May 27, 1993

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Jack Byrne,

M.H.A. (St. John's East Extern) substitutes for Mr. Glenn Tobin, M.H.A. (Burin -

Placentia West).

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

Assembly.

MR. GILBERT: This is a Committee that has been

constituted by the House, but in order to make it legal, the Clerk now has to

ask that the Chairman be re-appointed and voted on by the Committee and then we

will have an election for the Vice-Chair. I understand this is the procedure to

follow. Madam Clerk, would you like to conduct that election.

On motion, Mr. Gilbert elected Chairman of the

Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Thank you for that vote

of support.

They tell me that according to the rules, the first

duty of the Chairman, once he is elected, is to ask for the confirmation of the

Vice-Chairman. So, I will now ask for nominations for the position of

Vice-Chair.

On motion, Ms. Verge elected Vice-Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Another strong vote of

confidence.

Now, as they tell me in these Committee meetings,

they are the same as a regular Committee of the House and the Chairman is an

impartial moderator, so I will not be voting unless -I am supposed to keep order

and decorum, they tell me, so I won't participate in the debate and I won't vote

except in the event of a tie. We have elected the Chairman and the

Vice-Chairman.

At this time, before I welcome everybody here, I

would like to say, the people who are recording this Committee, tell me that

when you speak they want you to identify yourselves because, while the gentleman

up there in the gallery taping this tonight knows who you all are, the

secretaries typing this sometime down the line will not recognize your voices.

So, when you speak, please say your names, which will allow them to identify

correctly.

I will now introduce the Committee, after which I

will welcome the minister and her officials, and she can introduce her

officials. As I understand it, the minister has fifteen minutes to introduce her

estimates, the person responding for the Opposition will have fifteen minutes

and, after that, all other members have ten minutes to speak. The Committee

meetings that I have attended in the time I have been here have worked in two

ways, one being that the members, when questioning the minister, have the right

to speak for ten minutes and then the minister, in turn, will speak for ten

minutes or it can be give and take - they can go back and forth for ten minutes.

The Clerk will be keeping a record of the time and I will tell you when your

time is up. Whichever way you want to go you can indicate that. I assume that is

the way to go.

I will introduce myself and we will go to Ms. Verge

and let everybody introduce themselves. I am David Gilbert, the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and Chairman of this Committee.

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, MHA, Humber East,

Vice-Chair.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, member of the

Committee, and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, Member for Port au

Port.

MS. YOUNG: Kay Young, Member for the district

of Terra Nova.

MR. J. BYRNE: Jack Byrne, Member for St. John's

East Extern.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, Member for St. John's

East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Madam Minister, we are

ready, if you would like to introduce your executive and make your opening

remarks. I will say, before we start, that we intend to call the heads - we will

go until about 8:30 p.m. and have a break and then, hopefully, we will start to

call the heads at about 9:45 p.m. This meeting of the Social Services Estimates

Committee will be over at 10:00 p.m. If there are more questions, you will have

time, when the House is in session, to ask the minister during the other

budgetary debates in the House. This is the procedure that we hope to follow.

MS. VERGE: If I might interject here - I don't

anticipate going beyond three hours on this department, but the Social Services

Estimates Committee always has the option to have more than one three-hour

hearing per department, and in the past four years, for example, occasionally,

we have had a second meeting to deal with one department. Before that, in the

1980s when I was on the other side of the table, it was quite frequent,

actually, that the Estimates Committee met two or more times to deal with the

estimates of one department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am aware of that, but what will

happen in this Committee is that it will be put to a vote and then if the

members decide they want to conclude after three hours, it will be done.

MS. VERGE: But we do have the option to

continue beyond tonight?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the option, but the

Committee will be cluing up its business after the three hours, as I understand

it, and then it will be going into the House for the rest of the time.

MS. VERGE: Just to make myself clear, I am not

anticipating requiring more than one three-hour meeting to deal with the current

estimates of Environment and Lands, but the Committee has that right. There are

lots of precedents for this Committee meeting for more than one three-hour

sitting to deal with the estimates of one department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is the will of the

Committee.

MS. VERGE: That is right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is the will of the

Committee - it will be put to a vote of the Committee. I have no problem with

that.

MR. HARRIS: There has to be a motion to put the

Estimates, though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion will be put.

MR. HARRIS: No, the motion may be put if

someone moves it. I don't know if the Chair is entitled to move that motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be made, I would assume.

MR. HARRIS: You are anticipating motions to

that effect?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If someone wants to make the

motion that the Committee sit longer than three hours, it will be made and voted

on by the Committee. If the Committee votes it down, fine, it is voted down, or

if it goes on, whichever, I have no problem with that.

MS. VERGE: It is not a matter of the Committee

seeking to meet for hours on end, to have an all-night sitting or to be here in

a meeting beyond 10:00 o'clock tonight, but the Committee has the option to

extend the time tonight and clue up around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. or to come back

one night next week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the Committee has a life

of its own, and if you make a motion that you want to extend this beyond three

hours and it is passed by the majority of the Committee, fine, it does, but if

it is turned down, it doesn't.

MS. VERGE: But there is no magic in the three

hours, is what I am trying to get across. The Liberals, the government members

have a majority on this Committee and there could be abusive power, there could

be a motion right away that we go home now, but if it happens that at 10:00

o'clock tonight we aren't finished examining the estimates of this department,

consistent with past practice, the Committee may carry on for an extra half-hour

or so tonight, or we may come back and have a second meeting on this department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is at the will of the

Committee.

MS. VERGE: Good. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to accept the will

of the Committee and we will certainly get a ruling from the Clerk if we make

any mistakes. Madam Clerk will look after that.

Madam Minister.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Chair.

I am glad to have this opportunity to present to

the Committee the estimates of my department, in this case, the Department of

Environment and Lands, for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. The past year was one of

change in the department as the divisions of Wildlife and Parks were absorbed

into the Department of Tourism and Culture. I am pleased with our activities

that the department has been involved in throughout the past year and I am

looking forward to the initiatives that are arising from this Budget for the

upcoming year.

Before I address the specific information about the

Department of Environment and Lands, I will introduce to you the individuals

from the department who here with me this evening. On my right is John Fleming,

the Deputy Minister; on his right is our new Assistant Deputy Minister, Barbara

Wakeham, who, having come to us from Development, is certainly not new to

government, but is new to our department, and is responsible for the Lands

Division; Dave Jeans is our Environment ADM, and behind us here is Frank Harris,

the Director of Administration.

I would like to give you a brief overview of the

structure of the Department of Environment and Lands and its operations. As is

standard with other government departments, our

departmental estimates initially provide for the operation of the minister's

office, the executive and the administrative support functions. Beyond that, the

estimates reflect the organization of the department in two sectors: Environment

and Lands as I have just indicated in my introduction of our officials who are

here this evening. I will now review the programs that take place in our

department.

First of all, Environment: The Environment branch

consists of five divisions, and I will mention each of those and talk a little

bit about what they do. The Environmental Investigations Division is responsible

for monitoring commercial, municipal and hazardous wastes and ensuring that they

are disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. This division is also

responsible for oil and chemical spill response, processing applications for

fuel storage systems and for processing environmental approvals for small scale

developments. One of the major items of funding in our 1993-1994 Budget, is for

remediation of contaminated sites. Funding in the amount of $4,936,600 has been

provided for the clean-up of contaminated sites at Makinsons, Come By Chance and

Gander.

The majority of this funding is carried over from

1992-1993 for the clean-up of orphan sites. Those of you who may not be familiar

with it, orphan sites are where we can't trace it back to who was originally the

owner, and therefore, responsible. There is a clean-up of these orphan sites

that began in 1992-1993 under a jointly-funded 50/50 Federal/Provincial National

Contaminated Sites Remediation Program.

We have the Civil and Sanitary Environmental

Engineering Division. It is responsible for the investigation and identification

of environmental problems relating to the design, construction and operation of

municipal infrastructure systems. The division also offers an Operator Training

Program for operators of municipal water and sewer systems throughout the

Province.

We have the Industrial Environmental Engineering

Division. It ensures that all industries in our Province comply with the

requirements of legislated environmental standards and, as well, undertakes the

evaluation of air quality in sensitive areas. A network of seven precipitation

stations is operated to monitor and assess the impacts of acid rain in the

Province.

The Water Resources Division, is responsible for

the implementation and evaluation of approved programs relating to the

conservation, development, control, improvement and proper utilization of the

water resources of our Province. The Water Investigations and Water Rights

sections issue approvals for stream alterations and water use authorizations.

We have the Environment Assessment Division. It

administers the Environmental Assessment Act and the Pesticides Control Act. The

Environmental Assessment Act provides for the protection of the environment of

Newfoundland and Labrador, by requiring a registration for possible assessment

of all undertakings that may have a significant impact on the environment.

As part of our ongoing joint effort with the

Federal Government to eliminate regulatory duplication, we have provided funding

of $250,000 in support of the Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment

Reviews.

Now, turning to the Lands branch, it has three

divisions. First of all, the Crown Lands division which is responsible for the

administration and control of Crown Land. The division processes Crown Land

applications and issues Crown titles. Regional offices are in St. John's,

Gander, Corner Brook and Goose Bay, where applications are processed and where

information is provided to the public.

The division is also responsible for maintaining

the Crown Land Registry which is the repository for all Crown titles and

documents that pertain to the granting, leasing, transfer of Crown land in the

Province. The division's cadastral mapping

section is responsible for plotting

all Crown titles on large-scale mapping. The provincial air photo and map

collection provides maps and air photos for government use and for viewing or

purchasing by the public.

The Lands Management division is responsible for

the orderly management of the Province's Crown land resource. Through the

Interdepartmental Land Use Committee, this division reviews proposals that may

have an impact on Crown land. Such proposals include draft legislation,

municipal and regional plans, reserves, draft regulations, waste disposal sites,

and silviculture plans. The Lands Management division prepares land use plans

and undertakes certain small-scale developments, such as cottage lots, which

will be made accessible to the public on a cost recovery basis.

The Surveys and Mapping division has responsibility

for the provincial geodetic survey and topographic mapping programs. Work is

continuing in the production of large-scale maps for use in resource planning

and property mapping. The conversion of topographic maps to computer digital

data sets has been an ongoing program. In 1993-1994 some 250 digital sets will

be available for purchase to the general public, industry and other government

agencies. The division also provides support services to other departments and

agencies of the provincial government in standards, specifications, contract

inspections and consultation in the areas of legal surveys, mapping, air

photography and geographic information systems.

Chairperson, this year a priority for the

department will be the implementation of actions included in the Strategic

Economic Plan. Of major importance is the development of a sustainable

development strategy for the Province. This is presently being undertaken by the

Round Table on the Environment and Economy with support from this department.

Discussions are under way with the Federal Government to establish co-operative

arrangements to harmonize and streamline our environmental assessment process.

This is necessary to avoid imposing unwarranted duplication, expenses and delays

on potential investors.

