiting for their applications, and there are still no applications.

I was told by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that the issue is now with

Environment and Conservation and Natural Resources, I think it is, and it is

called REP.

OFFICIAL: REEP.

MR. BUTLER: REEP, is it?

OFFICIAL: R-E-E-P.

MR. BUTLER: I left out an E.

OFFICIAL: Residential.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

I was just wondering, with your department, what is the issue that would be

holding this up? Because that is the way it was put to us; it was being held up

by two departments here provincially, in order to get the program in place.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, certainly under the Energy Plan we did commit

to looking into programs such as this, and Natural Resources is the lead on the

Energy Plan but we do work closely with them. I know such a program is being

looked at.

In terms of our involvement, we are at the table because anything that

improves energy efficiency is certainly something that we are interested in, but

as it stands right now that program will not fall under our department so I

would have to leave it to Natural Resources, being the lead on that, to answer

to that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

So it is cleared from your department, without any hold up on it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is not going to fall under our department, but I

am certainly kept in the loop as to the different options that we are looking

at.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

It was supposed to be administered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing,

right, but that is what happened.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: The Environmental Impact Statement in regards to Voisey Bay,

would your department have anything to do

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: I know it was returned for additional work, and I was just

wondering what the status is, or if it was with your department, or both you and

federally, or

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We wrote the company I think it was in February or

March and told them that what they had submitted was not satisfactory. There

was so much that was not satisfactory that we just basically asked them to

resubmit the Environmental Impact Statement.

They did do that, and now it is going through the public consultation

process. I think the deadline for comments is June

OFFICIAL: June 17.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: June 17, and then my decision would follow after

that.

So, while it is going through the process, I just really remain silent until

all of the information comes in and we will review it at the end.

MR. BUTLER: That is fair.

Ever Green Recycling the reports we had on the paper and the cardboard - I

know the funding was discontinued at that point in time.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: That was through MMSB, I guess.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: MMSB.

MR. BUTLER: I was just wondering: how has that panned out? Because I know

the people were told they had to take it to either Mount Pearl or CBS.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Have there been any problems with it, or is everything just

moving on smoothly?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: With regard to CBS or Mount Pearl, that was a

comment, that I said I would do it; when I am going to my friend's house, I

would drop it off. I just said it kind of tongue-in-cheek and in hindsight it

wasn't the best thing to say, but it wasn't certainly a policy that I was

announcing as part of our department.

This was a pilot project that Ever Green started, and at the time when they

did start the pilot project we did provide them with approximately $30,000 in

terms of a grant to help them market and promote the service that they would

provide.

It was made clear to them at the time that we can provide capital and we can

assist with marketing, but when it comes to the daily operations you have to be

responsible for this yourselves, and I guess it worked out because they did have

a partner that was taking it and there were no issues. Then eventually their

partner left the business, which left them in a bit of a financial situation.

We have provided capital to Mount Pearl, Lewisporte and Corner Brook, and

those communities all take care of the operations themselves. That is made quite

clear because, as you know, we have the Waste Management Strategy that will be

coming on stream, so if people are going to have the opportunity to put their

fibre and cardboard right at their curbside then it would be a duplication, and

would people really use a drop-off service when they can put it out at their

curbside anyway?

In St. John's, the plan is to have that up and running in 2009; so, really,

to put an investment into that when it is going to be there in nine or ten

months anyway is just not the prudent thing to do.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to e-waste, would that be administered through

your department?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is under MMSB, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Would that also come in under the time frame of 2010? What is

being done with it at the present time?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We do not have a timeline set for it. It is a high

priority. It is a high priority for me, something I am interested in.

We are looking at other jurisdictions, and I have talked to a lot of other

ministers across the country and they said: Whatever you do when it comes to

e-waste, take it slow.

I am taking the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and their roadblocks

that they have encountered, but there are some things we can do in the interim.

We are exploring things like Phones-for Food, and we were at a recent

announcement with that. I know the Department of Education funds to the schools

for the recycling of computers and shipping them off. So, in the interim there

are small things we can do, but in terms of an e-waste strategy we are not fully

there yet but we are certainly explorations other jurisdictions and the pains

that they are having.

