April 28, 1998

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Gerald Smith,

M.H.A., Port au Port, substitutes for Wally Andersen, M.H.A., Torngat Mountains;

James Walsh, M.H.A., Conception Bay East & Bell Island, substitutes for Mary

Hodder, M.H.A., Burin - Placentia West; Rick Woodford, M.H.A., Humber Valley,

substitutes for Gerald Reid, M.H.A., Twillingate & Fogo.

The Committee met in room 5083 of the Confederation

Building at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

It being the appointed time, perhaps we could

convene this meeting of the Social Services Committee. The first order of

business, I understand, is to elect a new Vice-Chair. Could we have a nomination

for the Vice-Chair?

MR. H. HODDER: I would nominate Loyola

Sullivan, the Member for Ferryland.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the Vice-Chair

being Loyola Sullivan?

WITNESS: I have a question. Do we have a letter

where he is willing to accept the position?

CHAIR: We are trying to move things along. We

understand he is prepared to accept the nomination. Do we have a seconder for

the motion?

MR. WHELAN: I will second it.

CHAIR: Thank you, Don.

All those in favour, `aye'.

WITNESSES: Aye.

CHAIR: Loyola is duly declared elected to be

the Vice-Chair of the Social Services Committee.

Just for a few seconds, look at the procedures

which we will follow with respect to the Social Services Committee and these

hearings this evening. At the beginning we will ask the minister to make some

introductory comments. He can speak for as long as he wishes, as long as he

keeps it within fifteen minutes. So we will have our minister make his

presentation to the Committee. We will follow that by having each of the

Committee members ask questions in their turn. What we will try to do, if there

is a large number of questions, is limit the questions to about ten minutes

each, go around, and eventually we will exhaust all the questions, we would

hope.

This evening the Opposition critic for the

Department of Environment and Labour, Mr. Bob French, has asked to participate

in the hearing, and within the rules of the Committee and the rules of the House

that is quite acceptable. Mr. French, however, will have no voting capacity; but

being a member of the House he is quite at liberty to ask questions as he may

see fit. I understand as well, Robert, that you wish to leave at an early time.

Would the Committee be in agreement to allow Robert to ask his questions at the

outset?

WITNESS: No problem.

CHAIR: Okay, very well.

WITNESS: As long as he takes his time from

Harvey it is okay.

MR. FRENCH: After what he did supper time

(inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: You are never getting into my

Cabinet.

CHAIR: Before we start, we will just introduce

the members of the Committee starting at my far left.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, MHA for Port au Port.

MR. WOODFORD: Rick Woodford, MHA for Humber

Valley.

MR. WALSH: Jim Walsh, MHA for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island.

MR. MERCER: Bob Mercer, MHA for Humber East and

Chair of the Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: Loyola Sullivan, MHA for

Ferryland and Vice-Chair.

MR. FRENCH: Bob French, critic for the

Department of Environment and Labour, and MHA for Conception Bay South.

MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, MHA for St.

John's West and critic for Human Resources and Employment.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, MHA for Waterford

Valley.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, MHA for Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly.

With that we would ask the minister to make his

opening statement. We would ask that each time the officials and members of the

Committee speak, they identify themselves so the gentleman from Hansard can

maintain proper records. Minister.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is unusual, I think, for me to be here. I have

been on the Estimates Committee, and (inaudible). It is my first time being on

the hot seat, so I am hoping there is not a lot of (inaudible). I am looking

forward to it, with the people here. I will introduce the staff first: Leslie

Grattan, Deputy Minister; Rick Hayward, Director of Finance and General

Operations; Ann Marie Hann, Assistant Deputy Minister on the Environment side;

and Joseph O'Neill, Assistant Deputy Minister on the Labour side of the

department.

I do not have to go into a lot of detail about the

department, and I am not going to do that. I will leave the time for you people

to ask questions of us, and we will do our best to respond and answer them for

you.

The Department of Environment and Labour - there

are actually, I guess, four parts, two for which we are responsible. We have

Labour and Environment, the Occupational Health and Safety, and the other part

of it is the Workers' Compensation Commission. We are now in the process of

working with the statutory review that was done in 1995 and (inaudible). Very

shortly, I guess, we will be recommending it to Cabinet (inaudible) done with

that report. I think at the end of the day it is a situation where we would have

to balance off the employers, I guess, which is with the fiscal prudence but by

the same means put a human face on the side of the injured worker. We believe

that in our analysis we have tried very hard to do that and I think we will

probably have some success at the end.

The department also, last fall, under Joe O'Neill,

as many of you know, did the task force on the crab fishery, and did a

tremendous job, he and David Vardy, along with David Jones. Because of the

report, this spring there has been an agreement with the crab prices. Then

because, I guess - Morgan Cooper was the arbitrator, I think, who finally

decided the price in the first instance - the employer and the employee decided

on their own and came to an agreement on the shrimp. We are hoping, over the

next little while, they can come to some agreement with the cod and caplin and

so on.

It has been a very worthwhile exercise, and later

on Jill might be able to give you more detail on it. It has been very innovative

and we are looking forward next year as well to a pilot project for the price of

cod in the 3Ps area.

In addition to that, there has been key

environmental assistance to the Voisey's Bay that has been front and centre with

the department. Along with that, of course, now the department is involved

integrally with the negotiations of trying to put a package in place for the

Lower Churchill. My Deputy, Leslie, has really been playing a major

part in that

from the environment point of view. I am sure we will continue to do so as it

goes through.

Also from the Occupational Health and Safety side,

with Joe O'Neill, some time ago we decided that we were to hire a number of

personnel into the department and we will get into that a little later on as

well.

Basically, as I said, it is one of the smallest

departments of government but in a sense it touches many of the peoples' lives

in the Province through the environment and through labour, through the

Occupational Health and Safety, and through the Workers' Commission. There are a

number of broad areas there.

Rather than me going on and giving you a litany of

things that happen, I am pleased to appear here and hopefully be able to satisfy

you people with the estimates at the end of the night.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Before we proceed, just a bit of clarification. How

does the Committee wish to proceed with their discussion? We have in the past

called the first head and then allowed discussion and debate to range freely

throughout the Budget. There have been other occasions when we have called each

head separately and entertained only questions relevant to that. Any preference?

WITNESS: Personally, Mr. Chairman, I think it

makes more sense, since we do not have a lot here, just leave it open rather

than go through item by item. When someone gets a question, they can reference

whatever area.

CHAIR: Is there concurrence on that?

MR. H. HODDER: I agree with the hon. member.

CHAIR: I would ask the Clerk to call the first

head.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): 1.1.01.

MR. SULLIVAN: Basically, Mr. Chairman, I could

certainly defer mine to the critic there. Bob, you are leaving in half an hour?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I certainly do not mind doing

that on any particular questions. Then, if there are questions I have that are

not answered that I want to ask, I will just pick up in order whenever the

opportunity arises afterwards.

CHAIR: Robert.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank

you and your Committee for letting me do this tonight. I realize I could sit in

as a member, but thank you very much for the opportunity as the critic to be

here to ask the minister some questions.

I would like to start out with the heading 1.1.01,

the Minister's Office. Probably on the salary end of it, Minister, maybe I

should go to your finance people.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, by all means.

MR. FRENCH: In Salaries in the 1997-1998

Budget, the amount is $45,800 more than the Estimates were in 1997. Where in the

Budget heading and

section did the extra appropriation come from?

MR. HAYWARD: You are comparing the 1997-1998

Budget figures to the 1996-1997 Budget, is that -

MR. FRENCH: No.

MS S. OSBORNE: That was the 1997-1998 Budget

compared to the revised, I think, is it?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. LANGDON: Is it $261,000 versus $292,000, is

that where -

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: Okay, there was an extra

appropriation for the minister's travel there.

MR. LANGDON: I can explain, I think, that part

of it there, Bob. There is an extra $14,000 I think in travel; but what happened

was, in 1997 it was Newfoundland's turn for the minister to be the Chair, if you

wish, or the President for the Environment Ministers of Canada, and it meant a

number of sub-meetings that I had to take in, being President of the Environment

Ministers. That is what accounted for the extra increase that you would see

there in travel. It only happens, I think, once in ten years?

WITNESS: Less than that.

MR. LANGDON: The two territories are included

as well. It was our turn last year and this year it is the NorthWest

Territories. Next year I am not sure where it would be. That is what made the

difference between the $55,900 and $69,000 that was actually spent.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the reference I took it

to be - in the Estimates last year it is my understanding that $154,600 was

estimated a year ago. I believe Bob is making reference to over a year ago when

it was $154,600 and now it has climbed to over $200,000. That is $45,000

difference.

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That was my understanding, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. HAYWARD: Okay, that is basically a

restatement from Executive Support to the Minister's Office of the Director of

Communications being moved from Executive Support to the Minister's Office.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are all assigned to

departments. Each one now is assigned to each department.

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: They are moved from the Executive

Support area to the Minister's Office to reflect that change in policy.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, and that is listed

here in the separate Departmental Salary Details.

MR. FRENCH: Okay. It is a very minute thing,

but as well the 1997-1998 Budget for Salaries was exceeded by roughly $3,000.

Was that an increase in somebody's salary?

MR. HAYWARD : Basically it was two car

allowances because of two ministers.

MR. FRENCH: Salaries in the Minister's Office

will increase by $8,400, up from $203,000 to $211,800. The reason?

MR. HAYWARD: That will be the 2 per cent. That

will be the raise included there, and the twenty-seventh payday. In this

particular year you will notice all the way through the Estimates that there is

a twenty-seventh payday, and that reflects into a certain percentage that is

added on every x number of years. So it is a twenty-seventh pay period, and the

raise is included there.

WITNESS: So there are twenty-seven pay days in

the public service this year rather than twenty-six?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, and that will be reflected

all the way through in every salary account.

MR. FRENCH: Okay. How many salaries and

positions were paid out, or will be paid out, I am sorry, in the 1998

appropriation, in the $211,800? If the answer is not readily available you can

certainly supply it to me in writing if you do not have it.

MR. HAYWARD: That will be five positions:

minister; executive assistant; special assistant, communications; a departmental

secretary; and a secretary to the minister. That is in the Salary Details.

MR. FRENCH: In 1.1.01.03, I guess,

Transportation and Communications, there seems to have been $15,000 more spent

than recorded in the Estimates for 1997.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. FRENCH: Is that the one that the minister

had answered on the -

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, that was the first one

answered.

MR. FRENCH: As well, in 1997/1998 the travel

budget was $13,100. Again, was that because of that conference that the minister

talked about, where there was extra travel involved there?

WITNESS: What number are you looking at,

1.2.01.03?

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: The difference there, I guess,

would be as the

minister said. Also the Budget there, I think,

historically has been a little under. We have been trying to correct it over

time but there is still a deficit there and we did not want to increase the

1998-1999 request. There were also some new executives there as well.

MR LANGDON: Yes. I think also, Bob, because the

minister here was the president it meant that the deputy was heading up all the

deputy ministers from across the country. She has been to a number of meetings

other than those I have attended, and a fair number, so that may have some

(inaudible) as well. If you want to react to that, you may.