We also want to initiate development of an overall

waste management strategy for the Province. In spite of constrained resources we

hope to give waste management issues higher priority. In some areas of the

Province we have already initiated discussions towards a regional approach to

the management of municipal solid wastes. Amendments to the Waste Material

Disposal Act that make vehicle abandonment a specific offence will come into

effect September 1. To ensure all our legislation is better complied with, we

are hiring additional enforcement staff.

I hope, Chair, that this brief overview of the

mandate, structure and function of the department has been informative and

useful and will trigger now some questions for me to respond to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. Now, I think

the Clerk - we should name the subheading we are under.

CLERK (Miss Murphy): 1.1.01.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.1.01: Most of the debate will

carry under that subhead, which is Minister's Office. Now you are speaking for

the -

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good, then.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would like to thank the minister for her

introductory remarks. I have the benefit of Hansard for last year's sessions of

this Committee. There were two meetings of the Committee last year dealing with

the estimates of the Department of Environment and Lands. Last year, the

government budgeted a total of $12.5 million for this department, yet only spent

$9.5 million. For environmental protection, the government budgeted $6.4 million

and spent only $4.4 million, which is a drastic reduction in the planned

spending.

Now, perhaps some of the difference is explained by

the transfer of some responsibilities from the Department of Environment and

Lands to the new Department of Tourism and Culture. Nevertheless, in several

categories for which the department has maintained responsibility, the spending

was considerably less than originally forecast last year. The results have been

extremely disappointing. The provincial government's efforts in protecting the

environment have been woefully inadequate.

From speaking to several well-informed observers, I

understand that the department is seriously understaffed. The department seems

to be equipped simply to put a finger in the dyke occasionally, to quote one

observer.

The general policy thrust of the Wells

administration includes an openness to importing foreign garbage for final

disposal in this Province. The commitment on the part of the administration to

seriously changing our ways to lessen ongoing damage, as well as to clean up

problems that have been created in the past, is short of what is required, and

we seem to be losing ground.

Waste management has been identified by the present

minister, as well as her predecessor, as the number one priority, yet the

government still hasn't implemented for government offices a recycling program.

It was just a few months ago that we got wastepaper baskets in the House of

Assembly. There still isn't a comprehensive recycling program within Provincial

Government offices to collect and sort newspapers, other paper, aluminium cans

and cardboard - the items for which there are recycling facilities available

through the private sector in this Province. Government leads by example, and in

this case the example is a bad example. This minister and her predecessor have

talked about intending to have a recycling program within government, itself,

but we still don't see that happening.

The year before last, the government made a high

profile announcement in the Throne Speech of intentions to introduce laws,

through legislation or regulations, to govern the use of ATVs in the Province,

specifically to outlaw the use of ATVs in sensitive wetlands and bogs. That

legislation has not been forthcoming. There hasn't even been any talk about it

recently.

Last year, the minister told the Estimates

Committee that there was considerable activity - I believe she used the phrase

`whirlwind activity' - to bring in legislation to govern beverage containers, to

provide for recycling and to require returnable beverage containers. Again, we

have seen no results.

The environmental assessment process seems to be

less than satisfactory. Proponents, themselves, are responsible for funding and

carrying out required studies, and there is insufficient provision for

independent or objective assessments. I am wondering if the government is even

entertaining the possibility of providing funding to third parties, to

independent organizations.

There have been instances when the government,

itself, is proposing cottage lot developments, and it so happens that it is

another branch of the same department that is responsible for protecting the

environment, which is developing cottage lot developments. The government,

itself, occasionally has proceeded with developments which impinge upon the

environment and which warrant environmental assessment, yet there is no

objective input into the assessment.

Under the heading of `Lands', I have been asking at

estimates committee hearings for the past number of years, as well as asking

officials in between committee meetings, what is happening with the agreed to

transfer of railway land by the federal government to the Province. This was

supposed to have taken place years ago now, and every time I have enquired I

have been told that it is going to happen soon. It is always going to be soon,

or next month, or in two months time. It still has not happened.

The railway land which is supposed to come to the

Province is being frittered away. One group which is proposing maintaining the

railway line for recreational usage has expressed concerns about damage that has

been done to some parts of the railway line. What is the government doing about

that? Is the government actively seeking a transfer of the land? Is the

government monitoring what is happening to the land? Does the government have

any ability to monitor or police the land? What plans does the government have

for managing the land once title is transferred?

I have a number of concerns about particular

problems stemming from industry. One is Long Harbour. What is the status of the

cleanup? Is Albright and Wilson doing anything to clean up the mess at Long

Harbour? Does the government truly have any ability to hold that company to its

obligation to clean up? What is the status of the proposed incinerator

development at Long Harbour? For the longest time the minister has been saying

that she does not know anything about it officially because there has been no

formal application for an assessment. Is there anything new? Has there been an

application for an assessment? Is there any possibility that the government is

going to change its policy and take the position that under no circumstances

will we entertain a proposal for importation of foreign garbage for final

disposal through incineration or other means in this Province?

What about Holyrood? There have been concerns

expressed by residents of that area about pollution from the hydro site there.

Is the government cracking down on that pollution? What about Come By Chance?

There have been complaints from people residing in the Come By Chance area about

noxious fumes from the refinery.

In Corner Brook, my home town, there have been

concerns about emissions from the newsprint mill, air emissions, particulate

fallout, as well as vapour. Is there any positive news about curbing the air

pollution from that mill? What about fallout from various other sources in

Corner Brook? The hospital, which burns wood chips for fuel, has been emitting

sparks and soot, which has been bothersome to some neighbours. Does the

department know the extent of the fallout from that source? What about the

cement plant in Corner Brook? For many years neighbours have complained about

cement dust settling on their property. There were some improvements made a few

years ago which were believed to offer hope in curbing the dust emissions from

that plant. Is the department keeping track of that pollution? These are a few

of my concerns.

To recap, a general impression that the Wells'

administration has done little more than pay lip service to environmental

protection. Inadequate funding, too few staff to do the job, a policy of

openness to importing foreign garbage for final disposition, an environmental

assessment process which is stacked in favour of the proponent which doesn't

provide adequately for impartial and objective assessment, and talk but no

action on ATV regulation and on beverage container recycling or returnable

bottles. These are a few of the questions that I would hope to get answers for

now or later during our meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You had the opening remarks.

That's your address. Minister, you can have up to ten minutes to answer some of

those questions if you want to before I go on to another member.

MS. COWAN: No, I think we'll go ahead,

Chairperson.

MS. VERGE: If I might interject.

MS. COWAN: She's entitled to ask a question, I

guess.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I would like answers to some of

those questions.

MS. COWAN: Is she, Chair? I'm not sure. She's

asked a myriad of questions and I'm not quite sure whether I should answer them

all or whether it would be better -

MR. CHAIRMAN: What you can answer in ten

minutes, Minister, I would say that's the best thing to do. Then someone else

will ask the question. Sometime over the course of the night I suppose they will

be asked again.

MS. COWAN: Okay. Alright, fine then. Thank you.

That'll be appropriate. Now I didn't jot down all the questions, so -

MS. VERGE: I'd be glad to repeat them.

MS. COWAN: I think my deputy has jotted them

down so he can probably stick them in front of me as we go on in case I should

miss one.

First of all I'll start with the comments that were

made regarding the environmental assessment process itself. That was one of the

latter questions. Under the Strategic Economic Plan for the Province it was

asked and is going to take place. In fact, is well under way. During this fiscal

year that there would be a look at the environmental assessment process to see

if it indeed does need to be fine-tuned, updated, whatever you might like to

call it, to bring it more in line with the needs of today's more stringent

concerns about the environment, and also are we needlessly in any cases holding

up development in the Province. There's a look at it from both sides and that is

taking place at this time. We may find in fact that some of the points made by

Ms. Verge will be found during that process to carry some weight, to have merit,

and if so those will be introduced into the process.

It was considered when it was introduced some years

ago by the former government, the Progressive Conservative government, to be a

forerunner really in environmental assessment legislation but I don't think that

we can rest on that, because as I referred to earlier expectations regarding the

environment have changed and we have the continual outcry from people who want

to develop in the Province that they are sometimes needlessly delayed in getting

their proposals through the environmental assessment process.

As well there were some questions regarding the

transfer of CN. That's not an unfamiliar question. On many occasions we are

asked about this. It was a tremendous job, tremendous undertaking, to look after

the transferring of 1,284, I think it is, kilometres, of rail bed to the

Province. There had to be the removal first of course of all the tracks and that

kind of thing. We had to ensure that there were no long-term environmental

problems that would be transferred to us along with the property. That had to be

checked out very carefully. The lands had to be surveyed, both for the

properties to be retained by the federal government, because some will, and

those that will be transferred. There are over 2,000 third party assignments

that had to be documented and I think we have had over 1,000 requests for usage

of the rail-bed. So those had to all be analyzed, studied and so on, before the

Cabinet submission paper will be prepared in the end. The next actions are to

come from the federal level and we are hoping that within the next two months

there will be a final determination.

One of the points that I just want to make is that

Ms. Verge commented several times that the department is not funded enough and

that we do not have enough staff. I certainly feel that that is a legitimate

criticism however the department was created in the 1980's when money started to

be scarce. There was not a lot of money put into the department by her

particular government at that time to get it off to a good start, to have a firm

foundation and we have found ourselves now in a time of fiscal restraint trying

to deal as well as we can with environmental problems with a staff that is

growing. I must say that it is growing more than the staff in any other

department because we do recognize that the environment is an important issue

and I have been one - probably, maybe even the only minister who has been

fortunate enough to be in a position where I have been able to hire new people.

It is interesting too, that Ms. Verge makes the

comment that we are not taking our job seriously. For example, let me just tell

you the prosecutions that have been made under the Waste Material Disposal Act

over the last few years. From 1960 to 1992, that is thirty-two years, there were

192 prosecutions. From 1989, when our government took over, to 1992, there have

been eighty-six, a difference of about 700 per cent. So we certainly have been

much more vigilant than the last government in prosecuting. As well, we have

issued ten clean up orders. I am not sure John how much of an improvement that

is but that is a big step forward as well too. So, certainly we have not been

lax.

We are coming down hard on places like Come by

Chance and Hydro, the generating station in Holyrood, which is unusual. A

committee was set in place shortly after I became minister - John is sitting on

it. It is a high level committee which meets with Hydro and talks about the

problems and comes up with ways in which they can be dealt with. It was through

our work for example with Hydro that they have now hired, for the generating

station, an environmental engineer and that individual is now working there.

This should bring about much better control of environmental problems in that

particular area. We will now have an expert on environment in that area where we

did not before. A lot of things were left to chance, so we now have an

individual there. Hydro has one who is responsible and we are certainly being

more vigilant in our monitoring.

The Come by Chance area, in the month of April, was

given thirty days to start cleaning up their act. I must say, that was a very

decisive action on my part. In a Province such as ours, we are always being

concerned about employment, it was certainly an issue with the last government

who would hesitate to make any kind of pronouncements on anything that was

thought to be an environmental threat or an occupational health and safety

threat if it could lead to the closing down of a plant or whatever it happened

to be but we indeed issued them an order that within thirty days they had to

clean up their act. That is the type of thing that I intend to see happening

frequently. Fortunately or unfortunately in this Province we do not have a lot

of industry to monitor, so we are able to focus some of our scarce resources on

the three or four sites that we do have that are a particular problem. We have

consultants who are beginning - what is the date when they start John, have they

started?

