April 29, 1997

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in Room 5083.

CHAIR (Mr. R. Mercer): Order, please!

I would like to welcome everyone here this evening

to this Committee on the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Labour.

Before we start, we will introduce the officials at

this end starting with Mary.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin-

Placentia West.

MR. G. REID: Gerry Reid, MHA for Twillingate

and Fogo.

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

Valley.

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

Whitbourne.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, MHA for St.

John's East.

CHAIR: I am Bob Mercer, Chairman, and MHA for

Humber East.

The procedure we will follow this evening is, we

will have the minister make some introductory remarks, he will introduce his

colleagues at the end of the table, following which we will ask the Clerk to

read the first Head, and it will be under the first Head that all the

discussions and debate will occur.

Following the minister's introductory remarks, the

Vice-Chair will lead off the questioning. We will then proceed with questioning

from each of the members, as I have said in the past, until all the questions

have been exhausted, or you and we together have been exhausted. So, with that

little

preamble, Mr. Minister, you are on.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Chair.

It is a pleasure to be here to provide an overview

of our department and its operations.

To my right is Leslie Grattan, Deputy Minister of

Environment and Labour; Gerry Crocker, our Manager of Operations. To my left is

Mr. Gary Norris, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment; Mr. Peter Whittle, my

Executive Assistant and Mr. Joe O'Neill, Assistant Deputy Minister for Labour

and Occupational Health and Safety.

Our department's budget is not very big, but it is

what I would call an impact department. The last twelve months since the last

election and the last Budget, you have seen a combined department of the

Department of Environment and Labour Relations. Included in that department is

the Occupational Health and Safety Division, which is funded by Workers'

Compensation. We have the Workers' Compensation Commission and its

administration under the department. We have, as well, the Human Rights

Commission within the wings of the department in the sense of its reporting, so

it is a department which is fairly diversified, and in the last twelve months we

have worked to try to put the department together in a cohesive manner. We have

made some changes and I believe that at this point in time, it is operating very

effectively.

There are a number of initiatives that I would just

like to highlight in our opening remarks that you may want to comment on or ask

questions about. The Offshore Labour Relations situation has been evaluated by

our department and we hired a consultant, a Mr. Morgan Cooper to complete an

analysis of the offshore situation. That report is now in and a decision will be

made in the next few weeks as to the direction we will take regarding the labour

relation situation for the offshore as we head into an oil industry. That has

been an intensive exercise that has included consultations with the oil industry

and the labour movement, and we look forward to seeing the recommendations

coming out of that report.

We are also, this year, doing a Workers'

Compensation statutory review, which is an every five-year review. The report

for that is due in this month and we have a committee of four people who have

travelled the Province, Dave Alcock is the Chair, and we expect the report to

give some recommendations to government caucus and the Cabinet, for improvements

in the Workers' Compensation system. It has been an intensive review and we look

forward to receiving that report, then hopefully, moving forward with some

changes.

Occupational Health and Safety, is also an

important part of the portfolio. It is the protection of workers, the promotion

of education of safety in the workplace; it is really becoming more important

now - it has always been in the past but, with the significant economic

development that is forecast, and a lot of new, industrial sites opening up,

this division is going to be challenged in the next couple of years to ensure

that safety in the workplace is dealt with appropriately. So we are doing a lot

of work in that division; we are looking at our resources there and what we may

need in the future, and we are looking at some new initiatives there in

Occupational Health and Safety, some different codes of practice in the

workplace. We have been working with an advisory committee of Occupational

Health and Safety which has been put in place over the past number of years.

That is coming along quite well, but it is a fair bit of effort and it is going

to require a lot of effort in the future.

The Environment branch presents a challenging time

for us in the environment sector. Our new multi-material stewardship board which

was announced this year, and the deposit-return system, is probably the most

significant environmental initiative in a number of years for the Province. We

have approximately thirty-five, thirty-six depots now?

WITNESS: Right now, yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thirty-six depots in operation.