Nova Scotia, as you know, just brought it in, in February of this year, and

in talking to them they have storage rooms full of computers and TVs and really

do not have a plan as to what to do with it yet, so we want to make sure that we

have all of that in place.

MR. BUTLER: I have one other question and, unless my colleague doesn't

finish up on the one-liners, I had a few of those there.

This goes back to a site in Bay Roberts. The inspector, I think it is from

your department, used to go out there periodically. This was three or four years

ago. He would go in and say: Look, this site has to be cleaned up.

It was only a joke for this guy because, to me, it was a dump again, but he

said he was making a dollar on this piece of metal and another piece of metal

and something else. I remember three occasions that I had him out there and we

walked through it and he said: Look, you have to get rid of this; you have to do

this and another thing.

Why I am asking this question is, I am wondering if the department ever came

across it anywhere else. Really, it went back to the justice system because this

guy would be taken to court, he would walk in and the judge would say a $500

fine. He laughed at that when he got outdoors because he was going to have $500

made before he ate his supper. Then, four or five weeks down the road, the poor

old inspector would go out again.

Is that a common thing, like sometimes when you try to clean up something,

whether they are taken to court and what have you, and they are let off so

lightly, and here you are trying to do the best you can for the environment with

regard to whatever it is?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is frustrating, and I don't know of the one you

speak of, but I have a similar situation.

The inspectors that you refer to would be from Government Services, correct?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: So that would not be in my department. They are

environmental health inspectors, but they are with the Department of Government

Services.

I don't want to speak again to too many justice matters - I am no expert

there but, unfortunately, when it does go to the courts and the court makes a

ruling it is really hard to charge somebody with the same thing twice, is what I

am being told in the case of the situation I have been dealing with. I don't

know if you know if it is common or not.

MR. PARROTT: It has happened but, fortunately, most people, when they

enter into the court process and are found guilty, they react to that and do go

and clean up the site, but there have been cases where people have paid the fine

and you end up back into the situation six weeks or six months down the road.

MR. BUTLER: The site I am referring to is still there and it is almost

just as bad, to be honest with you.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: If it is in a municipality, of course, the

municipality has the opportunity in their bylaws to deal with it as well.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I had two other points under Pollution Prevention, but Roland asked about

e-waste so I don't have to do that one.

You don't want me to ask this question but I have to. With regard to Robin

Hood Bay, there are still many questions in my constituency around Robin Hood

Bay, the people who live around it, and there are also environmentalists and

environmental scientists who say that the study and then the peer review that

was done of that study are not satisfactory from their perspective with regard

to a number of areas. One is leachate, another is the chemicals in the steam,

and another is the polluting of the marine environment.

The question that is being put out, and I am putting it to you, was: Did one

ever think about doing an environmental assessment? There hasn't been real

public input into that from the people who live in the area, for example, and

has thought been given? Somebody has to trigger an environmental assessment, I

know, and I am surprised that nobody did, actually, with regard to Robin Hood

Bay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I will speak to it and then I will pass it over to

you, Bill, to elaborate.

The case with Robin Hood Bay: the city did do a study, as you referred to,

and then the department did do a peer review. Given that it is in a bedrock bowl

and there is a positive groundwater pressure, these were satisfactory

characteristics in dealing with the leachate so that gave it the equivalency.

When we asked for an engineered landfill or equivalency, that was satisfactory

for that equivalency. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, in terms of the leachate, there is a plan for a

leachate collection and treatment system so that any leachate that comes from

the dump will be treated and brought to provincial and federal standards before

it is discharged into the Atlantic.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What about the whole issue of chemicals in the stream? I haven't read the

studies in detail. I have seen them. Did they deal with that?

MR. PARROTT: The chemicals in the stream, the stream discharges from

Robin Hood Bay?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, that would be contained in the reports pertaining to

this, considered under the leachate.

MS MICHAEL: So you would have considered that as with the leachate.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, the main flow of leachate is in that stream, and that

is what would be contained and treated.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I am sure they know that but there still are a lot of

questions; but you are satisfied?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, we did have the peer review done and we did

spend the money to verify the city's report, so these are professionals who did

that review.