MS GRATTAN: In addition to chairing the

Canadian Council for Ministers of Environment, this also meant that Minister

Langdon co-chaired the joint ministers meetings, which is a joint meeting of the

Ministers of Energy and the Ministers of Environment. With the new focus on

greenhouse gases and climate changes, there has been an increase in the number

of meetings both at the ministerial level and the deputy level.

In addition, we were supposed to be relieved of or

relinquished, depending on the point of view; we were supposed to finish our

term as Chair and President of CCME in November, but due to a number of requests

from the federal government we actually ended up continuing to chair both those

groups until the end of January. Again, that was all additional travel we had to

do.

MR. FRENCH: Okay.

Heading 1.2.01, Executive Support, under 01,

Salaries, the budgeted amount was $45,800 less than recorded in the Estimates.

Why would that have been? Would that have been a position we did not fill or -

MR. HAYWARD: You are comparing which numbers?

MR. FRENCH: Heading 1.2.01, Executive Support,

and then 01, Salaries.

MR. HAYWARD: The 1997-1998 budget of $330,300

went to $346,500. Again, that reflects the twenty-seventh pay period and raises

less the public relations position, moving to the top, to the Minister's Office.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, just let me check this for a

second if you don't mind. I will probably be able to follow you better or you

will be able to follow me, one or the other. I am just not following it

correctly, that's all.

The Salaries in the 1997 Budget were exceeded by

$22,300; from $330,300 up to $352,600. Why?

MR. HAYWARD: Basically that could be accounted

for in any number of ways: job classifications, people leaving, the

reclassification issue might be out of that, normal steps from the year before,

hiring some temporary help, I think, in public relations during peak periods for

the conferences, and those kinds of things.

The department as well, Mr. French, has the ability

to transfer around salary dollars in its entire envelope. You will see it as you

go along through that salary expenditures in other areas were down compared to

budget and the department has to have the ability to prioritize its salaries

expenditures in that way as long as they come in under budget.

MR. FRENCH: Okay, thank you.

Transportation and Communications, 03.

WITNESS: 1.2.01.03?

MR. HAYWARD: We just went through that one.

MR. FRENCH: Heading 1.2.02, Administrative

Support. Salaries went down by some 40 per cent from $151,200. How positions

were eliminated, and what positions were they?

MR. HAYWARD: The $151,200 represented a

budgetary estimate for the financial administration, human resources and

Information Technology areas.

During the last couple of years we have been going

through reorganization of the administrative arrangements for the government

departments and consolidated the financial resources and Information Technology

areas.

In the salary details you will see there are only a

couple of positions budgeted here, but the $90,700 was what was required in the

Department of Environment and Labour to basically support the Information

Technology joint services of the three departments: the Department of Industry,

Trade and Technology, the Department of Environment and Labour, and the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Again, that money was used in the entire salary

account of the department to deal with shortfalls in other areas like pollution

prevention and water resources, et cetera. I guess there was some temporary help

hired here as well. That is why we did not spend what we needed in the Budget,

because of the amalgamation of the services and the fact that we did not need

all that money.

MR. FRENCH: The $172,000 in the past fiscal

year that was spent in travel -

MR. HAYWARD: No, that covers more than travel.

That covers our travel, our postage, and our departmental telephones. It covers

three areas.

The reason it is down from $212,000 to $172,000,

for the most part, our postage was down from budget. That would be the

explanation of the $212,000 from $172,000. That could be accounted for in some

mail-outs, less mailings in general, et cetera. I have not done a detailed

analysis of the postage budget but the postage was down on a line item.

That covers more than just travel. It has three

components.

MR. FRENCH: I guess in the next fiscal year

that amount will be actually covered off the same way?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, other areas in the department

might have needed money, whatever, so we transfer it around.

MR. FRENCH: Of course I might not be here next

year in this same position, but might I suggest that maybe at another time if we

could see it probably broken down, what the exact amount was for travel. Because

when you look at it you are almost saying that all of that was travel when in

actual fact it really was not travel. Someone looking at that would assume that

it was all travel and it is not. It does not really give us a fair picture.

MR. HAYWARD: There are four components to that.

The travelling budget was $10,300. That was for all the human resource

administration, Information Technology people who deal with the regional

offices. That could deal with grievances, (inaudible). Telephones for the entire

department was $93,600, and postage was $104,000. Then there is travel for

relocation, $4,000, (inaudible) $212,000.

There are a number of components. I guess the

government has decided to frame its Estimates this way in every account; like

Purchased Services has printing services, office rentals, et cetera. Behind

every number here there are usually three or four categories of expenditures.

That would be a policy issue of how much detail the government wants to show in

these Estimates.

MR. FRENCH: Under 07, Property, Furnishings and

Equipment.

MR. HAYWARD: That was the purchase of a vehicle

to deal with some of the old vehicles in our fleet, and it was a re-profiling of

some of the money in postage and in other areas. It was a deliberate effort on

behalf of the minister and the deputy to make some of our vehicles a little more

trustworthy in the remote locations that we visit.

MR. FRENCH: So the $34,700 would have bought -

MR. HAYWARD: One to two, depending on if it was

a truck or a car.

MR. FRENCH: On Grants and Subsidies - this is

10 - you went over by $10,000. Why would that have been?

MR. HAYWARD: The major component of that would

be our grant to the Canadian Ministers of -

WITNESS: CCME? Canadian Ministers of

Environment?

MR. HAYWARD: CCME, Canadian Ministers of

Environment. The remainder, $10,000, were miscellaneous grants that the minister

provided to various worthwhile causes during the year to deal with the

environmental issues. Obviously the amount was not that great but there were

some causes that came in that the ministers felt they should sponsor.

Again he has the authority, with Treasury Board

approval, to move money into grants (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will end on this one. There was

$48,000 given out in subsidies. What kind of subsidies would this have been, and

what type of people would have received them?

MR. HAYWARD: The major portion, around $38,000

of the money, is our contribution to the Canadian Council of Ministers of

Environment, and that is per capita prorated grant to keep that organization

going. Maybe Ms. Grattan would like to speak more to that, Mr. French.

MS GRATTAN: I would be please to.

The CCME, the Canadian Council for Ministers of

Environment, there is a funding formula in place that roughly - there is a small

secretariat which has been down-sized greatly in the last few years, as I

understand. It is based in Winnipeg, and all jurisdictions provide the funding

for the secretariat. The federal government puts in a third of cost and then the

rest of the Provinces divvy it up according to population.

So in fact we, with our relatively small amount,

get an enormous research effort for those dollars. Because that not only funds

the Canadian Council for Ministers of Environment in the various pieces of

research that they do, developing Canada-wide standards on air quality and

things like that, but also it helps to fund the national air issues coordinating

committee and their research. Again, that touches on things like smog and acid

rain and now moving into more climate change issues.

Another group that we did give a grant to, for

example, is - as we all remember, last year was Cabot and there were a lot

conferences here. There is a major waste management conference, a national one,

that we, for example, put $5,000 towards. We also put some money towards the

Newfoundland and Labrador environmental network. Those are just some examples

that I can think of.

MR. FRENCH: I would not want to leave the

impression that I was against some of these things that we do because, in actual

fact, sometimes where we spend $5,000 on a conference we might very well make

back ten times or twenty times that. I would not want to leave the impression

that I am against those things. In fact I am probably all in favour of them,

coming from a sporting background. It is a little bit of a different issue, but

in reality sometimes we can invest money to certainly put a heck of a lot more

money into our economy. I would certainly have no objection to that, Mr.

Chairman, and on that note I will end and let somebody else take over.

Thank you, very much.

WITNESS: Okay, Sir, thank you.

CHAIR: We will revert to Gerald Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of general questions. First of all,

just looking through the salary details, primarily of interest would be the

positions that are maintained within the department. Minister, I wonder if you

could just relate, looking under Pollution Prevention, page 74, some of the

specialists you have on staff in your department, I am curious as to what role -

we are talking pollution prevention - your department plays.

Just recently we have heard the Minister of

Forestry announce this year his department will be going to a spray program. How

closely does your department coordinate (inaudible) spray program being

undertaken by the Department of Forestry? What involvement would your people

have with that?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible) for specifics I will

let Ann Marie deal with it because she is more familiar with it day to day than

myself.

Obviously one of the first things, if the

Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods this year wanted to do a spray

program for Dylox, which is a mild chemical, for example, we ask them first of

all to register with the Department of Environment and Labour. They did that. So

we work very, very closely with them. In fact, one of the people on our staff,

Richard Martin, who is a specialist in insecticides and probably one of the best

in his field in all of Canada, works very closely with the Department of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods in that. So yes, we do. I guess it is like a hand in a

glove. For the details of it, I will let Ann Marie fill in some more details for

you.

MS HANN: Basically, as the minister has

indicated, the program is now going through an environmental assessment process.

Hopefully, when that project clears that process then basically the Department

of Forest Resources and Agrifoods will submit an application for a pesticide

licence. On that basis then we will define them more specifically: the spray

program components, the buffer zones that would be tolerated, the requirement

for further community consultations, the specifics of the actual spray program,

the timing, the scheduling, the public notices and that type of thing. It is all

MR. SMITH: One of the things that I get from

time to time - and I am sure most MHAs are the same - is a number of calls from

constituents who are concerned when they see what they consider to be

environmental issues. They call me and say: Well, what can we do about this?

I get a lot of complaints from people who say that

the laws are not being enforced - this is the way that they put it to me - that

they see blatant violations: various disposing of waste inappropriately,

(inaudible) inappropriate places. For example, one of the things in my area that

I have dealt with is people going out and just starting excavating in any old

place at all, whether for topsoil or whatever, and as a result are leaving

eyesores behind or whatever.

In terms of the enforcement end of it, how many

people are we prosecuting? This past year, how many people in this Province

would have been prosecuted for violations under the environmental regulations?

MS GRATTAN: If I could go first, I don't have a

number but I just want to make the point that a lot of things that people feel

the environment department is responsible for, inspecting and (inaudible), in

fact, since the establishment of the Government Services Centre it is in fact

their responsibility. Probably the easiest example to come up with is oil

spills. If people find an oil spill or hear of one they still call the

Department of Environment and Labour, but in fact that very specifically - our

agents in that are the Government Services Centre. We certainly can get that

information, and it would be interesting to have, but it would be a combination

of work and efforts by our own department as well as Government Services.

MR. SMITH: I guess my question, the crux to

what I am asking, is that - one of the charges that I get is that we don't have

the resources; that you, Minister, nor anybody in your department, has the

resources on a regional basis to adequately deal with it.

Apart from my own experience - as a matter of fact,

I dealt with Ann Marie last week on another issue. I have always found officials

in your department very cooperative, and in the western region they are very

supportive, and I have always gotten a quick response. People have gotten back

to me and are very helpful.

The issue that I had on the weekend, Ann Marie did

arrange for one of the officials to come out to the district with me and attend

a meeting. I am just wondering in terms of that part of it, the information

side, whenever there has been a violation or a perceived violation, our ability

to react and to take whatever action is necessary. I have had a number of issues

in my area and I recognize that sometimes it is not clear-cut; it may be

operating over several departments.

One of the things that I mentioned, for example,

the operations of these quarries, gravel pits or whatever, they are a real

nuisance. People going in and decide: Well, I need a few loads of topsoil.