As of January 15 we started the system. Right now the numbers are looking very

good as to the return rates. The six and three half-back system seems to be

gaining acceptance, not without some problems, but we are overcoming those. It

has a high level of public acceptance, we think, and we are going to be seeing

probably some more depots in the next while as we fill in around the Province.

The geography is challenging for the program, but

it is working fairly well, and we are getting a lot of response, in particular

from students around the Province. They are really getting involved heavily, and

that is very helpful in the development of the system. That initiative will also

see - through the stewardship board, we are probably going to see in the next

few months further initiatives in waste tire recycling, which is one of the

areas we want to look at. We also want to look at some other packaging

materials, the Tim Horton's type of stuff that is out there that is not really -

we have not really dealt with it yet for recycling, so we are looking at that.

The stewardship board will help lead the charge. It is similar to what has been

set up in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Also, in the energy area, there is a lot of public

discussion about energy development, and that then includes our department

because of the environmental assessment. We are looking at a reform of the

Environmental Assessment Act this year to make it more effective. Also, the

department's branch of Environmental Assessment is challenged because of all the

energy proposals that are put forward, but it is safe to say that the department

is meeting the challenge.

There is debate out there as to what types of hydro

development or energy development should go ahead, but the Environmental

Assessment Act is there to help with those deliberations. I believe it is

working well. It is an excellent piece of legislation. We are going to make it

more effective, but we have to deal with the environmental implications of any

development, and energy is no different. The department basically ends up having

an impact on the type of energy development because of the Act.

So it makes for lively debate, but it makes for

necessary debate in the public, when it comes to energy development, and we have

seen a fair bit of that in the past number of months.

With the Voisey's Bay development we are also into

an environmental assessment, EIS, with the mine site and also the smelter site.

We expect those will be intensive public reviews of those two developments, and

at the end of it we will see a proper environmental plan for future development

put forward. Also, in the mining sector we have seen a number of small mines

getting started in the past couple of years. With that we have seen companies

come forward with their environmental registration documents to provide their

plan in dealing with the environment as they move ahead with business activity.

Also, we have seen a fairly big expenditure by the

pulp and paper industry which we should highlight. The Abitibi-Price mill in

Grand Falls - Windsor, and also Kruger in Corner Brook, have spent in total

approximately $75 million to $80 million in the last three to four years in

environmental protection, upgrading of their systems. It has certainly helped in

Corner Brook, with the new system they have in place, and the same in Grand

Falls - Windsor. Those companies have moved ahead, spent the money, and those

areas are certainly benefiting from better environmental protection.

Our environment branch has very much a lot on its

plate. It also is responsible for water resources in the Province, ensuring that

the water resources are protected. That is again a challenge as you go forward

with any development activity. I think I will leave it at that.

The Human Rights Commission is also under our

department. It is operating at arm's length and doing very well. It is taking

cases on, and we have a report in now from an advisory group with Human Rights.

We are looking at that, and some recommendations for potential legislative

change in the near future, so our policy branch is looking at that report.

The Workers' Compensation report is due in.

Workers' compensation is an issue on which many people have some views. There

have been some improvements over the past few years, but when the review comes

forward in the next month we are looking there, I think, at hopefully some new

improvements, some further and more effective response to the clients served by

Workers' Compensation. That is one issue that I hope we can deal with better in

the future.

At this point I will stop. That is the overview. If

there are any questions about the estimates or any of those issues, we shall be

happy to answer them.

CHAIR: Before I turn it over to the Vice-Chair

to start off the questioning, the Clerk has asked me to remind the officials to

sign the paper which is before the minister. I think we need that for purposes

of record-keeping. I would ask as well that any of the officials who are

speaking to the mikes state their name for purposes of the gentleman at the back

here who is trying to keep a record of this evening's proceedings.