MS MICHAEL: Have you thought about doing even a community session just to

inform people? I actually was trying, as the MHA, to do that, and we were

putting out calls to people maybe who would be on a panel and I wanted to

sponsor, just for the whole district, a public session of some kind. Would your

department be interested in doing that, in partnership with me as the MHA, and

get the information out? I think people do not have the full information.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I could be wrong, but I thought that the city did

hold a public session on this. Again, I stand to be corrected. I thought that

they did. I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere.

MS MICHAEL: Sometimes, with something like this, one session is not

enough.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, and I don't know if it was one or more, to be

honest.

The other thing, too, is the Greater Avalon Waste Management Committee is in

place now and certainly their role - and again I am going over into Municipal

Affairs a little bit - their role is to bring information to the public and make

sure that they are educated and aware as to what has been going on. That was

recently formed, and they have a big task ahead of them.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

If there were a public meeting and a request was made to your department to

have somebody be on a panel, would that be something you would respond

positively to?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I don't see why not. We are very aware of what is

going on, and we talk to the city frequently, but again that would go through

the Greater Avalon Waste Committee, but we do these all the time. Just recently,

actually, in Gander, at the symposium for Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador, we did have a panel there, and somebody from Municipal Affairs and

Government Services and MMSB were on that to explain the whole Waste Management

Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Well, I may try again to get this done and have a public meeting, maybe in

early June, before people get into going away for weekends and stuff.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Just get in touch with us.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, will do. Thank you.

Under 2.2.01.01., Salaries, going up a bit, just under $300,000, is there

more hiring happening there?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, there is money budgeted there should we hire

people under the drinking water strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Under Purchased Services, the budget is going up significantly, both from the

estimated last year and what was spent, up to $1,061,000. What is it that is

causing that category to go up so much this year?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is strictly all for the drinking water

(inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

I like simple answers like that. It gets us out more quickly.

Under 2.2.02., Water Quality Agreement, is the drinking water strategy

becoming part of this as well or is it all under the other category?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, that is all under the other category.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Well, then, a lot of this does go up. The Salaries are going up in this one,

the Transportation and Communications are going up, and the Purchased Services.

So, 01., 03. and 06. are all going up. What is happening with them under this

program, or under this agreement?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

water quality agreement and also for the Lower Churchill hydro project. Under

Salaries, we are hiring a permanent position in Labrador for water quality, and

the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador water quality agreement is really a

national pilot project.

MS MICHAEL: Which is - I am sorry?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is a national pilot project.

MS MICHAEL: The water quality monitoring?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Water quality agreement.

MS MICHAEL: Agreement, yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Under Transportation and Communications we do have

additional funding there for both that agreement and also the Lower Churchill

hydro project. The same is the case as well for Purchased Services. It is really

focused around those two projects.

MS MICHAEL: I notice the federal funding will be down a little bit from

last year. Is this an agreement that has more life to it after this year?

MR. PARROTT: There are a number of agreements we have with the federal

government. I think the reduction here is there was a specific short-term

agreement we had related to agriculture groundwater in the Province. Most of

that money was spent in the last fiscal year.

MS MICHAEL: I see.

I have a question here from my researcher, so I will ask her question. How is

the government going to address the new federal regulations preventing dumping

raw sewage into the ocean? St. John's is not the only place - neither in

Newfoundland and Labrador, nor in Canada - that does that.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Certainly, discussions are ongoing. People within

our department provincially are liaising and communicating with the federal

government. Also, discussions are ongoing with municipalities as well, and it is

certainly a topic that I would hope we will bring up at the Atlantic Ministers'

meeting in June.

There is a lot of toing and froing going on and we are certainly raising the

concerns, particularly around the financial ability for communities to do this.

A staff member in our department, in fact, is the chair of one of the

subcommittees around this, and as a result of our discussions at that table, we

did convince them to put a component into the study around financial

sustainability.

MS MICHAEL: Good.

So the federal government has come up with the new regulations but has not

come up with money to help municipalities?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is correct, and they did announce - I remember

reading somewhere recently that they had allotted $8 billion, and it was kind of

said in the same sentence as this municipal waste-water treatment. I think

though, after sifting through all of that, it is not new money, it is money that

they had previously announced. So that is certainly one of the things we will be

bringing up.

MS MICHAEL: That you are bringing up. Great. Thank you.