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be starting now.

MS. COWAN: Yes, consultants I think who were to

begin the last week of May to actually have a good look at the whole Come By

Chance operation, and to assess where there might be trouble spots, to apprise

our department of the monitoring program there, any way we can work more

effectively in our surveillance of their monitoring and that type of thing, so I

am very pleased that we have been able to do that. Now, what else did we have

here?

Yes, there was a question regarding the clean up at

Long Harbour and several comments were made that our government promotes or

encourages the importation of garbage from outside the Province - that is indeed

not the case. We do not promote it, we do not go out actively seeking it nor do

we intend to do that, except in particular cases where it might be an advantage

to, say in Atlantic Canada which I have said repeatedly, where we might have to

work together as a unit - is my time up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: - where we might have to work

together as a unit because of our low population base; we do not often generate

enough waste to just take care of it here in Newfoundland, so we might have to

work together with the Atlantic Provinces. In fact we are now working together

to see what we can do about tires, so we are not going to say that no, nothing

will ever happen in this Province, we will never bring in any waste materials

from any place else because it could be very limiting, however, before anything

comes into this Province of that nature, it will be given a very rigorous

environmental assessment, and also, public opinion will play a very large role.

Now the public has made a lot of outcry about the

possibility of garbage coming in, this is just household garbage type stuff from

the U.S. That has been heard by this government, and the Premier has said in the

House that it certainly would not be welcome in this Province, and public

opinion certainly played a very large role, so that goes to show you that we do

listen to the public and through the environmental assessment process, we do

listen to the public again, so that there is opportunity there once more for

them to express concern about a particular project. I will leave it at that, Mr.

Chairman, and could make further comments later on if I am asked in any of those

areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I would point out to the members of the committee,

if they want to be recognized, what they should do is indicate to me and I will

keep a list of their names here and recognize them in that order. I do not have

anyone now so do you -

MS. VERGE: If I might, Mr. Chairman, usually

what we do is, rotate. We each have a turn or those members wanting to have a

turn have -

MR. CHAIRMAN: But they have to be recognized

you know, they have to indicate they want a turn. What you did, I am sure it was

good but we are going to do it my way now.

MS. VERGE: I would hope that we would all have

a say on how the committee operates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, as the Chairman, I will

conduct that.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of questions and I would prefer,

rather than make a general commentary, to ask specific questions. Some of the

concerns raised by Ms. Verge I share in terms of the government's approach, but

I have a number of specific questions and one just pops right out at me in

looking at the estimates as a whole, and that's the amount of money spent on

transportation and communications. Now many of the individual votes I have no

difficulty with, but when I just was trying to add them all up here I see an

enormous amount overall, perhaps close to $700,000 or $800,000 in various

places. I don't see big amounts in areas that you might expect to see them in,

in some of the operational areas such as in geodetic and legal surveys, land use

planning, that sort of thing. Even in areas such as air photo, lab and

topographical mapping you don't see big votes for transportation and

communications.

Yet on page 88 of the estimates I see in

Administrative Support, which is basically the financial, human resources and

operational administration activities of the department, $249,000 voted for

transportation and communications. I find that to be a bit surprising when you

see in Environmental Investigations, for example, where you'd expect to see a

fair bit, you do see $77,000 alright, in Municipal, Community and Civil

Services, in the Civil Engineering division, you see $29,000, which all seems to

be relatively reasonable considering the salary votes in those departments. But

I see an enormous number in what's called Administrative Support.

I wonder if there's a simple explanation for that,

because there do seem to be votes under each head. It doesn't seem to be

collected there. It seems to be spread out amongst all of them. But I see a very

large vote, a quarter of a million dollars, for transportation and communication

in what's called Administrative Support services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister.

MS. COWAN: I don't know - I may have to ask

you, Jack, to address some of those specifically again. Excuse me for calling

`Jack'. Is that alright?

MR. HARRIS: The big one - I mean, just overall

there's a large amount voted for transportation and communications. I would

expect that your department would have people in the operational areas doing a

fair bit of travelling around to investigate sites and to do the various

activities. I see what appear to be reasonable types of votes for that purpose

under the various heads. Each of them seems to have a transportation and

communications vote there or subhead. What I'm concerned about is the very large

appropriation of $249,000 under the General Administration Administrative

Support, and that would be subhead 1.2.02., item number .03 on page 88.

MS. COWAN: One of the major differences in the

transportation and communications from years past is that the departmental

telephone used to be paid for by Public Works. The telephone now is paid for

directly by our department, which makes more sense. You can then see exactly

what type of expenditures you're making in the telephone area. We have $173,000

as the annual allotment for telephone calls. We operate, for example, an 800

line and just the size and so on of the Province means that we have to have

quite a large telephone bill. Postage as well was one time covered by Public

Works. That runs in the area of $62,000, almost $63,000. So that makes a fairly

major difference.

MR. HARRIS: Are you saying that all of that

money for the whole department's telephone budget is in that Administrative

number and that the transportation and communications -

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: - in the other fields, they don't

include telephones. For example, Pollution Clean-Up, transportation and

communications, that $3,100 doesn't include any telephone, does it?

MS. COWAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: The answer is no. Okay, thanks, I

accept that. That was just something that struck me looking through the budgets

here.

Can I ask the minister whether or not - and I have

a concern about what's happening in this field in particular - the

responsibility for wilderness and preservation of protected areas, wilderness

areas and that type of thing, has been maintained in her department, or has that

been switched to Tourism and Culture? Part of the reason I ask that is because I

think it is properly in Environment and Lands but I also note that the Minister

of Tourism and Culture has been making statements about this protected areas

agreement and some projections and I personally feel it is more appropriate for

your department. I wonder whether or not you still have responsibility for

protecting the environment and these particular protected areas. What is the

situation right now?

MS. COWAN: Well, the situation is as you have

outlined it. The Minister of Tourism and Culture is now responsible for these

particular types of protected areas, ecological and that kind of thing, so that

is why he has been making comment on them in the public media.

MR. HARRIS: So you have no responsibility

whatsoever for protecting areas from development, and no concern about the

number of hydro sites, for example, that seem to be growing by leaps and bounds,

and as to how that is going to impact on the availability of wilderness or

natural areas in the Province?

MS. COWAN: Oh, yes.

MR. HARRIS: How does it interact, then? Could

you explain that?

MS. COWAN: We still have, don't forget, Mr.

Harris, the environmental assessment process where anything that happens within

the Province has to be registered and then looked at for potential environmental

impact, so that if there were a proposal, which there has been, of course,

recently, for (inaudible) that comes still through the environmental assessment

process.

MR. HARRIS: Who is responsible for land use

planning?

MS. COWAN: Our department is still responsible

for that.

MR. HARRIS: And `protected areas' has nothing

to do with that?

MS. COWAN: Well, the protected areas are

already marked out, mapped, and zoned, and that type of thing so we know where

they are. I don't know quite what you are trying to get at. Are you asking, if

somebody applied to build a cabin or something in a protected area, would we

have - if you could give me an example.

MR. HARRIS: What I am taking about is the

overall planning and priorities that government might have. Government have

adopted, so it seems, at least on paper or through press release, the proposal

of the Canadian Wildlife - not Canadian Wildlife, it is the Canadian association

that concerns itself with protected areas, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation

supports it; it is the notion of setting aside 12 per cent of the land use to be

preserved as wilderness areas. I wonder who, exactly, is responsible for that?

If your department is responsible for land use planning and the overall plan,

how can the Department of Tourism and Culture have any impact on that? How can

we be satisfied as to how all of these proposals for mini-hydro sites are

impacting on this plan, and how can we get an overall look at this?

MS. COWAN: There is an interdepartmental

committee that does interact and take a look at all these types of things so

that one thing cannot leap ahead without the full knowledge, and so on, of

another department.

Barbara, you might like to comment on that, the

ILUC or something.

MS. WAKEHAM: The Interdepartmental Land Use

Committee, which is made up of all the resource departments, basically reviews

all proposals coming out of other departments, including federal departments.

There is, at this point in time - don't hold me to this statistic - somewhere

around 8 to 10 per cent of the Crown land masses already reserved either as

ecological reserves or as wilderness reserves, right now, in the Province. Those

designated areas are all mapped out in terms of a land use atlas which provides

for permissible and non-permissible uses. As the minister indicated, if a hydro

project is brought forward, that project not only goes through the environmental

assessment process but also goes through the ILUC process so that our referrals,

right now, are about nineteen departments and that includes the municipalities

as well as the federal and provincial agencies. And any concerns with respect to

that proposal would be registered not only through the environmental, but also

through the Land Use Committee. Land use management planning is still the

responsibility of the Lands branch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Time is up, and I now recognize Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, before I start,

just for a point of clarification - I have a few general concerns and I have a

lot of details highlighted in the Estimates. You say we have ten minutes in the

beginning and the minister can respond in ten minutes. Do we keep going back and

forth like that for the whole night? Do we get ten minute slots?

MR. HARRIS: I understand, Mr. Chairman, it is

ten minutes for questions and answers so if you wanted to use all your time to

ask a question you can, but after the ten minutes it goes around again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you can talk for your ten

minutes and then I recognize someone else. The minister doesn't have to respond

to you. You can take your ten minutes to outline your concerns, and then, if

someone else wants to speak, I will recognize him before the minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Minister, I have a number

of concerns - the general concerns first.

A number of the towns in my district, close to St.

John's, as you are probably well aware of by now, have had some problems with

respect to the dumping of garbage when Robin Hood Bay was closed, when the

strike was on, and Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove actually had to bar off

Red Cliff Road. A lot of people travel up that road to Red Cliff for the scenery

and watching the whales, whatever the case may be, but it had to be closed. In

the same way, the Town of Torbay had problems with people dumping garbage and

that type of thing. I am wondering - I don't see anything here specifically - is

there going to be any funding available through Environment to help the towns

clean up the mess that has been made on the byroads?

I noticed in the Estimates that there is an

environmental assessment agreement - $250,000 funding. I am wondering, Will that

money be matched by private industry, or is that a certain percentage of what

would be coming forward for environmental assessments type of thing?

This is all new to me, so I hope the questions I

have asked are -

MS. COWAN: I am just jotting them down here. I

am nodding to say that I have your question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another that I have is a general

concern. It would cost a fair dollar down the road, I would imagine, but Robin

Hood Bay, itself - there have often been discussions and talks and rumours,

whatever the case may be, with respect to the life span. Is it two years, five

years, ten years? Is there any talk about relocating Robin Hood Bay and the cost

involved? I would like to know something about that.