John?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few questions. The first is an area that

you spoke of briefly, Mr. Minister, in your overview, dealing with the new

return procedures here in the Province. This may be more for one of your

officials. I am interested in - and obviously, I guess, your response would have

to be based on preliminary figures - perhaps a very brief analysis of basically

what this program has, firstly, cost the Province, and secondly, the benefit

accruing to the Province. Could you, perhaps in some preliminary fashion, give

us some indication as to really where we are from a fiscal point of view several

months after the commencement of this program?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The deposit return system?

Okay.

The implementation of the system is not requiring

government funding. The six-cent deposit goes on the wholesale price of a

product. I ask my officials to jump in if I make a mistake as I explain this.

Anyway, a six-cent deposit goes on wholesale and it is collected through the

stewardship board in trust, I believe, Mr. Norris?

MR. NORRIS: That is right, yes.

MR K. AYLWARD: It is collected in trust and

then dispersed to the depot operators as they collect the return bottles and

other items.

There is no government funding required for the

operation of the system. There is $300,000 that will be allocated annually for

the operation of the stewardship board. It is $300,000 for the stewardship board

and its operations, and that will come out of the deposits that are collected.

So the government does not fund the system at all; it is funded by the industry

and by the consumer.

We have thirty-six depots now, basically, around

thirty-six, where previous to the system we had about eleven or twelve that were

operating on an ad hoc basis, basically, with minimal revenue, and we were

getting about 11 per cent to 12 per cent of the total beverage containers in the

Province through our old system, which was basically very much ad hoc,

volunteer.

With the present new system, so far, in the first

four months, we have surpassed all of last year's total on the collection and we

are very close to our target of 50 per cent - we are aiming for 50 per cent this

first year - of beverage containers. I think there are 170-odd million annually

in the Province, so we are aiming for upwards of 85 million to 90 million this

year.

To us right now it is a success because we have

viable depots which are around rural parts of the Province and in urban centres

where they were not before. We have people working in the business. We have jobs

created in a system that is seeing people in the recycling business either being

employed, or entrepreneurs or business people taking on the new opportunity. We

also have non-profit associations involved. We have some of the hospitals.

Health care institutions are involved with some of the clientele who have been

participating.

I think right now we are probably into over 100

people, 115 people, who are involved in the actual operations in the system. We

expect that as the depots expand they will probably - we may reach upwards of

fifty, fifty-odd depots or more. Again, it is one or two persons per depot as

you go, so it will create more employment and the return rates will go up

gradually as people get into the system.

The costs to government really are - there is no

cost in the sense of budgetary. It is done through the collection. The

stewardship board has its own separate budget. We will look at the return rates

on an annual basis, and if we have to adjust the deposit return rate, we will

look at that if we think it can help with the return rate. So that is the cost

to benefits, Sir. We think they are flowing quite well.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You mentioned, I believe,

$300,000 for the stewardship board. I wonder could you just be a bit more

specific as to - perhaps even a breakdown of those costs.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I will just give you an initial

one. Maybe, Gary, you can give a little more detail. Right now the stewardship

board has just started operating. I think they are going to have two or three

staff, probably an executive director, two or three inspectors - maybe two

inspectors, to ensure that the system is operating in parts of the Province. I

do not know if the staffing has been decided. The board will decide that, the

staffing, but the board will be decided.

The budget on an annual basis has to be approved by

the Minister of Environment and Labour, but the operations of the stewardship

board are outlined in the legislation which went through the House of Assembly,

basically details their mandate. I think that is where we are right now. Gary,

do you want to add to that?

MR. NORRIS: There is a board struck, as the

minister indicated, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. It consists of three

government representatives, three senior officials. I am included. There are

people from industry: Mr. John Patten from Browning Harvey, Mr. John Gardner,

President of TRA, and we also have three other members-at-large: somebody from

Labrador, Donna Paddon; Georgina Hines from the Burin Peninsula, and Mr. Mike

Vickers from the West Coast. These people come together and our Chair - I'm

Acting Chair right now. In short order, hopefully within a week, we will have a

permanent chair announced, which will require Cabinet approval.