Without any permits or whatever, they are just

going in. People assume it is on their own property and they can go in and do

what they like with it, even though it is creating an eyesore.

In my own district right now there are at least

four such operations that have operated within the last eighteen months off and

on. People have called me and I have directed them to contact environment, just

place a phone call. I assume, when they make the initial phone call, if they do

not have the right person, they certainly will be directed on as to whom they

should contact.

Do we have the capability right now to enforce the

regulations as they exist? Do we have the people in the field who can really go

out there and follow up on the complaints they are receiving? I know in my own

district we still have people who are going out, and not just ordinary citizens,

they are commercial enterprises. Somebody will get a contract to go in and do a

cleanup in a certain area. I will get a call from someone saying: You know where

they dumped that material when they cleaned up? It is down on the beach.

On the education side of it we still have not

convinced the people in this Province that the environment is a concern to all

of us. Coming from an educational background, one of the things that always

struck me, in the school system over the last ten years or fifteen year there

has been a great emphasis on ecology and the environment and anything else. It

never fails to strike me; every time I drive from home to Stephenville, which is

about thirty miles, I do not think I have ever made the trip without seeing

Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes - no disrespect, Jim -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: It really strikes me in a broader

sense, like in terms of the enforcement end of it. It seems to be an area...

Education is great. It is alright to say we will educate people. If we were

living in an ideal world it would be nice if everybody respected the environment

and none of these things happened. The reality is that it is happening and we do

have incidents where people are not behaving as they should and not observing

the laws as they presently exist on the books.

It is just a general observation. I don't know; I

cannot say it is widespread. I know in my own district... Maybe it is a good

sign. Maybe people are starting to realize that it is a concern, but it bothers

me if I go down to a beautiful area on the beach where I grew up and a

contractor has gone in there a week before - I get a call and go down - and has

excavated a

section of the bank about the size of this room for topsail. No

permits, nothing at all, just gone in and carried away truckload after truckload

of soil. Of course, once it is gone the damage is done and they have created

this monstrous eyesore in what was a very pristine area.

MS GRATTAN: To follow up the bad example of

essential illegal quarries and quarrying, that would effectively come under

Mines and Energy but with a role again played by Government Services.

We keep hearing similar concerns like: Who do we

take our complaint to? Hopefully, as you say, people are directed to the right

place. If it comes to environment, certainly our guys obviously know what is

still their responsibility, and we will try and respond. They also know where to

send people, but it would seem that it's not clear enough.

I would say that I know on the West Coast - Ann

Marie jump in - we feel comfortable with the staffing levels on the West Coast

and here. One area (inaudible) people have just huge expanses of geography to

cover to get from one problem area, or one area where they have a piece of work

to do, is in Central, where we have a very small group operating out of Grand

Falls.

MR. SMITH: Just one other question with regards

to that. In terms of the penalties presently, as prescribed under the

legislation, how severe are the penalties for anybody who breaks the law as it

pertains to abuse of the environment?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS HANN: There is a maximum penalty, if I

recall, (inaudible) for example for a pollution violation is $25,000.

MR. SMITH: Would that apply to an individual or

are we talking like to a company?

MS HANN: No, that would be for businesses,

corporations. Off the top of my head I don't know what the individuals are. I

think it is almost (inaudible).

MS GRATTAN: If I may just add, one of the

pieces of work we are doing right now is to modernize the environmental

protection act. One of the aspects of it will be to increase the capability of

environmental officers in the field to actually act in the field. Also, we are

looking at a variety of measures, even things like issuing tickets and

administrative penalties.

An example is people who have large fuel tanks. As

part of their license they have to send in records. They are called dipping

levels. They have to send those records in, say, on a monthly basis. An

administrative penalty would be if they don't or if they are late then they will

be penalized some sort of dollar level. That will gradually escalate as the

seriousness of the offence increases. That piece of legislation is something we

are working on and hope to have to the House this fall.

MR. LANGDON: The other thing too, Gerald, the

piece of legislation that we are talking about, the newest environmental

assessment act, what we will be hoping in the legislation is that the people who

work in forestry, when they see something that is blatant in the environment

then they will be able to help us. Like people from Kevin's department, the

wildlife officers who have been integrated into environment protection officers.

So this is where in a sense cross-sectioning of government - they will be able

to enforce legislation.

Because like you said, all the education in the

world out there, at the end of the day somebody is going to do something in the

environment that isn't (inaudible). So if our people go down and see a

contractor, for example, (inaudible), we should be able to ticket this right on

the spot. Up to now we have not been able to do that. Probably the enforcement

has not been up to standard, but we are addressing that, hopefully to rectify

it.

MR. SMITH: I think that is a good move,

Minister, (inaudible) share responsibility (inaudible) wildlife.

Just one other question, Mr. Chairman, and that

specifically relates to item 4.2.01, the Assistance To St. Lawrence Miners'

Dependents. Can you tell me a little about that? Page 108, 4.2.01.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, that's an allowance of

$66,000 that is provided to supplement the benefits that pre-1982 widows of St.

Lawrence Miners have been receiving over the years. There was a study done a

number of years ago where some of the widows were determined to be in really

difficult financial situations so this money was allocated to supplement their

income.

MR. SMITH: How long has this been in place now?

MR. HAYWARD: I would say at least five or six

years, maybe even longer.

MR. SMITH: How many people (inaudible)?

MR. HAYWARD: A small few. I couldn't give you

an exact number, but it came as a result of an identification of certain widows

in St. Lawrence who were really in difficult financial situations.

MR. SMITH: I wasn't aware of this, that is why

I raised the question. I'm not just asking questions for my own information.

When the decision was made to initiate this, was this a recognition on the part

of the government of the day that they had to accept some responsibility for the

fact that there had not been sufficient monitoring done with regards to the

fluorspar operation in St. Lawrence out there?

MR. HAYWARD: As I recall it, and I'm thinking

now, it was probably back in the late 1980s that in fact it was one of two

mediators in the department who did the study, or was asked to go to St.

Lawrence and interview the widows down there. Because there were some concerns

that some of the widows were in difficult financial situations for any number of

reasons. This was, of course, in addition to the workers' compensation premiums

they had already been receiving. As a result of some representation being made

at the time, the individual from the department went to St. Lawrence,

interviewed the widows there, and as a result of that they decided to supplement

the income of those people who were felt to be in very difficult financial

situations. That is an amount that just keeps flowing over year after year, the

$66,000.

MR. SMITH: I'm certainly not questioning that

it's not a (inaudible), or something we shouldn't be doing. It is just knowing

somewhat generally about the history of the area, and the fact that that

operation there certainly took a tremendous toll (inaudible) life of the

operation of the mine. How long has that mine been closed? (Inaudible) used, is

it?

MR. HAYWARD: The last I can recall of the

aluminium mine in St. Lawrence being a major issue is in the mid-1970s. I know

there was a major strike down there in 1975, and shortly after that there was a

movement to shut the mine down. It's been shut for quite a number of years. Of

course, it has been reopened again, you know, under - I think Lynn Verge

reopened it at one point. Then there was a further attempt to re-open it again.

The Alcan mine, as it used to be, in 1975 was the big strike, so it was shortly

after that. Probably 1977.

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerald. Loyola? Then we will

go to Rick.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Just to follow up first

there on what Gerald mentioned. For instance, I guess an incident that this year

probably highlights something Gerald mentioned in the La Manche area. I know the

Department of Mines and Energy issued a permit for someone to quarry there, and

I think the Department of Environment and Labour laid down certain conditions

which the person had to comply with. I know at the time I raised it and

complained. I think the Department of Mines and Energy had someone up there and

found them violating the terms of the permit, and automatically I think

terminated the permit and the person had to get out of there. The site is not

pretty, really, at all.

I'm just wondering what role your department would

play in insuring that the appropriate restoration occurs, because it is

certainly an environmental problem. I know the resources to do that... they

aren't all the responsibility of the individual who went in there, of course,

because it probably I think had been building for some time. Certainly, there is

a certain amount of responsibility by the person who violated that, there is no

doubt there. It's being used by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. Others had stopped using it some time ago. It's been extended

and it's in a state now that has to be put back.

I have spoken with people within the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation too to see what could be done. Probably what

could be done is a few dollars to piecemeal it and put it back, do a little bit

as time goes on. There has to be something more significant there and I think a

role that somebody has to play, if not the Department of Environment and Labour,

insuring that gets done as expeditiously as possible. I'm just wondering what

role the Department of Environment and Labour would play in following up to

insure that it is restored to the condition it was in prior to work being done

there.

MR. LANGDON: I will comment first and then I

will let Ann Marie talk about what (inaudible), the new environmental assistant

act is going to do to try to rectify some of that.

I would think, Loyola, that up to now, whoever has

a permit in a sense to operate a gravel pit - like it was in the La Manche area

in your situation - that at the time that the person was given the permit to do

the work, I'm not sure if any money for restoration of that particular piece of

land was built in to a part of giving him that work. I stand to be corrected on

that, but I don't think it has been the practice in the past to do it.

We started in that process - we didn't get a chance

to operate it, of course - in Voisey's Bay. We were going to do that temporary

air strip and the four kilometres of road to go to the eastern depth. We had

stipulated that the company put up a $1 million dollar bond to restore that

particular piece of land if the project didn't go ahead. Obviously, it didn't go

ahead because the courts deemed it otherwise.

Under the new environmental legislation that we

plan to introduce - we hope to get it done in the spring, I do not know if we

will or not - that will be a part of the program we will introduce at the

beginning, right, that part of the restoration. You can go ahead and go in

detail what you are familiar with. She gave a presentation to our group today,

so we might be able to do it for your caucus as well. Go ahead.

MS HANN: If I may, Mr. Sullivan, I'm not

personally familiar with the situation which you are talking about, but I guess

potentially, that situation or others, there are two scenarios that we could be

talking about. If it is one that the approach had proceeded based on an approval

granted by the Department of Mines and Energy then the onus would be primarily

permitting.

In terms of the direct role that we would play, I

would assume that basically we would try and work with the Department of Mines

and Energy to encourage them to try and clean up that site. If in fact we as the

Department of Environment and Labour have also issued approvals - should be for

some streams or a river in the vicinity of that project - then we would have a

lever to go in there. Primarily, we would be relying and trying to work with the

Department of Mines and Energy in the first instance to be sure they follow

through on their piece of legislation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because basically here,

there is a stream pretty close, right alongside there in La Manche Valley, and

siltage and problems. I think some of villains in this case too probably have

been government departments, in the sense that it's been used by the Department

of Works, Services and Transportation for years, and then different contractors

went in there. This individual went in because he was supplying sand to the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation - it could be provided cheaper

because it was the closest site -, so to go in under restrictive conditions to

allow him to achieve an end that would be cheaper for the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, I think they have to bear a certain responsibility.

When it is convenient for government sometimes,

from one department, sometimes conditions might get stretched, or limitations

imposed, that might allow something to happen that might not ordinarily get done

if it is a private contractor out there.