Here I have more, a few general questions. Will I do this and then -

MR. BUTLER: You go right ahead.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

A few general questions but a couple of line items, too.

2.3.01., Environmental Assessment, subhead 01. Salaries are going up over

last year's expenditure by $200,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is really for - $71,000 of that is for the

annualization of new initiatives that were brought in last year but they might

have only received half-year funding for it, so this is to annualize that piece.

Yes, so that is the $71,000.

MS MICHAEL: That is $71,000 -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: $70,600, if you want to be exact.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Do you have new positions as well, because last year it

was $550,000?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That was new positions last year that had only

gotten funded for part of the year. So we are now annualizing that salary

component.

MS MICHAEL: Right, but it has gone up $200,000 from what was spent last

year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well the reason last year it was down, there was

delayed recruitment in those positions.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

The other one that has gone up significantly is Purchased Services, 06. It is

going up to $563,600 from expenditures last year of $25,000. So what is that

about?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This is all strictly for the joint panel on the

Lower Churchill Project.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: $550,000.

MS MICHAEL: Right. What is the status of that?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Of the environmental assessment?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I have to think, now. The draft regulations went out

for public review and that time period has been up. Now we are in the process of

doing our piece internally. Also, the MOU has gone out to Aboriginal communities

to have comment on and then that will go to the public in about three weeks'

time. If it is thirty days, it would go to the Aboriginal communities - June 6

it goes out. So that will be the next part of the public consultation piece, is

seeking comment on the MOU between the Province and the federal government. When

all of that is complete, then we expect to have the environmental impact

statement back - sorry, you are right; we have to issue the guidelines. It is

quite a process and we are working through it.

MS MICHAEL: I am curious, are the Aboriginal groups partners with the

Province and the feds as happened with Voisey's Bay, because there you had four

joint partners?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, we have consultation with them all the time. I

am not sure -

MS MICHAEL: No, that is different. It was a joint environmental

assessment between fed, provincial, Innu Nation and Inuit - LIA at the time.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. It is just the federal-provincial.

MS MICHAEL: It is just federal-provincial.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, but they are certainly consulted every step of

the way.

MS MICHAEL: So it is a different process. The panel is in place, is it?

Is a panel appointed?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Not yet.

MS MICHAEL: So all of this is happening without the panel being

appointed?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The draft guide -

MS MICHAEL: Everything you have described to now -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Well, the draft guidelines is the only thing that

has been done and just recently the MOU between the feds and the Province. So

you would not need a - actually, the MOU between the feds and the Province

speaks to what the panel would look like. You cannot have the panel in place

until -

MS MICHAEL: What are the draft guidelines for? They are for the impact

statement?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The guidelines for the development of the

environmental impact statement.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Yes. Well, the panel I was on, we actually did the

guidelines.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Because the panel did the guidelines, not the two government

agencies.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, right.

MS MICHAEL: So it is a very different process, and that is not unusual

for the panel to do the guidelines. Other panels have done guidelines, too.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Bill just indicated, and it is true, the federal

government has moved away from that particular process.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am aware of that.

With regard to uranium exploration in Labrador, to what degree is the

department involved with actual monitoring?

MR. PARROTT: The actual monitoring during the exploration?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. PARROTT: The monitoring during the exploration is, I believe - the

department does not monitor. I believe that is carried out by Natural Resources.

MS MICHAEL: Natural Resources does the monitoring, the environmental

monitoring?

MR. PARROTT: Well, the environmental monitoring in terms of - I guess if

you are looking at if they are putting in waste disposal systems and things like

that, that is carried out by the Government Services centre environmental health

inspectors.

MS MICHAEL: But, my understanding is that even in the exploration phase

with uranium, radio activity can begin during that phase. Who is monitoring what

is happening with regard to radio activity because of the uranium being

disturbed during the exploration phase? - because that is a fact, that does

happen. So who is monitoring that?

MR. PARROTT: We will check on that for you.

MS MICHAEL: It is a real serious concern. I would be really happy to

learn about that because it seems to me that Natural Resources is not the place.

They do not have the capability for doing that monitoring, it would seem to me.

Maybe they do, but I would like to know what is happening with regard to that.

Thank you.

I will do one on this page and get that done because it is related, it is

Environmental Assessment.

CHAIR: If we could keep our questions more to the estimates rather than

general policy of the department.