Another major concern of mine, and I brought this

up in my maiden speech in the House the other day, was with respect to septic

waste disposal. Of course, you know, and we have had discussions with respect to

the Foxtrap waste transfer site. The legislation that was brought in by

Environment and Lands, I believe it was the year before last, requiring that all

septic waste would be disposed of at Foxtrap, has caused undue hardship on a lot

of the homeowners in and around St. John's, actually. Down in Logy Bay, Torbay,

Pouch Cove, whatever the case may be, the cost has increased from $60 up to as

much as $600 to $700 a load. I noticed that you mentioned in your response to

Ms. Verge that waste disposal prosecutions have increased dramatically, and I am

wondering if that is a direct result of some of the people dumping septic waste

in the countryside when they can't afford to bring it to Foxtrap?

Aside from the environmental aspect, now with

respect to lands, I worked with Lands for seven years, so I am quite familiar

with the department. Summer cottage developments - has there been any

consideration given to putting out a lot of this work to private industry - for

example, the design of cottage subdivisions? You might have ten lots, you might

have fifty, you might have 100 or 200, whatever the case may be. From what I

know, the department usually designs the subdivisions and then puts it out to

contract, to tender type of thing, but there is a lot of work that can be done

by private industry that doesn't need to be done by government. It is almost in

competition with private industry.

The surveying and mapping contracts: I have noticed

over the past number of years - I can get into some details here - that the

funding for that type of work has been dramatically decreased, and a lot of the

work, itself, is being done by department officials, in-house - geodetic

surveys, GPS work, (inaudible) control work. I don't expect you to know the

technicalities of what I am referring to, but it has been done and is being done

in-house. As a matter of fact, I am hearing now rumours from good sources that

Lands branch, itself, is considering or may be considering purchasing GPS

systems - that is global positioning systems, which is something that can

directly be done by private industry. From what I remember hearing the Premier

saying in the past, I mean, government should not be competing with private

industry. So that is a point I would like for you to address if you could.

Another is the Crown Lands Registry, itself, and

the Registry of Deeds. When I was president of the association a few years ago,

and your government was in power at the time, we made a presentation to the

government of the day requesting that maybe there should be some thought and

consideration given to combining the Registry of Deeds and the Crown Lands

Registry. Because we are dealing with lands, and even looking forward to getting

a titles registry rather than just a deeds, you know - guaranteed title. Have

any thought or consideration been given to that, any studies been done within

your department in recent years?

Another - the railway reversion: I was looking at

the details here and there is over $2 million in the estimates for that, but I

don't see any details. Maybe I am reading it wrong or something. It shows $2

million and some-odd down at the bottom of the column and there are no details

of where it is going and on what it is going to be spent.

Another - back on the environment again -

all-terrain vehicles: Of course, we know the havoc they are causing on the

countryside. Are you planning any legislation which would be involved in

controlling the use and areas of use for these machines? If you are or have been

doing any studies, what would the costs involved be - or is there anything

allotted for that in the estimates? I didn't see anything.

Another, on the environment: The regional

management of waste. You mentioned that earlier. I know that the Northeast

Avalon towns have been having a study done in conjunction with the Department of

Environment and Lands concerning waste disposal on the Northeast Avalon, not

just with respect to Robin Hood Bay, but new sites, locations, whatever the case

may be. At this point in time, I haven't heard of any public input, or

consultation with the public. Because when the final report comes down and there

are recommendations made to actual locations and sites, the public could get

pretty upset, especially with the costs involved. Will those recommendations be

made public, and when will they be made public?

That's it for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Byrne. Now

Minister, do you want to answer some of that?

MS. COWAN: Yes. I have, what, his remaining ten

minutes? I wasn't -

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can speak for ten minutes now

if you wish.

MS. COWAN: Okay, I wasn't sure if I just had

his leftovers or what I had here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, his time is his -

MS. COWAN: I think I have your questions down

here in order. I must say, it is refreshing to have some questions on the

`lands' side. I didn't realize you had worked in that area. That is interesting

and we will get to some of your questions there. I will try to address them in

the order in which you presented them here this evening.

The garbage on the by-roads and so on that you

mentioned as a result of the municipal strike in St. John's, This is, if I am

reading you correctly, a problem for the municipality. Now, it becomes a problem

for our government when it falls outside of a particular municipality. We had a

number of reports during the strike of garbage being dumped out. For example,

there was some dumped out my way in Conception Bay South along the old railroad

tracks. Those complaints then were tracked down, wherever it was possible, by

our department, and the perpetrators of it approached about clearing it away.

But the actual garbage that might be within a municipality has to be addressed

by the municipality.

Did I get your question properly there?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. I was hoping there would be

some funding available to help the municipalities to do that. Because, I mean,

there is quite a mess. For example, Red Cliff Road: two years ago, as mayor, I

went up Red Cliff Road with the Junior Forest Wardens and cleaned up that road

on both sides, and we had the town take away the garbage. Now it is as bad as or

worse than ever.

MS. COWAN: Well, again, this is one of the

problems, I think, that education is going to have to address in the Province

and it certainly takes a longer process. But at this time, no monies have been

set aside to help municipalities clean up after that.

Robin Hood Bay - we are doing, as you must be

aware, a study of the whole Northeast Avalon area with respect to garbage

disposal - looking into the sites, not only Robin Hood Bay, but other areas, the

longevity of their particular waste disposal sites and the possibility of just

where we will go in this area, as we are doing in the Burin Peninsula area, as

we are doing in several other areas around the Province in trying to set up some

regional approach to dealing with waste management.

One of the things, I think, that is particularly

important that we do as a government, is impress upon municipalities the

importance of getting involved in schemes that encourage people, the citizens of

the town, into thinking more conscientiously about their waste and what they do

with it, how they - for example, in purchasing, to purchase things with less

packaging, to try to reuse items as much as possible, recycle where it is

possible, to compost, that type of thing, and if municipalities start doing that

kind of thing, it is going to mean that their waste disposal sites have many,

many more years of use than they do at the present. We have to make the people

in our society realize the fact that the responsibility for lessening the amount

of wastes that go into garbage dumps and so on, do rest with them, and I think

that the municipalities play a very significant

part in bringing that about.

There are municipalities now that are encouraging recycling programs, reused

composting and that type of thing.

As far as the septic waste disposal goes, I get

rather amused, actually, whenever I hear about this because of the supposed

hardship that has been placed on people because they have to pay more now to get

their septic tanks pumped out. If you have a properly installed septic tank you

will only need to have it - well, I tell you, I had one at one house where I

lived, twenty years now I have been gone from the place, I sold it and the

septic tank still has never been touched. It was installed properly in the first

place, so it didn't need to be pumped out. I realize that sometimes you are in

geographical areas, and so on, where the topography of the land and the

composition of the earth makes that difficult, but any well-functioning septic

tank should not have to be pumped out more often than seven or eight years. You

pay more than you used to pay to have it done but you are still not paying as

much as you would pay for water or for sewer within a town. So, in actual fact,

these people who have septic tanks that have to be periodically pumped out are

still way better off than people who are, indeed, paying for sewage disposal

through a sewer system within a town.

MR. J. BYRNE: May I interject?

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I certainly question your figures

with respect to the time span between when tanks should be emptied or flushed

out or whatever the case may be. With respect, my figures tell me that every two

to three years they should be done. I have a septic tank and have been using it

for the past eighteen years. I have been having mine done every two to three

years. And it is working properly and was installed properly. So, I don't think

you are quite accurate on that.

With respect to the comparison you made to a person

with a septic system paying the cost compared to living in a town and paying for

water and sewer, the way things are going these days, especially with the

municipalities in around St. John's - for example, down in Pouch Cove, having a

mil rate of 9.5 mils, and then you have to add on that kind of money, probably

$600 every two to three years, I mean, they are paying the equivalent that you

might be paying in the City of St. John's for a lot less services.

MS. COWAN: Okay, I was very nice to him, you

know, Mr. Chairperson, because I guess he didn't have to be allowed to jump in

like that.

I certainly still maintain my original position on

the septic tank business, that if it is a properly installed septic tank, it

doesn't have to be pumped out that often. Indeed, the other point that I would

make, as well - I have not had, and our staff people within the department have

not had many complaints from those who have to have their septic tanks pumped

out. I think we have had two, which originated from my district, Conception Bay

South. Those are all the complaints that we have had.

Our explanation at that time was similar to the one

I made to you, but we also pointed out to them the importance of having septic

waste brought to a system where it was going to be properly dealt with and that,

yes, there are cases where perhaps you do have to pay a little bit more.

Unfortunately, in our society, because of the way things have developed with the

environment, there are going to be costs associated often when we attempt to

clean up.

My feeling about it is - and these people who

called have agreed entirely, that they would much rather see that being done

than having raw sewage dumped into the ocean. That is an extreme concern for

this Province, where we rely heavily on the ocean for a livelihood.

Now, I am going to let - do I still have time here?

Two minutes - I am going to let Barbara have a couple of minutes. You can choose

one of the questions there, Barbara, and give him an answer on land use.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask her to identify herself

when she speaks again, for upstairs.

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MS. WAKEHAM: Barbara Wakeham, Assistant Deputy

Minister, Lands. Well, we have lots. Let me see how many I can get through.

First of all, Mr. Byrne, you have six-and-a-half more years than I have with

lands. With respect to the cottage lots and the contracting out to industry,

there was $185,000 last year, $200,000 this year, for cottage lot development,

design, layout and construction. There are insufficient monies available to do

the actual design and layout and the actual construction in that amount of

money. If there were more money available, certainly, I think some consideration

would be given to contracting out the planning portion of that work.

Surveys and mapping - you are absolutely correct.

The government have slashed the amount of money that is available in terms of

doing it. There has been no decision with respect to GPSs being purchased and

utilized in the department. We have put forward a major $20 million project to

government and to the Federal Government for geographical information systems.

We are still pushing to do that, and if that goes through, 90 per cent of the

work will be contracted out.

With respect to the Crown Lands Registry and the

integration of that with the Crown Titles, I think that has probably been

studied at least three or four times since I have been in government in the last

twenty years. There was a major study done about ten years ago that actually

looked at the integration of the two systems. If you worked in Lands, you are

fully aware of the magnitude of the problems that exist between the two systems.

With respect to the Crown Titles, itself, we have

computerized the system and we have done a heck of a job in terms of cleaning up

some of the mess that we had there. But you are absolutely correct, there should

be some kind of an amalgamation or integration with the system. Considering the

price tag for this, I think it is going to be quite a while before we look at

that, given the other priorities of government at the moment.

One last thing: ATV regulations. We have a draft

set of regulations which have already been to the Justice system right now, have

come back, and we should fairly soon have a paper before government to implement

those regulations. I don't know if that takes care of the two minutes.

MS. COWAN: Yes, that's fine, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pretty well.

MS. COWAN: I think so, and that probably takes

care of the other questions, as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're starting to build up a list

now. I have Ms. Verge, followed by Ms. Young and Mr. Smith.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to use my

second ten-minute allotment by asking questions one at a time and pausing for

the minister's reply before proceeding to the next question.