I think there are certain responsibilities here. I

think the department should be very proactive in insuring that there is

appropriate monitoring and appropriate follow-up to insure that somebody has to

do the work. Whether it is the Department of Mines and Energy which didn't

monitor it or whether it is the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

which utilized it, I think the Department of Environment and Labour has a role

on the environment, the stream there and so on. There is fish in that stream.

It's a pretty area just right across the road from La Manche Park, actually, and

the boundary. I just want to comment there.

I have a couple of more technical things, and then

I will just pass on to someone else. Earlier there in 1.2.02, under

Administrative Support, I know Bob had asked about the change in the budget from

last year under Salaries, from $151,200 down to $90,700. I know the salary

departmental details there show two positions, and it is down to two. Why then

would it be back up again if there was some re-organizing restructuring? It did

go from $151,200 in the budget last year, ended up at $90,700. That is on page

104 in the Estimates. Why would it be back up again if it's restructured?

MR. HAYWARD: There are only two permanent

positions in that category, as you have identified, (inaudible) $90,700.

MR. SULLIVAN: That adds up to $90,700.

MR. HAYWARD: There is a need, and I think what

I was trying to say to Mr. French was that we were dealing with the

administrative and the organization in three departments: Environment and

Labour, Industry, Trades and Technology, and Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

All had little pockets of money before, and they have little pockets of money

left after.

One of the areas where I think the deputy had some

concerns was in the Information Technology area. I think there is a certain

level of service that is acceptable. During the Budget process, while we didn't

have any permanent positions in this category, Mr. Sullivan, the deputy did

realize that, I think, the Information Technology area in the department, and I

think not only in this department but in three departments, could do with a

little bit of bumping up. There was some money left over from the amalgamation

of the administration services. While we don't have permanent positions there,

she did want to allocate some money to deal with our Information Technology

problem.

It is there. I hate to use the word un-allocated,

but it's a little bit of discretionary money that she has there without

specifically knowing it. I would like to think that it is going to the

Information Technology service that is being provided by our department. That

could also be available for some temporary help in summer relief for our

receptionist and our registry and our mail clerks, that mind of thing. There is

some money there for Information Technology and other initiatives.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why wouldn't that be allocated to

.12 if there is a perceived need there? It's in the Salaries.

MR. HAYWARD: Number twelve.

MR. SULLIVAN: Information Technology. That is

all the expenditures other than salaries.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Specifically the point I am

making is this. If we only spent $90,700 last year and we want to spend another

$70,000-some, is there an identified need for it, or is that only a little bit

of a cushion that we may need to move around within the department?

MR. HAYWARD: 1.2.02.12 deals with maintenance

systems, systems (inaudible), hardware, other than salaries.

MR. SULLIVAN: Other than salaries, yes.

MR. HAYWARD: The salaries component in .01

there would clearly be people who go around fixing machines, showing people how

to use the software and equipment that we buy. It is clearly salaries for -

MR. SULLIVAN: Has there been anybody hired for

that? There are two positions listed here. Is it the intent to hire a third or a

fourth person?

MS GRATTAN: As we need. It's an area where we

feel that personnel need a lot of training; and it is more cost effective, from

the point of view of easier to get continued assistance if it is done in-house.

MR. SULLIVAN: With reference to Purchased

Services there, $320,900, what might be the major items there be in the

breakdown of that?

MR. HAYWARD: Rental of offices -

MR. SULLIVAN: Is there any breakdown of

rentals? For example, what you mentioned there, before you get into specifics,

for space within the Confederation Building. Is there a pro rata breakdown of

costs for each department or is that all absorbed under the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, for instance?

MR. HAYWARD: That is all absorbed under the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation. There is some money allocated

there for us to do one office in Corner Brook. Right now we are in two or three

locations. There is some money there for that. We rent some space collectively

in Labrador. We share the cost in Labrador. We rent some Occupational Health and

Safety space in Corner Brook. In addition to that there are some printing

services there. The departmental and entertainment protocol budget is there as

well. Purchased Services such as photocopier repairs, maintenance, and those

kind of things are in there as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: What might rentals, under

Purchased Services, end up costing out of the $320,900?

MR. HAYWARD: Office rental is budgeted at

around $280,000.

MR. SULLIVAN: The big chunk of that would be

rental of space at various locations.

MR. HAYWARD: Office rentals, and also

photocopier rentals, fax rentals, other kinds of rentals.

MR. SULLIVAN: Total rentals. You can come back

to me after, Mr. Chairman, if you like. (Inaudible) questions.

MR. HAYWARD: I just recollected there that we

rent space for the labour division over in the Beothic Building and the Workers'

Compensation Review Division rents space as well. I just wanted to (inaudible).

I didn't think Corner Brook was the only thing there. There are other locations.

CHAIR: That is a good place to spend money

though, Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland.

Rick and then Harvey.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under

2.2.02, Water Quality Agreement, it says: "Appropriations provide for the

implementation of the Federal-Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Agreement."

What is that composed of? What portion is paid for by the federal government?

MS HANN: I don't know the specifics of the

Agreement but it is a 50-50 and a cost-sharing arrangement with the federal

government. Sorry, provincial.

MR. WOODFORD: Under the Water Quality Agreement

it provides for the implementation. That would leave me to believe that this is

something new. Is it?

MS GRATTAN: No. This has been ongoing for quite

some time, although it has been down sized over the years as the federal

government, as well as ourselves, have had to cut back. That includes things

like hydrometric sampling of rivers and water quality sampling of rivers and

lakes.

MR. WOODFORD: But it's fifty-fifty?

MS GRATTAN: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. HAYWARD: That is the Province's $141,200

there, and the feds spend their $142,000 through their accounts, Mr. Woodford.

MR. WOODFORD: They spend it through you people?

No?

MR. HAYWARD: Not (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: This is yours and that is it.

They spend theirs on their own.

I will be something like Gerald now, and ask about

some district things I have been noticing over the years. It is a good time to

bring them up now when I have a lot of the officials together collectively and

someone can answer me.

First, gas stations around the Province. I have

noticed over the years, and have had some examples of it, that if a person had a

gas station say, for argument's sake, for twenty years, and he just closed it

down and left it, there seems to be nothing done with it until someone else goes

in and buys the property. They usually then have to have an assessment done,

especially when they go for a permit from the Department of Environment and

Labour.

I have an example now in Deer Lake where there is a

business hung up because of that. There was an old gas stations on the site. Who

is liable for that? I can understand if the property is bought, but if the

property is not bought and they go in and find some kind of contamination there

or something, who is liable for that particular problem? Is there anybody in the

department who can say: You have to take that out, or you can sell it and the

purchaser takes it at their own risk, or what?

MS HANN: Is this somebody who sort of bought it

maybe unknowingly?

MR. WOODFORD: They had an option to buy. They

have an extension, a thirty day option on the property, but they found out after

the fact that there was an old gas station on the property and now they are a

bit hesitant about development. They are doing some testing there now, but who

would be responsible in that case? Now I understand the potential purchaser is

not going to be responsible, because he hasn't done anything, but say, for

argument's sake, that someone went in and actually bought it, and then all of

sudden they were hung-up, who would be responsible?

MS HANN: I guess if it can be traced to the

occupant then that is what would be done. However, I think today, as I

understand it, it is the occupant at the time. If you don't know who it is, that

he unknowingly (inaudible) and it is discovered after, then technically he is

liable.

MR. WOODFORD: Those fellows came close to

buying the property and (inaudible) -

WITNESS: (Inaudible) own money (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

WITNESS: Using their own money.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, (inaudible). They can well

do it, but I'm thinking about an individual.

WITNESS: Banks will ask for it.

MR. WOODFORD: Banks will, that is where you

will get caught, a lot of individuals and people who have to look for financing,

but anybody who (inaudible) doesn't. Then on the other hand you say: If they are

not looking for financing, they can damn well afford to remove the contaminated

soil. There are quite a few questions asked about that in my area in the last

few weeks.

I had another example too of a business person who

was tied in with an oil company. They broke the contract, two years left on

their contract, broke it and left it, turned the key and said: Here, this is it,

we are not selling your product any more. They went and started to look for

another dealer, they have a contract signed with another operator, but the

previous operator they were with will not let them go. They are saying: If you

do not let us go with this new operator here are the keys, here is the building,

take it and go. They aren't saying that, but I'm of understanding, and correct

me if I am wrong, that once a garage is closed for one year whoever should take

it then, if they should operate it again, the tanks must be exposed and

inspected. Is that true?

MS HANN: I'm not aware of that personally, that

requirement, no. I don't know, Leslie, if you can-

MS GRATTAN: No, I'm not either.

MS HANN: That is the first I have heard of it.

MR. WOODFORD: Interesting. Because this

operator has been told - well, to another party - that if it's left a year this

is why - say for argument's sake, in this case Imperial Oil - would be keeping

them on a string for a year. Once the twelve months is up, if I went in then, or

they went with another operator, or I took it over, then those tanks would have

to be exposed and they would have to be inspected. You are saying that you don't

know of a rule saying that.

MS HANN: No sir, I don't.

MR. WOODFORD: Is that right?

MS HANN: If we could, Mr. Woodford, we will

check into it and get back to you.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I would appreciate that.

Because it seems like a dirty hand in there, you know.

MS HANN: I think it would be quite an onerous

requirement to impose. I guess what we are trying to lean towards is depending

on the material, like the tank. (Inaudible) some tanks (inaudible) stay there

for forty years. Other tanks, maybe through some small modifications, can stay

in the ground forever. We can empty them and fill them with sand. It's not an

automatic requirement that tanks after a certain period of time come out of the

ground (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That's interesting. I will get

this checked out. We will have to see if there is a rule or a law. Because I

know this has been insinuated by this particular company that, you know: You

might as well tear up your other contract because we are going to keep you for

another month. Once that twelve months is up they won't (inaudible) do it

anyway, because we are going to make sure that you... Once the year is up

everything has to be exposed. So that is interesting.

That's all, Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) questions I

was going to ask. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you. Harvey, and then we will go

(inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: A lot of the questions that I

have here, I noted as we were going through, have already been asked, but I have

a couple of things to ask. I wanted to go to 2.2.01, Water Resources Management,

on page 105.

I wanted to bring up the matter that is a real

problem for many municipalities, and that is the issue of building permits being

issued by municipalities in watersheds, and the building in watersheds. It's a

real problem in many municipalities in the Province. The applicants will often

go to the Department of Health and Community Services and they will get their

approval, then they will go to various agencies, and yet the Department of

Environment and Labour has said that this is an environmentally protected area,

it is a watershed.

We have in some municipalities - for example, the

local area of Paradise, the area in parts of St. Phillips and Portugal Cove, and

also right on the roadway up on Bay Bulls-Big Pond - cabins and residences,

there have been extensions. You can drive along the highway going down the

Southern Shore and you can see the sewer septic tank outfalls right down across

the beach. What is wrong? We aren't making two things happen: (

a) more progress

on places like Bay Bulls-Big Pond, and (

b) that we aren't doing what we said

would be done, in other words a one-stop shopping kind of thing with these

one-stop approvals. Yet the Department of Health and Community Services is not

respecting the legislation of the Department of Environment and Labour.

(Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: To be honest with you, this is the

first I have known where that has happened. I have not been familiar with it and

no one has brought that to our attention. I have made note of it here, and I'm

sure to the officials, that we will address the issue and hopefully have an

answer for you. I can't give you an answer as to why they would do it. To think

that one department of government would, in a sense, undermine what the other

department was doing just doesn't make sense to me at all.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) I'm sure that Leslie

is familiar with it, (inaudible) that the applicant will go to the Department of

Health and Community Services. They look purely at the thing and ask: Is the

disposal field sufficient here to be able to take care of this particular issue?

In doing that they haven't had any reference at all to the environmental aspect

or to the control, if necessary, for this area. You get a great deal of conflict

at the municipal level. Very often you can have approval, for example, in the

town of Paradise where our (inaudible) places that are built that are actually

in the watershed.

I think the member for the area is very familiar

with this. I bring it to the attention of the minister because in some instances

it's still going on. I think both departments should be aware of it, and that

where it has been happening we have to kind of (inaudible) the same input.

The other issue I brought up was the issue of Bay

Bulls-Big Pond. I was down on the waterfront last (inaudible) when the Premier

and the mayors of St. John's and - well, he was the only one who got his name on

the plaque - (inaudible) we were a little bit peeved with that (inaudible)-

CHAIR: But you aren't bitter, Mount Pearl is

not bitter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) my name (inaudible)

the Mayor of Paradise's name on the plaque, because this was supposed to be a

joint effort (inaudible) announcements, and then it becomes a one-person show.

My point is this. The issue was: We have to bring

all those tourists in, we have to (inaudible) our hotels, and we are embarrassed

because they (inaudible) and we are aware of the minimums of (inaudible) sewage

go out there today kind of thing. Here we are saying: Here is our

$40-million-dollar treatment plant, paid for totally and completely by federal

money. If you drive down the Southern Shore and we have out there, right along

this highway here - when I was a member of the Metro Board we tried to get it

stopped and so on and so forth. Right now it is within the City of St. John's

control but we are doing nothing to stop the continuance of that particular

problem. Why aren't we putting more pressure on the municipal government to say

we have to stop this kind of thing? Because I noticed last year there was

another extension to a cottage up there or something, and it just keeps on

going.

MR. LANGDON: The Bay Bull-Big Pond area.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe, if I could interject on

that too, it being in my district. Since we got Harvey away from the Metro Board

there has been progress

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The representation has been very

effective since, but I guess I want to make a couple of points. One is this.

There is a required separation from waterways, of course, when anyone is

applying for land. In fact, I have dealt with instances of that when people want

to get allotments near a waterway or water supply. There has to be a certain

separation; if not, it doesn't get approval.

I have had a file I went through last week. I had

to go back and speak to someone who can redesign that land where the layout of

lots would be such that you would get the required separation and so on in

sufficient amounts. That is one thing. I think in Bay Bulls-Big Pond and right

in that section, right in through Middle Pond, there have been no approvals of

new housing in that area for the past twenty-something years.

MR. H. HODDER: Fifty per cent (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but there has been no new -

MR. H. HODDER: You have you foundation there,

and if it's fifty years old, you can prove that your family is there, you can

keep on (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but there hasn't been one

built in over twenty years. For instance, there were houses on the water side,

to use an example, that have now been taken down. That has been an

encouragement. I think there was initially, I'm not sure, a buy out or some type

of thing to encourage people to move from the water side there. There certainly

have been improvements there. I don't know what the basic amount is but I know

there has been a freeze and nobody permitted to build. I think when you are a

certain distance -

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, he is using up my

time, you know.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is my intention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now that I have clarified that

point, with the permission of the Chairman I asked to clarify a few points. I

will now stop.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have heard the question and

the clarification.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to go back to a

question I asked on a previous occasion, what we are doing to try to improve

landfill sites in the Province? (Inaudible) our communities we still have many

of these sites that are in very poor condition. We don't seem to be making as

much progress I'm sure as we would like to have. What initiatives are we acting

on to improve landfill sites from an environmental perspective?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. LANGDON: Harvey, I was listening to you. I

(inaudible) to Ann Marie. You are right. I go up to my own area and I see some

of the gravel pits along the side of the road that were used to build the Bay

d'Espoir Highway, and to re-pave the Bay d'Espoir Highway. It's happened over

the last number of years that they have taken those pits along the side of the

road and, at the end of the day, they aren't restored. In a sense there is no

plan of action from the department right now to do that, things that have

happened in the past. No doubt we will have to get together with the Department

of Mines and Energy and probably with the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Probably I'm off target. Am I off target?

WITNESS: That is the wrong answer, (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The answer is very good.

MR. LANGDON: I'm sorry about that.

MR. WOODFORD: Then again, the minister is not

much off on that, because a lot of those pits around are used for (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Not totally irrelevant, because

a lot of them are (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: You are right. As far as the

landfill sites are concerned in the Province, we have roughly 270 of them.

MR. WOODFORD: Two hundred and seventy?

MR. LANGDON: Two hundred and seventy. In New

Brunswick there are less than forty. I think there are thirty-something landfill

sites in New Brunswick. Recently what had happened in Nova Scotia was this. They

have built an incinerator, state-of-the-art. I haven't seen it. I think my

predecessor, Kevin, and some of the department were there to see it in Sydney.

All of the waste for Cape Breton Island is trucked

to that one incinerator, even the medical waste and so on. The people were

telling me that if you want to, in Sydney, it's right down in the town itself,

that when it is operational you can't tell which of the stacks are being used

because it is so clean and so on.

One of the things that we have looked at for this

area, Harvey, from within the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and

our own, and within the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, we have

been looking at the possibility of having one incinerator for the Avalon which

would take care of it. Because we have to address Robin Hood Bay. The

(inaudible) is a real concern in our view. Get up in a plane on a clear day and

you can see the flume out over the water, and obviously that can't go on

forever. We must address that.

Like I said, it's only in the preliminary stages

yet. If we could have one incinerator for the whole Avalon to do that, to take

care of these sites, I think it would eliminate thirty-seven sites if we were to

have that one incinerator. I guess at the end of the day we don't want to be

able to charge for tonnage any more than we have to. However, I guess society

itself and the people out there are going to demand much more of the

environment, that it be more pristine and so on.

What it would cost, at the end of the day, to

transport the waste from St. John's, Mount Pearl or whatever area might be will

depend on the number of dollars the government might put in to construct that

facility. For example, let's assume that if government were to build it outright

for the whole Avalon region, the 200,000 people who are here, it might, at the

end of the day, if we were to go that route, cost the municipalities no more,

probably a little less than they are now. It will depend, of course, on the

level of government participation in that for your dumping fees, as to what they

would cost.

It certainly has to be addressed. I think that in

time that - well, no site has been determined or anything like that. We are just

looking at the feasibility of what it would be, what it would cost, if we were

to build one big incinerator here based on the Sydney model for the Avalon.

What is happening in Central Newfoundland, for

example, is very interesting. Grand Falls-Windsor has a state-of-the-art

incinerator system there. What we have been able to deal with, in the last

number of months, because of the source of the sites in Millertown, Millertown

Junction, Buchans and Buchans Junction, they are putting their waste garbage in

bins that are being trucked to Grand Falls-Windsor to be used in their

incinerator. The last report that I had in talking to the minister is that it is

working well. By the way, Botwood and Peterview are using that facility as well.

The garbage is put in big bins in the town and trucks come in and take those

bins - something like the waste BFI has here -, those containers and take them

to the site. We are hoping to entice communities like Point Leamington to come

in, and probably even Leading Tickles, Glovers Harbour and even Lewisporte. The

more people that will use it, the more economical it would be.

It's something that has to be done, there are no

two ways about that. Still, there is the community attitude in some cases. We

are looking at the situation in Brighton-Triton area, where we could take all

the waste from Brighton, Triton, Pilley's Island and all the places around, and

we could put it into South Brook. Their capacity there is able to handle it with

no problem. The point is that the South Brook council is saying: You aren't

going to put it in my back yard.

At the end of the day, I think that with

consultation with them, and looking at that, that we will help to maintain it

and the other communities as well. Then we will be able to close out four or

five other landfill sites and be able to use that one to a regional approach. I

think that is the way it's going to go. As I said, I think society demands it of

us. Our tippage fees I think in St. John's right now is $22 a ton, in that area

I think, Harvey. In New Brunswick some of the cities there, because of the fewer

landfill sites that they have, and there is a large number of miles that they

are trucking, they are paying up to $60 and $70 a ton.

Obviously, what we have to do is be more cognizant

about our recycling and to eliminate the amount of waste that would go into

landfill, and that municipalities would have to send to the site. That is a

process that is ongoing, and hopefully at the end of the day we can make some

more improvements there.

It's our wish, obviously to be able to close out as

many of these as we can, but yet we have to proceed slowly, and at the end of

the day, I guess, get the communities to work with us. What we are doing,

hopefully, is to have the communities see that we aren't imposing something. We

want to be able to be able to work with them to find an alternative to the way

they are doing things now.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you intend to draw up some

kind of a consultation paper-

MR. LANGDON: Yes, definitely.

MR. H. HODDER: - on that, and will that be

coming out in the next while?

MR. LANGDON: I would say that after the

preliminary test (inaudible) is done as to what it would cost. Because at the

end of the day it might not be feasible to build one incinerator for the whole

of the Avalon. When all the numbers are crunched and we think that it would be,

then sure, you go to consultation to everybody, put out a White Paper. I can see

that it would be probably two or three years, or probably even four years down

the road before it becomes a reality. You want to have consultation with all the

regions involved.

MR. H. HODDER: One last question. I want to ask

one on workplace and safety services, (inaudible) particularly about the

offshore. What is the role of the department in monitoring workplace health and

safety in the offshore sites and what is the role of the industry itself? I was

looking a couple of models: the European model (inaudible) very different than

ours and that kind of thing. Some of the work that came out of the North Sea and

how they have basically said that government let too much of the responsibility

be controlled by, or took the word of, the industry itself too much. What kind

of steps are we taking to make sure that our monitoring of workplace safety is

being followed in a way that recognizes our learning from the experiences of the

(inaudible)?

MR. LANGDON: I will start and then I will pass

it to the expert, the lady who helped to devise some of those plans. She is very

knowledgeable about it.

Let's look at Canada first. Basically, what you

have is the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. They use the window,

if I can use that. The window in the federal government would be the Department

of Energy there, and the same thing here. It's channelled through them to the

Department of Mines and Energy for us. That is the window. Then from that they

pass the information to us, and obviously we work in relation with them.

For example, when we look at our responsibility for

people who work on the rig, okay - that is our responsibility from a provincial

point of view - we have occupational health and safety people on the rig. They

have health and safety committees. We had a committee meeting with them on the

rig. We have inspectors that go out there I think probably once a month, and

they stay two to three days out there and do their inspections.

What we also have are the C-NOPB people. They have,

I think it is, four inspectors. They operate from Atlantic Place in St. John's.

They do go out and they do their inspections regularly. However, after having

said all that, there is a difference between the way we do it here on the rig

then say, for example, in Norway. Here the inspectors who work out of Atlantic

Place and are employed by C-NOPB, if they saw something that was unusual they

have the right to shut the rig down.