This board gets together once a month - we have had

about three meetings to date since the program was implemented - and really is

going to provide direction in terms of how to run this system. We have a

relationship with NewBRI, which is really a group that formed from the Canadian

Soft Drink Association, and they are actually operating the system. They are out

there setting up the depots, coming into the board seeking final approval for

the establishment of those depots.

This $300,000 the minister referred to, right now

we have no permanent staff hired. We are about to do that. Staff within the

Department of Environment and Labour are providing that assistance to the

Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. We will be hiring a manager I expect within a

month. We have some temporary inspectors who are going around the Province. The

monies, this $300,000, will be used to support the salary costs of those

individuals, as well as their operating costs, and to also fund bringing the

members of the board into these meetings which will be - right now we have held

them in St. John's, but we probably will hold them throughout the Province. It

is not, in my mind at least, a large sum of money. In essence, that is an

overview, I guess.

WITNESS: Thank you.

WITNESS: Do you have a question?

CHAIR: Mary, would you like to...?

MS M. HODDER: I just wondered, with the

environmental assessment study in Argentia, how much work will be created as a

result of it? Do you have any indication of that?

MR. K. AYLWARD: With the study itself, or the

project?

MS M. HODDER: As a result of the study.

MR. K. AYLWARD: As a result. It is a heavy,

intensive amount of work, the environmental assessment is, and there are a fair

number of consulting companies involved in it. I would say - Leslie? Probably,

it is in the numbers of - they have thirty or forty people.

MS GRATTAN: I would say at least forty people

would be actually collecting field data and doing the analysis.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. You are assessing a lot of

detail. They have to do a lot of evaluation of potential impacts of smelter and

so on, so it is all detailed in the registration document. There will be a lot

of people working there so it will have to be done well.

MR. G. REID: When do you expect that to be

completed?

MR. K. AYLWARD: A `turn-off' question. It is at

the discretion of the company. They may have it done by the Fall.

MR. G. REID: Is there a federal one going on

currently?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a joint assessment

between the Federal Government and the Provincial Government, both Departments

of Environment. There is a joint assessment process we have agreed on, about

what is to be evaluated and both governments will have to sign off at the end of

the process as to the acceptance of the environmental impact study. The Federal

and Provincial Governments, each has outlined its requirements in the study, so,

if it is air emissions or social impacts, the environmental impacts on land, and

so on, there are different details that are required. So, it may be done by the

Fall but it is up to the company. They have to do the studies, they know what

the requirements are and when they have them completed, they will come in and

they are then provided to the public for further scrutiny and commentary and

then a decision will be rendered at the end of that process.

MR. G. REID: I am sorry, Mary; I did not mean

to -

MS M. HODDER: That is okay.

MR. G. REID: Is it the same with Voisey's Bay?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is the same with the mine.

Again, we have a joint assessment - the Federal Government and also the

Provincial Government assessment process is in place. We also have included

representatives of the LIA and the Innu in the panel. It is a public panel

appointed with a Chair, and they are now into hearings to complete the

guidelines, I believe, of the assessment process. They will travel to certain

sites within the Province, to Coastal Labrador and other parts of the Province

where there is public concern. It is a detailed environmental assessment which

will probably take a time line of about fourteen to sixteen months at the

minimum and once they complete the document, they submit it to both levels of

government, both ministers, for final consideration and the EIS, if it is

accepted, at that point in time, goes to the Cabinet for final approval.

MR. G. REID: Do you contract out much of this

work? Because, obviously, you have a number of these on the go in the Province

right now, outside of Voisey's Bay - environmental assessments.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. G. REID: So most of these are contracted?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No - well, the companies will

hire their consultants to do the work but in our division of environmental

assessment, we have our own people who will oversee the process in our

department. And we have the environmental assessment committees that are formed

for each project, for example: Voisey's Bay mine, there would be an EIS

committee that would be struck which would include federal and provincial

officials of, say Wildlife, of DFO, of Tourism; so there are experts in each

part of the government who sit on the EIS Committee. The company then goes out

and hires its own experts, does the required study, completes the work and

submits it for evaluation to our officials and then the officials have to

prepare a recommendation to the minister.