On ATV regulation, as I said in my introductory

comments, the government is way behind its own schedule, since there was a major

announcement in the Throne Speech two years ago of plans to prohibit the use of

ATVs in wetlands but when I asked about this at last year's estimates committee

the minister talked about the immensity of the land mass and the difficulty of

identifying all the bogs and wetlands. I acknowledged that difficulty but

suggested the government approach ATV regulation in phases, the minister agreed

and there was even some news coverage of the fact that we both agreed that a

small start was better than nothing, in fact, we have had nothing.

There is not even any prospect of the required

legislation or regulations, and I would like the minister to explain exactly

where the government is, is the government going to have regulations in place

for this Summer? Most of the damage is done during the months when there is no

snow on the ground, are we going to allow yet another season to go by without

any mere attempt at outlawing ATV usage in wetlands, since I understand wetlands

damage may take 100 years to recover and the longer we allow usage in these bogs

to continue, obviously the more serious, perhaps permanent damage to the

environment is happening, so exactly where are we, why the delay and when can we

expect to see some improvement?

MS. COWAN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will continue.

The approach that I talked about at the last

estimates meeting when we talked about this same issue, had to be changed

because of the very problem that I identified at that time, that we just did not

have the ability to identify bogs and wetlands and so on, and find out where

they all were throughout the Province and that type of thing, so the approach

that we have taken is to move away from that type of thing and instead, our

program, once the regulations are in place, which I will get to in a minute,

will focus on public awareness of what a bog or wetland is, so that in fact then

the public will be responsible for knowing if or when they are on a wetland, so

there will be an educational process taking place.

I cannot add anything really to what Miss Wakeham

said; she has been working with the ATV regulations. We have had a draft set go

through Justice, it is now back in our department for some final fine-tuning by

the officials before it goes through the committee and Cabinet process, and I am

anticipating that over the Summer, we will indeed start implementing the

particular regulations. We have had to try to draw up regulations that balance

out appropriate and responsible use of ATVs and at the same time, make sure that

irresponsible behaviour on ATVs is not taking place, so that has been an issue

as well, but I am indeed sorry that it has not happened more quickly but it has

indeed been a slow process partly because we had changed our approach midway

through it, to make it what we felt more workable and more sensible, really.

MS. VERGE: I do not understand what the

minister is saying. The original announcement as I heard it, was to introduce

laws prohibiting the use of ATVs in certain wetlands which were to be identified

and somehow marked. Now the minister is talking about educating Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians about what is a bog, I would suggest that most people in the

Province already know what a bog is. People may not be as aware as they should

about the damage that they do to bogs when they drive their ATV's over

wetland's. So, I would agree that an education program may be beneficial but the

minister is still talking about regulations being drafted by the Department of

Justice. Is there enabling legislation already in force for regulations or is it

necessary as a first step that legislation be passed by the House of Assembly to

enable the enactment of regulations?

MS. COWAN: The regulations are not dependent on

anything that would have to take place in the House. They come under - what act

is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: There is an all-terrain vehicles act

and they can come under that. It won't be held up by the necessity of going

through a process within the House. These regulations will come through an Order

in Council.

MS. VERGE: What are the regulations going to

say?

MS. COWAN: They're going to focus on where to

go rather than where not to go when you're using your ATV.

MS. VERGE: Will the regulations provide for

certain areas being off limits for ATVs and for offences and penalties for

people who operate ATVs in the prohibited areas?

MS. COWAN: I can't give you specifics obviously

because it has yet to go to Cabinet. All I can say at this stage is that we're

focusing on preserving the bogs and the wetlands and that the regulations are

going to focus on where people go rather than where they cannot go.

MS. VERGE: When will the education program

start?

MS. COWAN: I didn't say anything about an

education program beginning. We are in the process of putting together a

brochure on bogs and wetlands. The process will develop from that.

MS. VERGE: It's very (inaudible). Now I'll ask

about the beverage container legislation. Last year the minister talked about

whirlwind activity including having a dedicated staff person preparing

legislation. When can we expect to see the legislation?

MS. COWAN: Again, that is not legislation.

We've already had the legislation come before the House, the enabling

legislation. The packaging act came before the House and passed in an earlier

session. Now it's just simply a matter of putting regulations in place. Those

regulations again are ready and waiting Committee and Cabinet consideration.

MS. VERGE: What will the regulations address?

MS. COWAN: They're going to address the use of

containers that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Like well, is it going to address

things like: will we have depots or recycling, that kind of thing? Is that what

you're looking at?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: In my preliminary statements that I

have made, without going into detail again, as this is a matter that still may

have some adjustment at the Committee and Cabinet level, the whole thing can't

be open for public discussion right at the moment, or discussion in this

particular forum. But we would be dealing with the industry in working toward

the recycling or re-use of beverage containers. I think that's about all

actually at this stage that I can add.

We'll be looking with industry down the road as to

depot systems and that kind of thing, and room for that kind of negotiation,

discussion, and so on will be built into regulations as well. Obviously there

have to be collection systems and that type of thing. We have felt, and again

this was something that I said earlier on, that the onus is largely on the

industry to straighten out its act. The onus will be on them for a large

part in

the collection and recycling or re-use or whatever of the beverage containers.

Our part will be simply enacting regulations to make that possible and to make

it mandatory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister.

It's now almost 8:30 p.m. Maybe now would be a good

time to have a break. When we come back I'll recognize Ms. Young, if the

Committee so desires. I believe there's coffee prepared, isn't there, Elizabeth,

in the Government Members' Caucus Room? So we'll be back in ten minutes.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the other two members will

be here - here they come so we can start off. Ms. Young.

MS. YOUNG: I would like to take this opportunity

to say how pleased I am to be serving on this committee and I have a couple of

questions for the minister. I will put the questions forward, there will be

three and there should be time for the answers.

Under pollution cleanup, these figures are low, does

this mean that the guilty parties are paying a shot for cleanup? Where does the

$22,500 revenue come from? The other question has been brought to my attention

by a number of people, that there is a considerable amount of dumping of waste

from RV's and this happens in gravel pits and along road shoulders. I guess this

is due to the fact that there are no dumping stations or very few, has there

been any attempt to deal with this problem?

I am sure we are all aware of the German visitor to

our Province who was totally disgusted with the mess of garbage and vehicle

wrecks and so on. I am concerned about the vehicle abandonment which you

referred to in your opening remarks and I would like to hear more about that. As

well, I am wondering what will happen to second and third time offenders? As

well, how will we deal with the problem of vehicle wrecks on private property?

There are a few people who seem to persist in dragging home old wrecks and

having them around their property.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Environment

and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

To your first question regarding the item in the

estimates, we often have to go out and do some cleanup ourselves and then we

collect it from the offending party, the individual who put the pollution there

in the first place. This is based on the monies we have been able to recover

over the last several years and we assume somewhere in the area of $22,500. So,

that is where the revenue would come from, people paying for a cleanup that we

have had to do. Okay?

MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

MS. COWAN: The second question was to do with -

MS. YOUNG: Well, I am thinking of the waste from

the RV's, sewage -

MS. COWAN: Okay, in that case, that is an offence

to be dumping sewage or throwing any kind of garbage around. When we hear of

these cases, when they are reported to us or they are stumbled upon by some of

our investigators, then appropriate measures are taken to order people to clean

it up and if necessary fines can be levied.

Vehicle wrecks, I am going to let Dave make a few

comments on that - do not forget to identify yourself, Dave.

MR. JEANS: Thank you, Minister, Mr. Chair.

With respect to vehicle wrecks, we can undertake a

prosecution against anybody, whether it be private land or public lands, the act

provides for prosecution for cleanup, not only of vehicle wrecks but other waste

as well. Unsightly premises, in cases we have taken action against private

individuals if they have not followed an order for cleanup.

MS. YOUNG: Does this generally come about, taking

action, is it usually due to the request of neighbours or I guess the

environmentalists in our communities?

MR. JEANS: Yes, Ms. Young, sometimes it is as a

result of neighbours criticism, or somebody reporting to us or maybe just our

officers in the field are aware of an operation that has been a persistent

offender, an unsightly premises, perhaps it is a salvage dealer or somebody that

has car wrecks which they are cannibalizing for parts and we have taken action

in a number of cases. Also of course our stop line which is: You, stop thrashing

our Province. People will phone in and can advise us of an environmental offence

which could be a dumping incident or car wrecks on properties that are an

eyesore and we follow up on those and take the appropriate actions. Usually the

first response is to order the offender to clean up or remove, and give them

time enough to do that and if they do not take action, then we can initiate

prosecution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, first of all at the outset, let me say

that as a newcomer to this process I am enjoying the opportunity to learn a

little more about the workings of your department and I look forward to future

meetings of this sort in terms of providing me with information as to the

overall operations and I am hoping thereby to be better enabled to carry out my

responsibilities as a member of the honourably House of Assembly.

With environmental concerns generally, I think there

are very few people in this Province who would not claim to be interested and

generally supportive of care of the environment, however, every time an issue

does arise, and we have people coming forward proclaiming to be

environmentalists, I think a lot of us get a little bit concerned and upset that

somehow anyone in this Province or any group could take the attitude, this

holier than thou attitude, that somehow people who are interested in promoting

and encouraging development somehow have no concern for the environment, and I

recognize the challenge to you, Madam Minister and to your department in terms

of maintaining a balance because certainly, as the duly elected government of

the Province you do have several mandates, one of which certainly is to promote

development and create jobs, but certainly as well the care for the environment,

which I think we all recognize now and are beginning to more and more accept

that it is something that is given to us in trust, it is not something that any

of us own and it is something that we have a responsibility to care for and to

leave therefore for future generations.

However, striking the balance and maintaining the

balance, I mean therein lies the challenge and therein lies the crux of the

problem. One of the things that comes to mind when we are talking about it, I

think about - and certainly Ms. Verge could relate to that - the mill in Corner

Brook. Certainly, coming from the West Coast of the Province, I am well aware,

and in following the news reports on the efforts of the mill to come in line

with environmental regulations and in the last few years requesting extensions

to deadlines that have been set in having their standards up to scratch, and I

guess you know, as the government, would we jeopardize the hundreds of jobs that

the mill provides by saying or making the decision that the deadline is June

30th and if you do not comply by then we will shut you down? I use that as an

illustration of the kind of problem with which we are faced.

I consider myself as somewhat of an environmentalist

since I am an outdoors person. Anybody who enjoys the great outdoors in this

Province and travels in the outdoors, is certainly struck by the beauty of the

environment but I am sorry to say that you also have to be struck by the amount

of garbage that is strewn throughout. There are very few places in this Province

that you can travel that you will not find garbage .

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Yes, I agree with you. There are

outdoorsmen who do contribute to it, not only outdoorsmen but certainly they do

contribute to it. If you are a fisherman and you have to travel pretty far into

the interior you will find some signs of people who had travelled there before

you, however, what it points out to me, and I think I am always struck by it

whenever I, not necessarily travel the woods of this Province, but just drive

the highways, you can see the sides of the roads littered with Kentucky Fried

Chicken boxes or pop cans, beer bottles or whatever.

One of the things we really seem to need is, as a

people, the need to become educated in the need to look after our environment.