In Norway, the people who work on the rigs

themselves, the workers, the people who are participating in the Occupational

Health and Safety Committees, if they see something that is, as they would see

it, a hazard to the worker, they themselves have the right to shut that down.

Obviously our inspectors shut it down, not the people on the rigs, so there is a

bit of difference on that. But it could very well be, at the end of the day,

that the C-NOPB should report not only to the Minister of Mines and Energy as

the window, but probably that window should also include the Department of

Environment and Labour. It should probably include the Department of Labour in

the federal jurisdiction as well, but that is not the way that it does it. It is

the window, but we participate with them regularly and keep abreast of things

that happen.

With that as an introduction I will let you fill

in.

MS GRATTAN: Not that he left a lot for me to

add but, as the minister, said the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board

has been formally designated through a Memorandum of Understanding to be our

agents in the offshore. It is our Occupational Health and Safety legislation

that is applied offshore as well as anything... There is also a specific set of

offshore safety regulations. The key differences are the additions that come

from our legislation.

I should turn this over to Joe, the ADM of Labour,

this is his particular expertise, but it is that there must be, as the minister

referenced, Occupational Health and Safety Committees on the platform; and yes,

when we were out to the platform we were invited to attend one of those

meetings. The employer is to provide a safe workplace and an employee, a worker,

has the right to refuse work on the grounds of safety. Those are particular

specific provincial requirements that C-NOPB also applies offshore.

Joe, can you think of anything else to add to Mr.

Hodder's question?

MR. O'NEILL: No, I think you have pretty well

covered everything. I think our deputy minister is probably being a little bit

humble because I think she has probably more knowledge of this than most people

around, having come from the oil industry herself and being very, very familiar

with safety plans. I do not know if you wanted to add that Leslie, because you

certainly gave me a good description of it yesterday in terms of companies that

have to file very, very detailed safety plans at the beginning, right at the

design stage, in terms of...

So there is a lot more to safety with respect to

offshore installations than meets the eye. It goes right back to the development

of safety plans, with which I understand our deputy minister was very much

involved in her former life.

MR. H. HODDER: The reason I bring the question

up is because there is some literature floating around which makes comparisons

between the practices in the North Sea, Norway, and other countries, that says

we had better make sure we do not let the industry govern itself and control

itself and feed its own self information that, in essence, amounts to less than

a satisfactory adherence to the policies that are put down by governments of

whatever country we are talking about.

Having asked the question, I guess, also in the

background of the Ocean Ranger, today is the day on which we are focusing on

that particular thing: the safety, the hazards, and what happened. I think the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to be assured that here are the

policies that are going to be supreme, it is a government that is going to be in

charge, and we are not going to have some boss on some rig intimidate, bully his

way through or whatever, and thereby put the almighty dollar and the production

line before we follow closely the safety regulations. I ask it because of the

day, and also because of the literature that is circulating relative to what we

should be learning from the North Sea.

MS GRATTAN: Joe, did you want to follow up? You

might want to comment on the Morgan Cooper report and recommendation number 12.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes.

Morgan Cooper did a study for the department on

offshore labour relations. He included in recommendation number 12 an

observation with respect to safety in the offshore, and that was as the result

of his visit to the UK and Norway. That was done last year and was followed

closely by a visit which I attended with former Minister Aylward. We visited the

UK as well, and also Norway.

You are quite right, Mr. Hodder, one of the issues

involved - particularly Norway. In Norway, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate,

which is akin to our Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, reports and

has a dual reporting relationship to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of

Energy. As Minister Langdon has said, the way it is addressed here is that while

the reporting relationship of C-NOPB is to the Minister of Energy, there is a

memorandum of agreement in place and there is an understanding whereby

information relating to Occupational Health and Safety is dealt with by the

department; so we do have that kind of liaison with C-NOPB through Mines and

Energy.

In fact, I think February 24 was the last meeting

whereby C-NOPB gave the departments - Leslie, the minister and I attended that

briefing - a full update. That included, of course, safety measures with respect

to the rig.

Just to get back to Morgan Cooper's recommendation,

largely this is where his recommendation came from, his observance of these

types of practices which we observed as well. What we are doing as we speak - in

fact, I left a meeting this evening before I attended the dinner meeting - we

are in the process now of hiring somebody to work full time on that file, to

analyze what Morgan Cooper is saying with respect to addressing that issue, with

respect to the reporting relationship. We are hoping to very quickly have

somebody address that file and work on it full time.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you have documentation

available that would tell us the number of accidents that have occurred

requiring from first aid to people being lifted off the rig or evacuated because

of a broken leg or arm or whatever? Do you have documentation available that we

could have to show us exactly what happened, what the history has been, and the

number of incidents of workers' safety that has (inaudible) on the rig since it

has been out there?

WITNESS: Since it has been out there? Yes, that

material would be gathered by C-NOPB and they would have those records.

MR. H. HODDER: Could that be forwarded to our

office so we could have a look at it and be up to date?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: I asked the question because

there have been comments made in the local area that may be correct or may be

incorrect; but when words are spread around, sometimes they have a tendency to

mushroom and anxieties go up (inaudible) and that kind of thing. I asked the

question for clarification, and I am happy to know that you are going to send it

over to us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hodder.

Mr. Walsh and then Mrs. Osborne.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to be brief because just about

everything has been covered and I guess we are almost ready to go to the

item-by-item vote. I just have a quick question, Mr. Chairman, and through you

to the minister. It is of a personal nature more than anything.

We are heading into recycling. You have the

Stewardship Board in place and I pay my six cents every time I buy something.

They tell me, whenever I bring my cans in - and I do it now out of spite - I

bring them in crushed and they do not want to take them. I leave them; I do not

get my three cents. Is there any reason why in Newfoundland - you can do it

everywhere else - we are not allowed to crush our cans? The plastic bottles I do

not mind, but this silliness about... They only weigh them. They tell me how

many pounds are in it and they give me my twenty cents, but if I crush them and

bring in fifty pounds... I don't know if any of you are into recycling. I really

want to participate, and I want to do what I can.

Some of you do not know me very well and others

know me too well. The fact that out of spite I am actually leaving money behind

when I drive away, anyone who knows me knows what that means. I would walk

through my own parking lot just to pick up the pennies when I was in business.

They won't take them. Yet, as soon as they go into the building they are run

through a machine and crushed, packed up and sent away. Is that the Stewardship

Board being a deterrent so they do not want to give me back my money? I know you

don't know the answer right off, but I am asking, Minister, why can't - because

if I am just doing it out of spite, how many Newfoundlanders are just throwing

them into the garbage and they are ending up creating the same problems you are

trying to deal with over in Robin Hood Bay or some other landfill? They are all

cans. I am just wondering why I can't crush my cans?

MR LANGDON: If you go out to the Nova recycling

plant on Torbay Road near the airport you will see that there are two ladies

there who have the electronic devices. When a can is not crushed, it is pretty

easy to be able to scan the bar code to verify it. When it is crushed it is

impossible, in a sense, to do that, they are saying. So those cans that come in

are counted, and after they are counted they are crushed. They are not crushed

before.

MS S. OSBORNE: Why do they need the bar code?

MR LANGDON: I don't know.

MR. WALSH: I am saying, how come? I don't mind

paying three cents on a soft drink can. I don't mind paying it on a can of soup

or a can of beans or anything else, buy why do they count them and weigh them?

MR LANGDON: I cannot give you the answer to

that. Ann Marie sits on the board (inaudible).

MS HANN: I would like to decline to answer now.

The reason it is important for the bar code is

because of the monitoring and enforcement. We have set specific targets for the

industry to meet. For each wholesaler and distributor of product we have to do a

physical counting. The idea is now, of course, we will have 50 per cent recovery

this year and 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, over the next three years.

So it is for monitoring, reporting and acquiring that we do it.

MR. WALSH: But it is my money; I am paying it.

So we are doing the monitoring for an industry that is not paying it. I am

paying it. So what is the difference between - I would say to you that if you

are at 50 per cent you might get to 60 per cent, and the other 40 per cent you

are not going to get because people like myself are just saying: This is crazy.

Why can't I crush it and bring it in?

MS HANN: Mr. Walsh, as I understand as well,

how a can is crushed is very important; because if it is not crushed properly

the paint and the enamel gets trapped and it devalues the metal itself so they

don't get as much for it.

MR. WALSH: For the record, no other province

allows you to crush your can and send it back? All the other provinces are doing

the same thing as we are doing here in Newfoundland?

MS HANN: For the record, I will check for you,

Mr. Walsh, but this is the reason actually. It recently came up and this was the

reason that was given to me, but we would be certainly happy to check into that.

MR. WALSH: I have never been in Opposition but

I was told by somebody who was, `only ask the question if you know the answer'.

You might be surprised with the answer, that all other provinces are not

requiring you to give back a full can. They go through the same recycling

process. So I am just saying to myself, why here? I think you may find that in

Atlantic Canada they are not all requiring it but we are here, and we are all

paying the same deposit.

MS S. OSBORNE: You can even buy these little

can crushers. It puts them right down to here and it is really easy to store. I

am probably coming from the same direction as you; this bag of cans just takes

up so much space.

MR. WALSH: It just gets so big, yes.

It was just personal, like I said. I am, in the

meantime, asking on behalf of myself and the other 50 per cent of the people who

are not bringing back their cans. In a lot of cases that is one of the reasons

we are not. The industry has made it inconvenient for us to do it, but they

still have my money and it is my money that I want.

MS HANN: In fairness to the board, right now

our regulations call for cans not to be crushed. In fact, until very recently

the board was accepting crushed cans. They were trying to be as accommodating as

possible, but it is based on this additional information, I guess, they seem to

have received from somewhere. The boards are only doing what our regulations are

requiring them to do, so we will definitely have to look into that.

MR. WALSH: The Department of Environment and

Labour regulations?

MS HANN: Yes, the beverage container

regulations require, actually, that cans not be crushed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a suggestion. I guess where

it is new in the program and they are trying to do an accurate count, if that is

the only reason, obviously there is a correlation and you can always project

that once you have gotten to that stage, if that is the sole reason for doing

it. You can be pretty accurate within, I would assume, a percentage point on

such a large volume. But if there is another reason, because of quality and what

it is going to do, I guess it is something we would certainly like to know. If

it is solely for counting purposes, that is something you would know by now,

established weights, and the return, the type, et cetera.

MS HANN: In some ways the bar code also helps

to identify the distributor and wholesaler, so we have to make sure that in fact

the product that is being sold in the Province is by an authorized distributor

and wholesaler as well.

MR. WALSH: A closing comment, Mr. Chairman. I

resent the fact that I am being told before I solve the problem with the cans -

and I heard some members say under it under their breath - that I should solve

the problem with the Kentucky Fried Chicken packaging. We are dealing with cans

here, so I want to go on record and say that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ann Marie.

CHAIR: Normally the Chair has not in the past

asked questions but, as the minister knows, this is one of my pet projects and

pet peeves, the recycling policy.

I can take any crushed can, crushed any way I want

it, to an aluminium recycling dealer and he will pay me an adequate amount per

pound for my can. What do they do with the can if, in fact, the crushing of it

is not up to spec and, as you said, the metal gets contaminated?