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

Under 2.3.02. Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board, what is happening

here that the Environmental Management Board is finished? Because you have the

budget and revision from last year and then there are no expenditures this year.

So this no longer exists?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: At the time that we were preparing for budgets and

the upcoming budget, we had not had a decision made. Since that time we have

made a decision that we are going to continue with the board and with the

Environmental Management Agreement. So, we are going to have to find the money

somewhere within. We will certainly review that as we go forward, too, the whole

board and sit down with the interested stakeholders and have a discussion.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. When that happens and a budget is done, could we

receive a copy of the budget then?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

You have some line items, yourself?

MR. BUTLER: I just have a couple, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: 3.1.01. Crown Land, under 07., Property, Furnishings and

Equipment. I know last year it was $10,000, $138,000 this year; just a brief

explanation.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is mainly for - as I mentioned, we have new

inspectors we are hiring, so that is new vehicles for those inspectors.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

3.1.02. Professional Services, 05., $53,000 to $245,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That money was budgeted last year for the cottage

lot development at Salmonier, and that did not happen last year. We are moving

forward with it this year. So part of that $245,000 is the money for the cottage

lot development, $50,000 of it, and the other $75,000 is the money we announced

in the budget for the comprehensive land use management strategy.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

When you mentioned Salmonier and cottages, another question came to me? It is

through your department, I guess - or I think it was, I could be wrong again -

like up around Fox Marsh and all those different areas where people used to be

camping in the woods and down through the bushes and everything else, and there

was a clean up started. I think it was through your department, the Environment,

and I was wondering how that was progressing? If it is through your department,

maybe I am wrong. There were notices that went out and put on - I thought it was

through Environment but I may be wrong there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: No, that is through our department. Certainly, under

the act, if it is illegal occupation of Crown land we can post notices to remove

those. So you are right, and that is probably an area that we - it is done.

MR. BUTLER: It is done. So there is no problem anymore?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Not in that particular area.

MR. BUTLER: You cannot have any better answer than that.

4.1.02., I know it was budgeted last year under Salaries, 01., $173,100 and

it was just $50,000. I was just wondering - I guess I know what it is, the

people were not hired or whatever, but from what was budgeted to the revision,

and it is up to $100,000 again this year. It is under subhead 4.1.02.01., Park

Development.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That was delayed recruitment last year. This year we

hope to hire those positions, but also there are some planned savings in there

as well. That is why, for 2008-2009, the $100,000 is there rather than $173,000.

That is an area where we have been able to find some savings.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Subhead 4.2.02.06., Endangered Species and Biodiversity, Purchased Services,

I know it was budgeted at $28,000, it went to $63,000, and this year is budgeted

at $203,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: This year, also in the Budget, we announced money

for Erioderma research.

You are probably familiar with that rare lichen out our way.

MR. BUTLER: Is that the same one that is up in the Eastern Avalon where

the woodcutting was?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is correct.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: In order for us to develop plans on a go-forward

basis we need a lot more research into this particular moth or lichen.

Ninety-five per cent of what is left remaining in the world lies in this

Province, so that money there is to do the contract services for the surveys,

and a research co-ordinator.

MR. BUTLER: I know back some time ago now, up there with the woodcutting

- I know you don't look after forestry, but it was due to this lichen

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is right.

MR. BUTLER: - that people were not allowed to go in there and cut. The

timber was after blowing down, thousands of cords, and it was going to rot on

the ground, but they were not allowed in there afraid they were going to disturb

it. That is what this is for.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is. The area you are referring to, I think, is

Lockyer's Waters.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It was frozen. It was given protection in 1997, so

we do have eleven years of data on Erioderma in that area.

Certainly, we want to have more information so that we can develop policies

and plans as we go forward as to how to strike the balance between harvesting

and protecting rare species.

MR. BUTLER: Under 4.2.04.06., Purchased Services, last year it was

budgeted at $1 million and revised to $319,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year there was a decreased requirement for

advertising, printing and other services, and for this upcoming year there is

funding there for the long-term Caribou Strategy but also removal of the

predation strategy and caribou monitoring, so we are taking out money for two

things and putting money back for one.