As a person who has spent some twenty-seven years in the field of education, I

am somewhat familiar with what is happening in terms of the thrust within the

school system and the curriculum that has been developed trying to instil in our

young people a respect for the environment, but unfortunately that is only part

of the answer because young people, we can try to instil certain values in them

in the school, but if they go home and then travel with their parents, whether

it is in the outdoors or by vehicle, and they see their parents adhering to a

different standard, then in all probability that is where they will take their

example and we will continue to see this thing for many years to come.

One of the things that struck me when I was listening

to the discussion here this evening is in terms of the overall thrust in

education generally. As we were talking, as the discussion was developing and

unfolding here this evening, I was thinking in terms of the environment and

environmental concerns as it relates to tourism and the tourism industry in this

Province.

I do know that in the Province of PEI, as we are all

aware, that relies fairly heavily on the tourism industry, it is a major

industry in their province, that they do devote a considerable amount of

interest - my understanding is, and I have gotten this from talking to some

people who live in that Province - every year, in advance of the tourism

industry, there is a fair amount of attention and interest given to a general

cleanup of the Province. Everyone gets involved. I mean we are getting ready; we

are going to roll out the red carpet, and we are bringing tourists in this

Province and before we do it we all get together and we clean up, just as we see

now on a kind of ad hoc and hit-or-miss basis in various communities throughout

the Province where municipalities will decide, well this Saturday is cleanup

day, or this week is cleanup week, and we try to get our house in order.

I really think that two things here, the education

program generally, and whether or not - through your department I am sure there

is some consideration and some discussion over time with regard to this, and I

do not know how it can be implemented, whether it is through a general media

program throughout the Province just encouraging it, or whether it is something

that has to be co-ordinated with the Department of Tourism, or even

municipalities. How it would be done I am not sure, but I think it is something

that is certainly worth looking at.

The car wrecks, I am really, really pleased to see

that legislation is finally being brought in to deal with this. This is

something that I think we have needed for some time. It is obviously a problem

in most areas of this Province. The one thing that I do wonder, I know in my own

district there is one site where a number of wrecks were assembled, brought

together, for disposal some years ago, and the wrecks were never moved. I

understand there are about 200 or 250 wrecks that are there now assembled on

this one lot, and the plan was - this was some years ago when we were really

caught up in this collect-a-wreck thing - that they would be properly disposed

of. It never happened. I had a request from some of my constituents prior to

coming in for the sitting of the House, and this was one of the matters they

raised - that it can no longer be recycled in the sense that the metal now has

no value, so that is not an option. At least this is what was told to me. I do

not know, and this is something on which you can correct me, because it has been

sitting there now for so long, nobody is interested in coming in and crushing it

and recycling the metal. So I guess the thing is, what do we do in this kind of

situation where you have these cars assembled? Obviously, I think the

legislation that was referenced here this evening will not deal with that, so

that is something that I think has to be done.

Also, I think, on the recycling generally I am

certainly pleased to hear the minister say this evening that plans are in the

development stage, that we will be seeing ourselves doing more of this, and I

recognize that she indicated, and I respect - at liberty to disclose a lot of

the details of what is being considered, but it does strike me with regard to

pop bottles in particular, and the refundables. If you travel outside of this

Province - I do not know; this is just in terms of a person visiting other

provinces of the country, and travelling down to the United States - I do not

see a lot of areas where you cannot bring back pop bottles for refunds. It still

seems to be fairly popular in most areas, and I am not really sure why we got

away from it when we did in this Province, and having gotten away from it, why

we've chosen not to go back to that again in light of what we've learned about

the damage this is doing to the environment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Cowan.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Smith, I jotted down some of the

points you were making throughout your ten minutes. I guess what you were

talking about really in the first instance, when you were talking about the

balance between environment and bringing more development into the Province, I

suppose in a sense that you're really talking about sustainable development.

That is something that we as a province are committed to, and Canada indeed is

committed to sustainable development.

I don't even know whether you can call it a balancing

act. Sometimes the word is used but that suggests that you might on some

occasions shut your eyes to some environmental thing in order to let a business

go ahead. I think through the environmental assessment process what we try to do

- and again, as I mentioned earlier, we are re-examining this to see if it is

being done properly - is that what we do is we look at a proposal that comes

before us and try to evaluate if it will have any impact on the environment, and

if it does then how we can best mitigate the impact on the environment and make

it an acceptable project to have within the Province.

So the environmental assessment process figures very

strongly in this idea of: let's make sure that development does not take place

at the cost of a resource. We have only to look at our fisheries. I think it's

an example we should all use continually to show what happens when a resource is

not dealt with -

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's

East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I'd just like to make a point of order

here. The Member for Port au Port spoke for his ten minutes and we now are

hearing the minister. It's very nice, and I understand that he's a new member

and perhaps he didn't understand the rule that was made. That the ten minutes

that was used up in asking questions, we're now getting another ten minutes

perhaps from the minister. We have a limited amount of time and this sort of

mutual backslapping and platitudes is not really - it's using up the time that

could be used otherwise.

I don't seriously object as long as we're going to

have lots of time and go on till 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and have two or three

sessions. But the Chair has indicated an interest in compacting things. I would

rather see - if a member has ten minutes to use the ten minutes in interchange

back and forth, it seems to be that this member and the response is going to be

taking up now twenty minutes unless some other ruling is made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Yes, I was

going to point out when the minister was finished that she was speaking by

leave. Because the arrangement that we had was that if the member used his ten

minutes then the minister would not have time to address, and we would go by the

order that we have here for speaking.

It is a valid point of order. In that case I would ask

the minister to clue up and I'll ask Mr. Langdon to speak.

MS. COWAN: We can move along to Mr. Langdon. I

felt that there were some questions implicit in the comments -

MR. CHAIRMAN: But his time is up.

MS. COWAN: - and - pardon?

MR. HARRIS: If there are some specific answers you

want to give to specific questions I'd be happy to continue granting leave, but

I'm not hearing any specific answers to specific questions. There were one or

two specifics that Mr. Smith raised but I'm not hearing answers to those.

MS. COWAN: Perhaps there are none so deaf as those

who do not hear.

MR. HARRIS: The car wrecks, for example, the 250

car wrecks that he mentions.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Chairman, you can rule on it and we

can move along to Oliver if you wish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that you were speaking by

leave. In view of the fact that Mr. Harris raised the question I think I will

now move on to Mr. Langdon and you'll get a chance to answer Mr. Smith's

questions later on.

Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: I'm not thinking so much about

platitudes or patting people on the back, like you say he is a new member, and

in that sense the comments were made. But I want to congratulate the minister

first of all in the way that she dealt with the Committee in answering

questions, and her officials as well.

I want to just carry the car legislation a little bit

farther. With the new car wreck legislation that is about to be brought in, will

there be adequate staff to enforce the new requirements because I think that is

very important, we pass legislation and then leave it at that, but is there

going to be adequate staff to make sure that these wrecks are collected?... I

think that would be very important. Would there be adequate staff to look after

that?

MS. COWAN: Well we are certainly expecting that

there will be. I mentioned earlier in the evening that we have increased our

environmental prosecutions from about six to fifty per year which is an increase

of more than 700 per cent. We have added two new investigators and that will

double our enforcement capacity in the Clarenville and Grand Falls areas, and we

are hoping that that will be adequate to address the workload that will come

into place as a result of the new legislation when it takes effect on the first

of September. Of course, we will have to monitor that very closely over the next

year to see if in fact those two additional people and those we have, do what we

want.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. Another question pertaining to

the Round Table on the Environment that has been in existence now for a couple

of years; they were appointed by the government and I am wondering if you could

probably comment on it's activities and any progress that they have made.

MS. COWAN: The Round Table was first appointed in

the previous minister's time in 1990, and we have extended the membership of

that committee until June of 1993 because of the work that they are now

undertaking. We have three working groups that have been set up. There is one

looking at the whole area of waste management, energy and land use, and a second

one is looking at education and public awareness and how decisions are made

within government, and there is a third group which is looking at resource

management, wilderness, wildlife, ecological reserves, protected areas, that

type of thing and those groups are made up of people who sit on the Round Table.

Also we have brought in other individuals from around the Province who have

particular expertise and interest in these areas to work with the Round Table

members in our groups like the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation and

the Manufacturers Association, municipalities, those type of groups and those

working groups are going to be submitting some final reports which - well they

should be ready and I guess they will be submitted by the end of this month or

early in June, and those will be the first steps in developing a sustainable

development strategy, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, being developed

through the direction of the Strategic Economic Plan and has been given to the

Round Table to do.

The Round Table has commissioned - which I think is

very interesting - a feasibility study through Memorial University, to look at a

State of the Environment Report for the Province, and that report has been

submitted to the Round Table and we are exploring it now, and ways of dealing

with what they have brought to our attention, and I think probably that is sort

of in a nutshell what we are doing at the moment, but we also liaise with the

National Round Table group as well, because as you know, we try to keep within

global and national objectives too.

Is there anything further that you require?

MR. LANGDON: Just one more question.

The Round Table committee and so on and getting back

to what Gerald said earlier, I think if we are going to have a real impact on

the environment, obviously, the younger the people we can impress upon the value

of the environment and the sacredness, for want of a better word, then I think

the school and the curriculum have to show that and enhance it more than it does

now, and my question to you, just for my own personal clarification: is the

Round Table dealing with say, the NTA and people in curriculum in developing

that as well?

MS. COWAN: I will have to check and see. I do not

know, but certainly there is an education

section and I would assume it would be

taking into account education and the education system. I do not know who the

representation is, whether it is from the NTA directly or just how it is being

garnered.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I wonder, Madam Minister, I will take up some of my

time to find the answer to this one. I was interested in Mr. Smith's specific

question about the pile, or area, where there are 200 car wrecks in his

constituency. Has the department any method of dealing with that, or any

solution to that problem?

MS. COWAN: We have recently had two auto wreck

recycling projects registered under the environmental assessment act, which is

going to make it much easier for us to deal with wrecked vehicles here on the

Island. Has that gone through the environmental assessment process?

MR. JEANS: The process is they are registered

under the process now. It is not anticipated that there will be a problem with

either of those, but I do not think they been run through - completed - at this

point in time.

MS. COWAN: Okay, so we do have two people who are

interested in setting up auto wreck recycling centres, and those will be very

useful.

What we plan to do is to have, in the case of the Port

au Port member, individuals can contact the department and report these kinds of

things, and arrangements can then be made for having wrecked vehicles removed to

these particular sites.

MR. HARRIS: In connection with that, because this

is something I have raised before, and I have asked you and your officials in

this committee before, and I really think there needs to be an answer to it: Why

is it all stick and no carrot? Supposing this is all very wonderful and these

two people, or two individuals or organizations, set up their recycling centres

and they put one of them in Carbonear and another one in Clarenville, and Mr.

Smith's district still has 200 wrecks out in Port au Port, if these people deem

it not feasible to ship wrecks from Port au Port for their facility, then they

are going to stay out in Port au Port.