I am having some difficulty with the rationale of

why the cans cannot be crushed. Of all the arguments and issues on the West

Coast in the last two years, the one that I keep getting bombarded with is the

crushed cans.

Real environmentalists are really ticked off with

it. You cannot bring in a can which has been run over by a car, or a boy scout

picks up, that has been a bit crushed. They are taking the garbage from the

environment but they cannot bring it back and get three cents, for which someone

has already paid six. It is an issue. Believe it or not, it is an issue out

there.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) increase your return

if you could.

MR. WALSH: Oh, very much.

MS HANN: The point is well taken and we will

certainly investigate it. I apologize for not being able to provide the

Committee with additional information on this. I have attended one board meeting

so, I am just now getting (inaudible).

CHAIR: I am told as well in my area that the

recycling people will take out the semi-crushed cans but they will keep them in

their building; you do not take them back. I always do because I will be darned

if they are going to get six cents for my can for which they will not give me

three cents.

I will leave it with you, Mr. Minister. You know I

have been on this wrath before on this particular issue, and we will be there

again.

CHAIR: Ms. Osborne.

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to add to that.

Right in this very building, if you go to the

cafeteria, I know there are some places to throw your cans, bottles and stuff

afterwards, but there is not really enough. There is not much made of it.

I know in this building, when I am finished my

lunch, I see people going over and just putting the cans down in the garbage.

There does not seem to be a lot of hype about recycling. Even the ones that go

out of this building every day, there are a lot. I am really big on that, too.

Another question. I have been recycling before they

started to charge. Someone would come by and pick the stuff up. I do not know

what they did with it, but they recycled it. How come you cannot recycle milk

cartons?

MS HANN: At the time the regulations were

introduced, that was a policy decision made by the government. The beverage

container program at the time addressed two things. One was to try and reduce

garbage going to landfills, and the second was litter.

Inclusion of milk was certainly concerned at that

time, but at the same time the government was also trying to promote the Milk

Lunch Program. It was decided at that point in time that potentially an increase

in the price of milk could compromise that program. As well, milk cartons,

particularly the single serve, were not deemed to contribute to the litter

problem, which was a big focus of the program when it was first introduced. It

was intentionally left out for that reason.

MS S. OSBORNE: Will the recycling people take

them? Will anybody take them? Why do we have to throw them in the garbage?

MS HANN: That is the choice of each depot

operator, what products they want to take in addition to the beverage

containers.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MS HANN: Whether or not they have markets of

their own that they have found and, I guess, obviously a field in which they can

make money.

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to deal with the

Grace. The Member for St. John's South and the critic of the environment is not

here, but I was at the meeting and there were a lot of people there. It is a

major problem, the burning of Bunker C oil at the Grace Hospital.

I have a friend who lives on LeMarchant Road and

she said, literally, she has to go out and scrape her car. When you turn on the

car, the car fills up with the black flakes. What is the cost of transferring

from Bunker C to (inaudible) burning fuel at the Grace Hospital?

MR LANGDON: There is a committee in place that

is being overseen by the Department of Health and Community Services, and they

are in a process now of looking at different scenarios as to ways they can

reduce the amount of soot that is going to come out of that particular stack. I

think they have not come to any agreement yet. I was talking to Tom earlier

today and said that after I have talked to Joan Marie tomorrow I will chat with

him in the House. There has been no specific detail as to how they are going to

do it, but there are a number of scenarios that they have looked at.

I think the big question from the Department of

Health and Community Services, I guess, is the number of dollars that you would

spend. If we would be able to take some of the equipment that we could put in

the stacks and be able to use it again for the expansion at the Health Sciences,

or doing work at St. Clare's - in other words to reuse it - then it would be

much easier for her to be able to use those dollars in that capacity. However,

if we were to take large sums of money and be able to put it in those stacks at

the Grace and not be able to use it after two years then it is a deterrent as to

how much money we could possibly spend.

I think basically what we are looking at, it is

possible to reduce it by 50 per cent or, say, 70 per cent or 80 per cent, but it

will depend on how well you can use the machinery after.

MS S. OSBORNE: It must be pretty horrendous to

go out of your door every morning and just find your car coated with black; turn

on the ignition and when the fan comes on to have your car fill up with black.

Like I said, my friend lives right on LeMarchant Road by Shoppers' Drug Mart and

she finds that every day. It is pretty horrendous. So it is from a personal

point of view that I am asking this.

MR LANGDON: I will talk to Joan Marie tomorrow,

and talk to Tom because he had talked to me earlier. It is in his district, I

think.

MS S. OSBORNE: I was not talking to him about

it today but I was at the meeting and I do have a friend -

MR LANGDON: Yes, and he did come to me after

the House closed this afternoon.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I know there was a petition

today.

MR LANGDON: We will go from that. I cannot give

you the answer right now but I will talk to Tom tomorrow and give him the

details.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

MR LANGDON: Or to you for that matter.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, no, you can give it - well

actually, I suppose, he will give it to me eventually.

MR LANGDON: Yes, okay. I will do that.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is it for me.

CHAIR: Okay.

Mr. Whelan, and then we will ask if there are any

questions.

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I will be fairly brief. There was one (inaudible)

in the Estimates that caught my eye, 2.3.01.05. It is under Environmental

Assessment, Professional Services. I don't think (inaudible) but you have a new

estimate there for 1998 of $700,000 as opposed to $350,000. I was just wondering

what the extra expenditure was for.

MR LANGDON: I will let my deputy tell you.

MS GRATTAN: I will pass to Ann Marie or Rick.

MR LANGDON: Okay, it does not make any

difference.

MR. HAYWARD: There was $780,000 in incremental

funding provided to the department in 1998-1999 to participate in the

environmental assessment project for Voisey's Bay. That is what makes up that

$700,000.

MR. WHELAN: Well, it was $350,000 last year. If

$780,000 was given last year, you spent $350,000 last year. What happened?

MR. HAYWARD: $350,000 was provided in 1997-1998

as our share of the cost of the environmental assessment for Voisey's Bay. In

1998-1999, I guess incremental additional activity required that that would be

increased to $700,000 from $350,000. So there is incremental requirement this

year because of increased activity. I think -

MR. WHELAN: With that money already having been

spent, and the $700,000 to be spent this year, what is the status on the

environmental assessment?

MS GRATTAN: As you are aware, there is a review

panel in place to head up the public hearings and the assessment of the

mine-mill environmental impact statement. Someone has to pay the cost and that

is government. We split it, again, 50-50 with the federal government, and so -

MR. WHELAN: Excuse me. You are spending

$700,000 (inaudible).

MS GRATTAN: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: This year?

MS GRATTAN: That is right now an estimate, but

that is based on the work we anticipate the panel doing. We are hoping that,

counting on, the main effort of the panel, which are the public hearings, which

travel from community to community in Labrador, and there will be some here.

That is our estimate of what our share of the cost of the panel will be.

MR. WHELAN: So, would you be doing public

hearings throughout the various communities in Labrador?

MS GRATTAN: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: There are only about, what, fifteen

or twenty. How many communities (inaudible)?

WITNESS: On the North Coast there are six.

MR. WHELAN: Yes. There are only about fifteen

or twenty communities in Labrador anyway (inaudible)?

MS GRATTAN: This is a five person panel and

also a two- or three-person secretariat to support them. There are significant

costs just to moving that number of people around from community to community in

(inaudible).

MS HANN: If I may add this. At the end of the

day (inaudible) I guess the Province will be recouping its share of costs from

the company. Any monies expended by the Province in the (inaudible) of this

project will be returned to the Province by Voisey's Bay Nickel.

WITNESS: That was part of the legislation that

we passed last fall.

MR. WHELAN: There is still a question mark left

in my mind with regard to even if you sent fifty people to every community in

Labrador and tripled the secretariat, you should not spend one-quarter of

$1,400,000, I don't think.

MS GRATTAN: It's not just the cost. I should

have been clearer. The panel is working and hence billing for many other days

besides the days they travel. I don't know if you have seen the Voisey's Bay

EIS, but it is about this big, plus, and the big part of their duty is to go

through that.

MR. WHELAN: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I

thought you meant it was just for travel expenses.

MS GRATTAN: No, no. I mislead you, sorry.

MR. WHELAN: There is something else I wanted to

refer to as well, and it's a little different from the regular questioning. I'm

from a rural district, Conception Bay Centre. It has been a tradition in our

area - it has been agrarian, and fishing and that type of thing down through the

years. There is some semblance of that left. Very little fishing. Well, better

than what is happening today with the lobster and crab (inaudible). There is

some agricultural activity out there.

I had the occasion to visit one of my constituents

the other day. He had a visit from I'm not sure if it was the Department of

Health and Community Services, the Department of Government Services and Lands,

or the Department of Environment and Labour. Apparently somebody had a problem

with the fact that he had some cattle. There wasn't a big lot of manure stored

there, he used to carry it away, but he was reported for that. The guy said:

That is alright, because in another week or so I'm going to spread it.

(Inaudible) he said: Whatever you do, don't that because, then you are in real

trouble.

I'm wondering, is it your department that looks

after that particular area? If it is, I would like you to be able to -

MS GRATTAN: Is your department responsible for

spreading manure?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are a good many departments

in that category, I can assure you, but we can deal with that department in the

House.

MR. WOODFORD: The short answer, Don, is you

aren't allowed to store it but you can spread it where you like!

MR. WHELAN: It's a way of life that (inaudible)

MS S. OSBORNE: That is exactly right, it is

serious.

MR. WHELAN: You know there is a lighter side to

it, but there is also a (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Don, as a matter of information

for me, can you go back to the person and ask them was it somebody from our

department?

MR. WHELAN: He mentioned it was from

Environment and Labour. He may have been mistaken. Usually the person on the

street, if somebody comes out and looks at your facilities there, they don't

know whether it is Health and Community Services or Environment. They aren't

sure. (Inaudible) environment.

MR. WOODFORD: After it goes over a certain

number of cattle, there is supposed to be containment now.

MR. WHELAN: Rick, this is usually the people

who are around who have four or five (inaudible). They supplement their income

that way, and this has been the tradition (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, there is usually never a

problem with that, but I mean if it is a large operation now, especially a large

dairy operating or something like that. Because broilers are not stored in any

case, poultry is not stored. It just comes right out and right on to the field.

The only places now are usually a beef-cattle operation or a dairy operation. My

understanding is that if it goes over a certain number of cattle then there must

be containment, and most of them (inaudible) today is not (inaudible)

containments. There is usually -

WITNESS: What do you mean by containment?

MR. WOODFORD: In a concrete area you either go

with a dry manure system where you just take a bucket, put it into the spreader

and spread it, or else you go with a liquefied system where it is pumped right

out from under the barn into a concrete containment area, liquefied, and just

pumped back into the machine and gone. It never sees -

MR. WHELAN: (Inaudible) about a fairly highly

commercialized (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, it is a very expensive

operation.

MR. WHELAN: This is just people who supplement

their income in raising (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I have never known for anyone out

our way to be bothered with that.

MR. WHELAN: I just thought I would mention

that.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, we will check it out for you.

MR. WHELAN: Where (inaudible) I thought that it

would be a good time to (inaudible).