MR. BUTLER: That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

Before I pass it over - I might not get the opportunity later - I want to

thank you, Minister, and your staff for your time.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: You are very welcome.

CHAIR: Thank you, Sir.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Butler did cover some of the ones that I had, but I do

have some more.

Subhead 4.1.01. I don't want to do things that are obvious Grants and

Subsidies, subhead 10.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I like getting the lists of what comes under Grants and

Subsidies, so if we could have that sent to us. You don't really have to

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is a very short list, if you want me to tell you.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, sure.

We would like to have them on paper, too, afterwards; but, yes, go ahead and

tell me, please.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Sure.

Of the $194,000 that was spent last year, $190,000 went to the T'Railway

Council, and we give that to them every year.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The other $4,000 is a federal-provincial parks

agreement that we fund.

We did have budgeted $294,000 for last year. We did not spend $100,000 of

that because we had funds committed in there for the NCC, the Nature Conservancy

Council. It just did not get spent by the time of last year's budget but we do

have it back in there and intend to spend that this year.

So it is just the three items.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, and you have an extra $100,000 in this year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is the $100,000 we did not spend last year for

the NCC. We are going to spend it this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great; got it.

Then, the federal-provincial, the federal do not put very much money into

this, from what I can see. Under the Revenue I am sorry, 01. you budgeted

$2,500 last year and it looks like they came up with $2,500, and now this year

it is $17,500.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, they gave us an extra $15,000 for the Labrador

Heritage Rivers contract that we will be working on.

MS MICHAEL: That is part of the federal-provincial park agreement, is it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is the federal portion, and we are matching it.

MS MICHAEL: That is what I mean, the federal portion, yes.

Revenue, the provincial revenue, what would be the source of the provincial

revenue? You are anticipating $105,000 this year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is money that we will get back from the parks

recycling program. This year we are going to put recycling bins in all of the

provincial parks, so that is the anticipated revenue from that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, good.

I hope that works.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Which is really a great service to have at a park.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it is. I am really glad.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We run the parks. We should have the recycling bins.

MS MICHAEL: Absolutely. I totally agree with you.

That one was answered. There is nothing substantial in that one.

Sorry about this, I just want to make sure

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Okay.

At least it is not five hours like Natural Resources.

MS MICHAEL: Well, I was here five hours last night for Health and

Community Services so I am anxious to go home, too, tonight, believe me.

Under 4.2.02.06., Purchased Services, you had budgeted $28,000 in 2007-2008,

spent $63,000, and this year it is up to $203,000 for Purchased Services.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is the one that Mr. Butler asked, and that was

about the Erioderma research.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, you are right. I have it written down and I didn't even

see it.

The Natural Areas System Plan comes under this, does it?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

I don't know if it is this it does come under my department.

MS MICHAEL: Does it come under this head?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It would have been with Parks and Natural Areas.

OFFICIAL: Parks.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, Parks and Natural Areas.

MS MICHAEL: It comes under that head?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: When would you hope to have that implemented?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We did put $259,000 into the budget again this year.

There has been a significant piece of work done to date. There are still areas

that we are looking at internally to ensure that the various eco-regions are

represented. Once that is done, of course, then we have to bring it to a public

consultation around the Province, and I anticipate that will probably be about a

year, Ross, to do that public consultation piece, so we are still a

year-and-a-half to two years away. That is why we have budgeted for two years -

$259,000 for two years but it is important to take the time to do the public

consultation piece.

MS MICHAEL: Absolutely. I totally agree.

I really don't have too much left. Under 4.2.03.01., Salaries, there has been

some fluctuation. The budget in 2007-2008 was $626,900, and then it went up to

$775,000 in the actual, and now you are coming down to $590,600 in this year.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: We did hire some more temporary jobs last year. The

intent is to hire the same amount of people this year; however, obviously, we

are going to go over budget so we are going to have to find the savings in some

other division.

MS MICHAEL: So you do want to hire the same number.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: How is that program going?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: It is a wonderful program. I can get Ross to speak

to it, but I know personally I have certainly learned a lot when I have gone out

to learn about the different traps, and how to trap, and just the importance of

respect for animals. You hear things about pets and traps. Just the whole

education component around that is very valuable.

MS MICHAEL: You are getting good feedback?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

We have been working with the media to involve them, and invite them along,

and they have found it really helpful too.