I suggested to the minister, both in the House and I

think here, that instead of just fining people for having car wrecks that are

not being properly recycled, or gotten rid of, or not put in circulation, why do

we not have some system that offers an incentive to people to not only not throw

the wrecks in the woods, but to in fact bring them to recycling places or

official sites, such as a deposit system of some kind?

MS. COWAN: Okay. The deposit system is something

that we have thought about. It is still something that we are exploring; however

we feel that the situation in the Province is such that it required a heavy hand

in this particular case - legislation to bring the problem under control - but

that does not mean that we have just stopped thinking about the problem. We will

still try to find possibly some sort of innovative way, as they have done in

some of the european countries, to encourage people not to leave a wreck

somewhere, rather than scare them about leaving a wreck somewhere. So the

deposit system is something that we will be looking at. Whether or not we will

bring it in, I do not know, but at this point in time we have felt that the best

way to go is with this legislation.

MR. HARRIS: You say you are going to be looking at

it. Is there a specific time frame?

MS. COWAN: No there is not. We are just looking at

it, and looking at some other ways as well that we might be able to do the

carrot on the stick type of thing.

MR. HARRIS: The reason I asked for a specific time

frame is because on at least two previous occasions in this committee, and other

occasions in the House, I - and I believe the Member for Humber East has also

raised this - have asked questions about a recycling project for not just the

House of Assembly but the government buildings, such as the Confederation

Building. We have not seen it yet. Here we are, sitting on the environment

committee, and we are using non-recyclable, one time use, styrofoam cups, in the

House of Assembly for an environment meeting.

All we have accomplished so far is now we have

wastepaper baskets where before we used to throw things on the floor. The paper

that is put in these baskets is not recycled. It is removed by the garbage

removal people every couple of days, just as they did before. Instead of taking

it off the floor, now they take it out of the bins and throw it in the garbage.

We have asked on a number of occasions. We were told

six months, two years ago - we were told in a little while six months ago, and I

am asking the question again: Does your department have any time table for any

of these things, or are we just being given platitudes when we come here and ask

questions?

MS. COWAN: Alright, Mr. Chair, I will address the

member.

Last Fall, Cabinet approved a proposal that came in

from the Department of Environment and Lands and the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, and authorized the two departments to set up and

promote a wastepaper recycling program for the government buildings. So over the

Winter both my department and the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation have introduced recycling programs, and this program is gradually

being expanded to include all the departments in the Confederation Building.

Now I believe that I answered, in a question in the

House at one point previously, that we had decided to make it a function of

management to establish within each department their own method of wastepaper

recycling, but we felt that Works, Services and Transportation, and the

Department of Environment and Lands should really be the example setters in this

type of move so that if another department wanted to emulate or improve upon the

program that we are doing, they could do so.

I think we have now - the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, our department, Tourism and Development, the

Queen's Printer, are a few that come to my mind right off the bat, who are

involved in a recycling program. There is an interdepartmental committee that

has been set in place as well that is overseeing these programs and helping out

where necessary. We have blue boxes and so on in the buildings, in the

particular departments where it has begun. It is a wastepaper recycling program

that we have so far, and that is our initial goal, to get that through

Confederation Building and through our outlying offices around the Province.

Then it will be expanded to include cardboard and newspapers and that type of

thing.

Now in my own department, the Department of

Environment and Lands, we have gone a step further. We have a Green Committee

which we have established in the department, and that is a committee that is

promoting more environmentally appropriate practices regarding energy

conservation and waste reduction. We are doing projects within the department

now related to composting, and we get questionnaires continually from the Green

Committee as to if we are using recyclable materials; are we using both sides of

paper? The whole area of environmental consciousness is being raised by this

Green Committee, and we feel that committee is something that we hope other

departments will emulate.

So we have gone a considerable ways since the last

time that I spoke to you even in the House, which is just a few months ago,

about this particular issue.

MR. HARRIS: Well I have to say, maybe it is like

the car wrecks. Maybe it is time that a heavy hand is needed because we still

have this. We still have wastepaper baskets and no recycling in the House.

MS. COWAN: It is a very heavy hand when Cabinet

directs to departments to begin the process of making sure that the

Confederation Building does have a waste recycling program, and then move on to

other types of recycling and waste reduction - not just recycling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: To continue Mr. Harris' line of

questioning, I simply comment that there has been a failure of leadership. It is

ridiculous that we have been at this committee year after year after year after

year talking about the need for a provincial government-wide recycling program,

and we still do not have containers for the few materials for which Nova

Recycling is providing recycling. We still do not have containers throughout

government offices for newsprint, other paper, cardboard, aluminium cans or

bottles.

The minister said a little while ago that the Round

Table on the Economy commissioned from Memorial University a study on the state

of the environment, will the minister give us a copy of that report?

MS. COWAN: That copy is not something that is in

my possession. It belongs to the Round Table on Environment and Economy who

advise the Premier, so I would not be able to comment on its availability to the

public. It was done largely for inside information to advise the Round Table on

directions it should take in giving advice to the Premier.

Yes, John wants to comment. Mr. Fleming.

MR. FLEMING: Yes, I might comment on the nature of

the report that is being done for the Round Table. It is not a report itself on

the state of the environment of the Province but rather a feasibility study into

doing a state of the environment report for the Province. State of the

environment reports are done by several jurisdictions, most notably by the

federal government, and what they do is they lay out certain parameters, certain

measures that one can measure consistently and persistently in order to be able

to track changes in the environment over time, so what Memorial University is

looking into for the Round Table is what measures would be appropriate for this

Province and what way they might be implemented.

MS. VERGE: So we have another study calling for a

study the same way as we have the Strategic Economic Plan calling for an

assessment of environmental assessments. Has the Round Table on the Environment

completed the assessment of the assessment process, and if so, is that

assessment available to the public?

MS. COWAN: It is not the Round Table actually that

is doing the investigation into the environmental assessment process to see if

it indeed is meeting current needs in the Province for both developers and the

environment, it is being conducted outside of the Round Table altogether.

MS. VERGE: Who is doing it?

MS. COWAN: Well, it is a three level thing, our

department is involved - John would you explain?

MR. FLEMING: Yes, it is being done internally

largely, at the moment at least, and it involves our department, the Economic

Recovery Commission and to some extent some other departments as well who are

involved in the process, and the immediate focus is to look at the relationship

between business development and the environmental assessment process. It may

evolve into something broader than that.

MS. VERGE: Are all these studies and assessments

done on recyclable paper?

MS. COWAN: I would not know that. Our department

has made a move toward using both sides of the paper and using recyclable paper,

so I would certainly hope that they are being done on recyclable paper, but I

would not want to guarantee it, we could still be using up some old supplies.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Mr. Harris advocated using the

carrot as well as the stick to try to bring about positive changes in behaviour.

I would like to ask whether any consideration has been given to rewarding people

in the Province, municipalities, community organizations, businesses and others,

who show initiative in adopting positive practices, for example: in cleaning up

messes or in preventing ongoing or future damage.

In the district I represent, the municipality of

Steady Brook has been a leader. Several years ago, the Town Council of Steady

Brook specifically sponsored for the whole community a recycling program

providing appropriate containers and sorting and arranging for pick up and

delivery to Nova Recycling in Corner Brook.

Steady Brook last year started a community compost

heap, and the town council has also carried out beautification in the town,

including tree planting and shrub and flower planting. Steady Brook has set a

positive example, and I think it is appropriate that that municipality be

rewarded, perhaps through public praise or other recognition if not through

financial incentives and rewards through the municipal grants structure. Is that

type of approach being carried out now, or is it contemplated?

MS. COWAN: The first approach that you mentioned

in just giving an award to someone, a community, a group of individuals or

whatever, has been established. The Women's Institute, along with our

department, has a yearly program in which they ask people to nominate, so you

could nominate Steady Brook, and then it would go before a committee that would

see if, in comparison to other communities in the Province, this had been a step

that should be acknowledged publicly.

The environmental awards ceremony takes place sometime

over the next ten days. I am just not sure what the dates are, and I think there

are seven or eight categories.

AN HON. MEMBER: June 8th.

MS. COWAN: June 8th. it takes place. There are

seven or eight categories for recognition of outstanding efforts that are

related to the environment.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Well I am glad to hear about that

program. I had not known about it before, so I would suggest more publicity.

Thank you.

What is the explanation for the drastic difference

between what the government forecast for spending by environment and lands last

year - a total of $12.5 million - and what was actually spent - only $9.5

million?

I notice this year the budget is back to close to

where it started last year. Why was there - I have not done the percentages

exactly, but it must have been about a one-third drop?

MS. COWAN: There were some federal/provincial

monies that we were anticipating to come in that did not. I will let David Jeans

elaborate on that for you, Ms. Verge.

MR. JEANS: I thank the minister. Mr. Chair, we

participate in a federal/provincial program that is called The National

Contaminated Sites for Mediation Program, and there is in excess of $4.5

million, I think it is, for the Newfoundland part of that program. That was

anticipated being spent last year, or a couple of million of that was

anticipated being spent last year, but unfortunately getting agreement with the

federal government on the criteria for some of the sites took longer than

anticipated, so although it was budgeted for we were not able to complete the

necessary paperwork and background. We are more optimistic that that will

proceed this year.

MS. VERGE: How much did that account for in the

variation last year?

MR. JEANS: That is about half of $4.5 million, so

$2.25 million.

MS. VERGE: Another question with respect to

forests, I have heard several concerns expressed by loggers, and others who

spend time in the woods, that the harvesters which the paper companies are using

more and more are tearing up the environment. Has the Department of Environment

and Lands done an assessment of the impact on our forests, on our environment,

of harvesters, and if so, what are the findings and conclusions?

MS. COWAN: First of all, any study such as that

would come under the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. What would happen

there is that the Department of Forestry and Agriculture would have to - I am

just trying to think. Okay. What we have developed are these five-year forest

harvesting plans, and they have been developed by the Department of Environment

and Lands in conjunction with the Department of Forestry and Agriculture - the

Department of Forestry and Agriculture doing the main part of the work there,

and then coming to us for suggested improvement or whatever.

In looking at the evaluation, or the environmental

assessment of a particular woods operation, the harvesting methodology would

have to be assessed as well. So that, at this stage, would be resting with the

Department of Forestry and Agriculture.

MS. VERGE: The minister has talked about the two

departments - her department and the Department of Forestry and Agriculture -

both having a role. What are the findings of the Department of Environment and

Lands in its probe of current harvesting methods, and in particular the growing

use of harvesters?

MS. COWAN: We have not identified that as a

particular area that we have been able to put resources into studying at this

time. When we have had to prioritize our objectives and so on for each year

there have been other things that we felt had to be looked at first, but I think

certainly you make a good point that it is an area that there is increased

public concern about, particularly out of your area, and that it is something -

whether it will be a goal of our department, it may not be. It may become a goal

of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. I believe a number of individuals

and groups and so on have been making presentations to the Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture about harvesting practices in the Province. You see articles on

it constantly. It is more of a public concern and will likely become a part of

government's agenda over the next decade.