CHAIR: Just before we conclude, are there any

other members of the committee who would like to ask questions? I think the

Vice-Chair has indicated he has one question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I had a few there but not all

were addressed, so maybe I can just toss them out. Most of them were in the

finance area.

I will just pick up on the one Don was on, for

instance on the Environmental Assessment, in the expenditures on Professional

Services as Don alluded to. Under Transportation and Communications, do the

costs of any transportation or communication come under the Professional

Services, or are they not included under Transportation and Communication? I'm

talking about 2.3.01.03. Would the Environmental Assessment group's

transportation and communication be under that particular item rather than under

Professional Services?

MR. HAYWARD: In total for the Voisey's Bay

assessment there was $700,000 provided in Professional Services, as you can see

there, and in the $98,400 under Transportation and Communication there was

$80,000 in transportation. So in total, for the Environmental Assessment, that

would be incremental funding to the Department of Environment and Labour this

year. There will be $780,000 split between travel and Professional Services.

MR. SULLIVAN: So the Professional Services

would incur -

MR. HAYWARD: That would be the panel costs, and

the travel would be captured in the transportation.

MR. SULLIVAN: It would be captured. What about

the salary aspect? Are there any salary services included, any monetary

reimbursement and cost included, under Professional Services or is that all

under Salary?

MR. HAYWARD: The Professional Services would be

the payment to the panel for their salaries and so on.

MR. SULLIVAN: Departmental staff.

MR. HAYWARD: The $467,100 under Salaries is the

department core budget, if you will. There was no incremental allocation for

this because (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Under 3.1.01, Labour Relations

and Labour Standards, and it follows right into the next one too, Labour

Relations Board, in terms of Professional Services we see there has been a

significant change there. Under 3.1.01 it has gone from $16,000 expenditure last

year, on a budget of $5,000, up to $150,000 this year. I know it makes reference

to the overall use of it there but why such a hefty increase this year?

MR. HAYWARD: To resolve the issues with the

crab pricing and the shrimp pricing issues, the provincial government provided

the department with $150,000 there to the professional fees and other associated

fees with implementing the Morgan Cooper report, so we don't have any

disruptions in the labour component of our remaining fishery.

MR. SULLIVAN: These three would have taken up

how much of that $150,000?

MR. HAYWARD: The $150,000 up top, that was our

budget to implement some parts of the task force and to pay the consultants.

There were some studies done, there some professional services performed, to

look at the prices of crab and some associated costs with the task force there

as well. (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Just to sort of provide research

and background on historic markets, etc.

MR. HAYWARD: We do not know if we are going to

spend all of that. It's an estimate, so to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are there any provisions for

other such price settling mechanisms in other areas to allocate, or are they

strictly for the ones identified?

MR. HAYWARD: The $150,000 relates to crab,

shrimp, cod, lump roe and caplin. Hopefully it is all the species.

MR. SULLIVAN: The one under .05, under 3.1.02,

the Labour Relations Board.

MR. HAYWARD: What did I say there?

Reinstatement of professional services to meet demand in this area. While we got

through 1997-98 on target for $128,000, I think during the budget process we

asked for some additional funding here to do more work in this area. Joe, I

don't know if you have anything else to add.

MR. O'NEILL: I think the reason for the

increase there as well is to reinstate funding that was reduced last year

(inaudible). At one point there was some indication of appointing a full-time

Chair and CEO to the Labour Relations Board. Where that decision hasn't been

forthcoming, we have a full-time CEO who would still be a Chair working

part-time. A saving that would have been effected as a result of that decision

not coming into effect now has to be reinstated to cover the costs.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that under Professional

Services rather than Salaries? Is that what you are stating?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's not under Salaries. Why

would there be such an increase too in salaries though, almost $60,000 also?

MR. HAYWARD: Basically, they had a vacant

position. If you look at the $250,700 in Salaries as the Budget for 1997-1998,

(inaudible) salary savings because of the vacancies to $209,000, and $266,700

puts it back up and also gives them the small raise that we were talking about,

the twenty-seven pay periods. There are a number of (inaudible) things in there

that grow up to $266,700.

MR. SULLIVAN: What particular positions were

not filled there out of the list of the ones, off-hand, that were vacant?

MR. HAYWARD: It could have been any number of

things, like a maternity leave that didn't get filled or anything like that.

MR. SULLIVAN: It wasn't necessarily without

positions. Overlapping for part of the year, there were some positions? It is

about $40,000. It could have been a couple of positions for part of the year,

for instance.

MR. HAYWARD: Vacant, taking time to fill,

maternity, sick leave, unplanned leave. It's not a significant amount but we can

certainly look into it for you and give you a little analysis there if you want

that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it would be nice to know .

Because we are looking at a $60,000 difference in expenditure, or close to it.

If we are without positions for a length of time, was someone else picking up

the slack, or was there something not getting done? Basically, the value of the

positions and so on. If you could, give me an answer back on that one.

I had just one other particular area there, the

last one on the workers' compensation review. Under Professional Services,

5.1.01.05, I guess it would be including the review commissioner amounts per

case. I'm assuming it's in that category there, Professional Services. Because

Salaries, looking at the details here, are just the staff there with the review

commission.

MR. HAYWARD: That is correct, Mr. Sullivan. The

number for various reasons - the sole judicator per case, the number and I guess

a combination of the caseload - that number is pretty constant, and going and

reducing with experience, etc. These for the workers' compensation review

division are pretty stable.

MR. SULLIVAN: How much of the $175,000

projected, Professional Services, would be applied to the case cost? I think it

is roughly $500 per case. What other Professional Services might be included

other than the case?

MR. HAYWARD: That would include legal costs as

well as the per case adjudicator cost. I don't have a breakdown on the $175,000.

I can certainly get it to you that it is 75-25, adjudicator versus labour, on

the $138,000 for the projected revised figure in 1997-1998, if you want. I

didn't bring that in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Have the legal costs, offhand,

been significant? Would you know any ballpark amount?

MR. HAYWARD: No, I would be just guessing.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess they utilize independent

lawyers, I would assume, rather than the Department of Justice.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, there are independent

solicitors on the workers' comp review division files, and there six or seven

commission (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I mean for legal advice. Do

they go out to the private sector for legal advice?

MR. HAYWARD: Yes, they do go to the private

sector. I can certainly get you a breakdown between legal and adjudicator costs.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would like to know the

breakdown, if I could, of the Professional Services over all.

MR. HAYWARD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's it, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: Are you going to call Heads or

what?

MS S. OSBORNE: I have another couple of

questions, I'm sorry. Under 4.1.01, the Budget is down by $67,000. What

positions were eliminated by that reduction?

MR. LANGDON: What has happened is we are

transferring from our department the education services from Occupational Health

and Safety over to Workplace Health and Safety.

MS S. OSBORNE: So that is another department

then?

MR. LANGDON: Yes. Therefore it's coming out of

our department and going over with them. That is the reason for the reduction

there.

MS S. OSBORNE: Under .07, Property, Furnishings

and Equipment, there is a big variation between the Budget and the revised

there.

MR. LANGDON: What did we put in here?

MR. HAYWARD: There were some vehicles replaced

in Workplace Health and Safety basically to replace antiquated vehicles with

200,000, 300,000, 400,000 kilometres on them, and then various equipment that we

need in the Workplace Health and Safety

section to do that job.

MS S. OSBORNE: In .03 there, with respect to

the $302,200 spent, is there a breakdown of what - in trips, telephone bills and

(inaudible)?

MR. HAYWARD: In Transportation and

Communications, 4.1.01?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. HAYWARD: Postage, $8,000; travel, $260,000;

air services, $15,000; telephone costs, $60,000. That makes up -

MS S. OSBORNE: Did you say travel was $260,000?

MR. HAYWARD: Our budget for travel would be

$260,000. That is all of our inspectors (inaudible). In Occupational Health and

Safety those numbers are - how many people in Occupational Health and Safety?

Thirty-nine people all over the Island visiting every site. It's a significant

sum.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Just a short one, Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. We have till 10:00 p.m.

anyway so, in fact (inaudible) 10:10 p.m. (inaudible).

CHAIR: We might add that we were slow coming

back as you ordered the meal.

MR. H. HODDER: A few years ago I came across

some data which said that about 25 per cent of all the health care costs in this

Province were accident related. In fact, the report said $225 million a year are

expended in health care in this Province because of accidents, all kinds of

accidents. Accidents per se. That came from the medical (inaudible) data

collection. That could be everything from children's accidents to falling off a

bicycle to taking wrong medications or whatever.

It did include as well workplace accidents. I'm

wondering if the department has ever done an analysis which shows how much money

is expended in health care as a consequence of workplace accidents, and using

that information to make arguments for greater input into worker safety, more

inspections? Because every dollar we spend in prevention we save in MCP.

Therefore what I'm asking is has there ever been an analysis done of that

relationship and narrowing it down to workplace safety and that kind of thing?

MR. O'NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Hodder. To my

knowledge, there hasn't been that kind of a detailed study done. I would suspect

that it wouldn't be very difficult to do because all we need to do would be to

work with the various health care corporations and identify the workplace

injuries that are recorded as injuries. I guess it would be difficult to come up

with a hard number because as we know it would be a guesstimate. Because some

people who get injured on the job don't always report it, and that is a bit of

an issue for us.

In terms of using it as an emphasis towards

improved health and safety, one of the things we have noticed in our statistics

over the last five years is that the number of lost time accidents are

continually going down. We think that is because of an increased emphasis on

prevention programs. As the minister has just indicated, we think that with the

move of the Health and Safety programs area to the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission there will be a need for greater emphasis to work with

employers and with employees to improve safety in the workplace. As a result of

that, hopefully we will begin to see an improved record (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: When we (inaudible) $220 million

a year in this Province that is emanating from accidents, we have to pay pretty

strong attention to that. I'm just wondering if there has been analysis done. It

would make a very interesting analysis.

MR. O'NEILL: I think it was only a couple of

days ago there was an extensive

article that I was reading with respect to a

Canada-wide survey on the cost of injuries. You are quite right, it not only

includes workplace injuries but falls in a home, a kid falling off a bicycle,

and that sort of thing.

MR. H. HODDER: Two hundred and twenty million

dollars in this Province alone.

MR. O'NEILL: It's astronomical.

MR. WOODFORD: To add to that, there is one

industry that is involved in that and that is the insurance industry under what

they call a health care services levy. They, for at-fault accidents last year I

believe it was in the vicinity of $6 million or $7 million that was paid back to

the Province (inaudible). So it is interesting there, because out of that $220

million there is a portion there that is identified for at-fault accidents and

is reimbursed under the health care services.

WITNESS: How much did you say was the

reimbursement?

MR. WOODFORD: Between $6 million and $7

million. Now, we pay anyway, (inaudible) consider you still pay, because the

insurance companies have a way to integrate that into their benchmarks

(inaudible).

Mr. Chairman, if there are no other questions, I

would like to move the heads from 1.1.01 to 5.1.01, inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.01, carried.

On motion, Department of Environment and Labour,

total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister, thank you,

staff. I appreciate the evening, it has been a delight. Next year we will have

to go to a different restaurant and have a different person order for us.

On motion, the Committee adjourned .