MS MICHAEL: Good.

I think I heard you interviewed on radio, talking about having been out

there.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes. I am going to go bear hunting soon.

MS MICHAEL: Under 4.2.05., Research, which is quite important, under 01.,

Salaries, the 2007-2008 budget estimate was $1,010,100 and it was revised down

to $630,000 and just going up to $775,900.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Last year there were, again, temporary and permanent

positions that remained vacant, and this is another area where we saw an

opportunity for savings.

MS MICHAEL: You have adequate for doing the research?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, we do.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under 03., Transportation and Communications, it is sort of the standard

answer to this one, I think you basically spent a bit more than half of what you

budgeted but you anticipate that you should keep the same budget.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: The issue there was that there were reduced air

services. When you are relying on getting helicopters, it is not always easy.

The need is always there, but you do not always get them when you want them, so

we have to keep it in our budget. Sometimes, due to weather, and helicopters

engaged by others, you do not always get them.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

In 04., Supplies, you seem to have a major expenditure last year that had not

been budgeted, almost $100,000.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes, and we wanted to re-announce the caribou

strategy in February. In order to do a lot of the research and the collaring and

things, we decided to order the collars under last year's program because it

takes time to get them in and we want to get them on the predators and the prey.

That is what that is there. It is radio collars.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

What about 06., Purchased Services, because you had an over expenditure of

$179,400 last year? What would that have been related to?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That would have been for printing, advertising,

leasing and other purchased service costs. You will see in 2008-2009 it is

$20,000 less than the budgeted amount in 2007-2008.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: That is because we are reallocating Habitat, Game

and Fur. We are reallocating Habitat, Game and Fur.

The Habitat, Game and Fur sorry - is being reallocated to the moose vehicle

collision, $20,000.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

Under subhead 4.2.06.: Appropriations provide for a wide array of cost-shared

initiatives related to wildlife species and habitat monitoring and program

delivery, in cooperation with a number of partners including conservation

organizations, universities and other provincial and federal departments and

agencies.

Would it possible to have a list of who actually is involved in that, in

partnership with -

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Sure, and the projects really vary from year to

year. We can get them for you, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That would be great.

That is the end of my questions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have one other question. We are talking about all species

of wildlife here. Just now someone mentioned something about trapping, hunting

and what have you. Do you have any involvement with the beavers, or to what

extent? I will tell you why, rather than you answer I will ask you - and I know

the Chair is going to say it has nothing to do with the budget but if this does

not clarify, it is going to have something to do with someone's money.

Out in my area, in North River - I have had four or five calls about it and I

have spoken to federal people - what it is, the salmon going upstream cannot get

up to where they spawn because the beavers have the main part of that route

blocked. It has happened in the past. I do not know, and I am just wondering, do

you people get involved with anything like that, or maybe not? I have been

talking to the federal people, and I guess they look after the salmon, the

inland waters or whatever it is, and where you were talking about all the

species, I was wondering, maybe there is something about this?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: In this case, it is a federal issue because it does

deal with a salmon river but certainly there have been cases in the past where

we have been contacted, where beavers have been causing problems. Certainly, we

would get in touch with a trapper and see if they can help deal with the

particular beaver. In this case it seems that people do not have an issue with

the beaver itself. So in that case we would -

MR. BUTLER: It is out in the wild, really, so it is not a problem with a

beaver in on their property or anything, right?

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: But if it was a beaver that was being a nuisance,

for lack of a better term, we would - well, that is what we term them, nuisance

wildlife. It is a really odd term but if there was that case then we would call

upon a trapper in the area to assist us, but that is not the case in this one

and it is involving a salmon river.

MR. BUTLER: But seriously, what happens? Nobody wants to go in and

destroy the habitat of the beaver, and he has a dam for various reasons. He

wants to survive there as well, but here are hundreds of salmon that go up and

spawn in a certain area that cannot get upstream.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. If it is not your job, that is all I can do.

MS CHARLENE JOHNSON: I did ask our officials, when you had contacted me,

if it is our responsibility. We did check into it and they did

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2015-08-05
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga46_08-05-15_20_environment_20and_20conservation_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	62db902cbdb9024ca0c880ef01997ce8e1c0db49

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).