MS. VERGE: The minister talked a little while ago

about the harmful effects of raw sewage being emptied into the ocean. Would the

minister care to comment on the extent of, and the consequences of, raw sewage

being emptied into inland fresh waters - for example the raw sewage that is

emptied by the Town of Deer Lake into Deer Lake?

MS. COWAN: We probably do not know as much as we

should know about just what happens to sewage - and when I say `we' I do not

mean my department; I am talking about the collective knowledge of people in the

world on the environment - what happens to sewage when it goes in any water

source - when it goes into a fresh water lake or when it goes into oceans, but

testing that would be done in the area of Deer Lake would indicate whether or

not it was having a harmful effect on the waters. As far as I know to this date

there is not any record to show that it is having a harmful effect. Mr. Jeans,

did you...?

MR. JEANS: Mr. Chairman, just to comment a little

bit, certainly the Province, in terms of its municipal infrastructure program,

has areas that require sewage treatment and so forth. Obviously, fresh water is

a primary area to have treatment systems put in.

We have monitored, in conjunction with the Department

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Deer Lake water quality, and my

understanding is that the water quality is acceptable. There is a good dilution

zone. I am not aware of the specifics in the immediate area outfall but we are

not aware of any threat to the water quality in either the municipal park area

or - in cabins, populations around the town - the community, itself.

MS. COWAN: The whole area of waste management,

solid and liquid waste, in this case liquid waste, is something that is part of

our provincial waste strategy that we will be developing over the next few years

and that is an area which will be looked at. It is very expensive and very

costly to start treating all sewage as it should be treated. We may have to look

for ways to form partnerships and so on, with the federal government in order to

meet the challenge of how we are going to deal with a lot of sewage outfalls.

MS. VERGE: Am I understanding Mr. Jeans correctly

in interpreting his remarks to amount to an approval of the Deer Lake-Humber

River water quality with the Deer Lake sewage being emptied raw?

MR. JEANS: No, what I am saying is that there is

no indication of a serious water quality problem in Deer Lake per se, at the

present time.

MS. VERGE: You mean a problem with the town supply

of drinking water? I am talking about the lake which empties into the Humber

River.

MR. JEANS: No, I recognize that. I mean with the

lake itself, that is correct.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you. What testing has been

done?

MR. JEANS: I cannot give you specifics but I know

that there have been tests done through our branch, through our water resources

branch and also through Municipal Affairs over the last number of years because

it has been an area where there has been some concern with respect to putting

treatment in but there has not been municipal funds provided to do that at this

point.

MS. VERGE: The Town of Pasadena, at its own

initiative, not with any provincial government leadership, put in place a lagoon

for treating sewage before it is emptied into Deer Lake. The Province did

provide a loan guarantee to finance the lagoon. What is the assessment of the

Department of Environment and Lands about Pasadena's approach to treating

sewage?

MS. COWAN: You mean using a lagoon? I would have

to refer that to Mr. Jeans.

MR. JEANS: The Pasadena lagoon is, I believe, the

third one in the Province. There is one at Victoria, Conception Bay and one at

Gander as well. The Pasadena one is the most recent one and I understand that it

is working quite well. We monitor it in conjunction with Municipal Affairs and I

am not advised that there has been any problems. I think the affluent meets the

standards expected from the design.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Acid rain, what are the latest

findings on the extent of acid rain falling on Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS. COWAN: Okay, do you mean the acid rain that is

coming from outside -

MS. VERGE: Well, both originating and from

outside. For example, from Cape Breton Island or other parts of mainland Canada

as well as originating -

MS. COWAN: Not so much as what we are producing

ourselves - in that as well, okay -

MS. VERGE: - but I am interested in acid rain from

all or any sources.

MS. COWAN: Okay. Dave you can speak to that.

MR. JEANS: Well, our acid rain is 99.9 per cent

imported anyway. We do not have the industry here or the levels of emissions

that generate the degree of emissions that cause local acid rain. We have some

five sites around the Province, acid rain monitoring sites and there has been

improvement over the last number of years as sulphur dioxide levels, largely

from Central Canada and from the Eastern Seaboard, have declined. So we are not

finding any damage to our rivers and lakes as has occurred for instance, in Nova

Scotia. So, I would say there has been a general decline in acidity from acid

rain.

MS. VERGE: Good.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to get into some of the

details of the estimates now, the nitty-gritty I suppose. On page 87, under the

Minister's Office, Salaries, this year it is increased by approximately $2,000

from the Budget for 1992-93. I was under the impression that there were going to

be cuts in all MHAs' and ministers' salaries, supposed to be 4 per cent I

believe, so that should reduce that by $6,000 instead of increasing it by

$2,000. Can you explain that?

MR. FLEMING: Last year there was a vacancy factor

built in to the figure that is shown there, that is not built in to this figure,

so it is an apparent increase but it is a real decrease, if we can put it that

way.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good answer, how are you

supposed to argue that?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), the Minister of Finance

that.

MS. COWAN: Let me assure you that the reduction

has taken place in the minister's salary, I can assure you of that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am sorry, it does not show up

here. Okay, the next one, on the same page under Executive Support, salaries

again, last year it was $370,000, now it is $379,600, a 2.5 per cent increase. I

thought salaries in the government were frozen. The same reason, it is an actual

decrease it is not an increase, right?

Okay, on the next page, Administrative Support, under

Section 10, Grants and Subsidies; it has been decreased from $53,000 in the

Budget for 92-93 to $38,800, a 27 per cent cut. Can someone give me some

explanation as who will be affected by those cuts?

MS. COWAN: Which -

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 88, General Administrative,

section 1.2.02, subsection 10, Grants and Subsidies.

MS. COWAN: One of the reductions I think would be

in the reduction in the meetings of the Canadian Council on Ministers of the

Environment, so that is fewer meetings. Is that enough?

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the next one, Policy

Development and Planning, salaries again, up from $115,700 to $156,500, that is

a 26 per cent increase. Are there new employees or, what is the story on that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What page?

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 88, Policy Development and

Planning, Salaries.

MS. COWAN: Okay, your asking about the increase

there under 01, Salaries, was it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: An increase there is due to the

transfer of permanent position from 2.1.01, so -

MR. J. BYRNE: A transfer of position?

MS. COWAN: It is a transfer of position that was

never filled to environmental investigations.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the next page, page 89,

Administration, you have an 8 per cent increase in salaries there from $783,500

to $823,800, and did you not say you transferred somebody from one

section to

another just a minute ago, out of that section?

MS. COWAN: I think you are at the wrong page.

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 89.

MS. COWAN: The increase in .01 is due to the

elimination of a vacancy factor, and also the provision of an annualized funding

for new positions.

MR. J. BYRNE: So we eliminated a position -

MS. COWAN: No. We had a vacancy and we eliminated

the vacancy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, well why would the salaries go

up?

MS. COWAN: Because we are going to hire somebody

now; there won't be a vacancy any more.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is (inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes. Would you mention that please,

John?

MR. FLEMING: Yes. It is primarily due to the fact

that we had some new positions in that last year that were only funded for part

of the year, and now they're funded for the full year. That would be some of the

investigators that the minister referred to earlier.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know if this is too

nitty-gritty, but I mean, is this the place for this type of thing?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Sure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pollution Clean-up, on the same

page, 89. You have an amount to be voted on the bottom of the page there. It's a

decrease of 23 per cent. I've heard a fair bit about the spending with respect

to the clean-up of the pollution and the environment, and whatever the case may

be, yet we're spending 23 per cent less this year. What's the explanation for

that?

MS. COWAN: There are several reasons that there's

a reduction in that. One is there's been an elimination of RST in general

operating reduction in transfer to purchase services. Professional Services were

eliminated in the Budget process. That's it. Those are the two reasons for the

decrease.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm asking these questions. I

basically have to accept the answers, just to some of the things that jumped off

the page at me. On page 90, the

section on Environmental Pollution Clean-up.

Subsection .06, Purchased Services. You have $4,926,000. Any details on what

that's going to be spent on?

MS. COWAN: Dave.

MR. JEANS: That includes the contaminated sites

program that I referred to earlier that was held over from last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: In total Environmental

Investigations, in the 1992-1993 budget you had $3,011,000. You've spent

$1,224,300. In 1993-1994 we have $3,451,700. That's a 13 per cent increase from

the 1992-1993 budget but a 35 per cent increase from what was actually spent in

1992-1993. Why budget so much if you only spent a third of it last year?

MS. COWAN: Dave.

MR. JEANS: Again, that total there reflects the

money that is intended to be spent this year in the contaminated sites program.

MR. J. BYRNE: It was intended to be spent last

year but wasn't spent?

MR. JEANS: But wasn't spent because of

difficulties in concluding the agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, okay. Page 91, under Civil and

Sanitary Environmental Engineering. Salaries again. They went from... let me see

here now. Budgeted $142,900, spent $105,200, and we now have $132,500 budgeted.

That's a 20 per cent increase from what was actually spent last year. Are there

any new employees or anything involved here?

MR. JEANS: Yes, that's a new employee who was

approved for this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another one on page 92.

Administration, number .09. Allowances and Assistance. It's budgeted for

1992-1993 at $30,000, spent $15,000. We have $30,000 budgeted again this year.

Why would that be? I'm thinking along the lines now of the deficit and all the

money on cutbacks and everything like that.

MS. COWAN: Go ahead, Dave.

MR. JEANS: I believe that's the one for the

bursary program. Yes, for bursary program for graduate engineering students to

take a Master's and get their Master's in water resources. An agreement that

they then work for the department for a period of time. We only had one employee

even though we budgeted for two.

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 95, under Environmental

Assessment, 2.5.02, salaries again. We had budgeted $277,000 in 1992-1993, spent

$307,600. We spent more than what was budgeted. Yet for 1993-1994 we budgeted

$248,500, which is less than what was budgeted for last year. We spent more

(inaudible) in the budget for last year. Are we looking at layoffs this year in

that department or section? It's kind of contradictory to me.

MR. FLEMING: That is caused by the fact that we

took on extra employees in environmental assessment to look after the volume of

registrations that we were getting. It also reflects the fact that we took on

some staff to do research related to the review of environmental assessment that

the minister referred to earlier.

MR. J. BYRNE: That was temporary staff for

1992-93, was it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can ask that question and then

your time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am sorry. Was that temporary

staff you are referring to now?

MR. FLEMING: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: So they are let go and back to -

okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Young.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you. I am just wondering how many

orphan sites there are in this Province at this given time?

MR. JEANS: We have, I believe it is five on the

list at the present time.

MS. YOUNG: When do you expect to have these sites

cleaned up?

MR. JEANS: Well the program is scheduled to end

now in 1995. It was meant to be a five year program. In the first year, no

provinces virtually got going on it. So, there is still hope that it will be

extended beyond perhaps another year but as it presently stands it is 1995.

MS. YOUNG: Under Surface Water, the figure of

$417,000 -

MS. COWAN: Could you tell me the page?

MS. YOUNG: Oh, I am sorry. I was just making notes

for myself. I will have to go back -

MS. COWAN: Ninety-two is it?

MS. YOUNG: Ninety-two, yes. Under Surface Water,

the figure of $417,200 for Professional Services, I am