MR. G. REID: That must be quite an industry in

the Province now, is it not?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a big industry. Jacques

Whitford is an agra-earth environmentalist, too, for example, but Jacques

Whitford has up to somewhere around eighty employees right now, at least eighty

employees. Three years ago there were probably five or ten people, so it is

becoming a big business. A big requirement for companies.

MR. G. REID: Yes.

MS M. HODDER: That accounts for the large

variance in 2.3.01, that is, Professional Services, from $5,000 to $350,000.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. NORRIS: With respect to the mine/mill

assessment, as the minister indicated, the assessment is ongoing. A panel of

five members was struck and they are actually in St. John's today. They were in

town yesterday and are taking presentations today, actually. I think there are

about ten parties within the Provincial Government making presentations to the

committee. The cost, there is a Secretariat that provides support to the panel

as they travel around and make all the arrangements; it is quite a costly

venture. That cost, will not be borne by the Province, it will be borne by the

proponent, Viosey's Bay Nickel.

MR. G. REID: Is that the case in all these

environmental assessment studies?

MR. NORRIS: No, not at this point.

MR. K. AYLWARD: No. We are considering that.

MR. G. REID: I am thinking about the smaller

ones, like some of these hydro ones on the rivers.

MS GRATTAN: Right now, this is just something

really we have - I guess the first example was the Terra Nova offshore project,

where the proponent picked up some if not all of the cost. It is only on the

major projects - right now we are thinking that is perhaps something over $15

million - that we would actually ask the proponent to bear the cost. Something

every project will have to do now, though, is when they register, they will have

to pay a fee of $200, which is a new measure.

MR. G. REID: Okay.

CHAIR: Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a few questions. If I could, I will wrap

them all up in one go at it here. That will be good news to all you people here.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: But I have not told you how long

it is going to be yet.

MR. WHELAN: At least ten minutes.

MR. H. HODDER: A ten-minute time limit?

MR. WHELAN: Ten-minute time limits at one

point.

MR. H. HODDER: Okay.

MR. WHELAN: If you use your ten minutes,

somebody else could use their, and if you had another round up, then you have

another ten minutes.

MR. H. HODDER: In that case, then, I will stay.

I want to get on to a couple of different things. One is the environmental issue

of waste disposal sites, particularly as it relates to municipalities. We have

tended in this Province to take - you know, I think we have given municipalities

a bit of a great understanding. I want to find out: What are we doing to try to

further the program started in the mid-eighties to reduce the number of waste

disposal sites? How are we coming along in terms of their going to bring them

where we can say that the municipal waste disposal sites somewhat resemble what

we would like to see, in terms of being environmentally safe and environmentally

meeting the guidelines and the criteria that we should have established a long

time ago?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is an excellent question,

Sir, and we appreciate it. I probably should have highlighted it in the

overview.

There was an inventory completed over a year ago,

of the Province. Jacques Whitford consultants were hired by the Department of

Environment and Labour to do an evaluation of landfill sites in the Province.

There are over 200 landfill sites in this Province that we know of, that are

registered right now. There are some recommendations that are sitting on a

report that we are going to be acting on shortly to move forward on to see if we

can reduce the number of landfills in the Province and get into regional waste

management.

The initiative that the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs has under way right now, which looks at the regionalization

issue, that issue is highlighting the need for a regional landfill and regional

waste management. Over the next few weeks and months we will be approaching

Municipal and Provincial Affairs and developing a plan to look at some regional

waste management initiatives in a number of the regions of the Province.

Some have started in the past year, a couple in

particular, one in Central Newfoundland. Botwood, for example has shut down its

landfill and put in a transfer station. They are to be commended for doing that.

There are a number of others that have done the same. We have many more,

especially in the smaller communities, which are a mile or two apart, where you

have your own landfill. We have to find a way to clean that up. The Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs has identified with our department forty right

now that we could shut down and then clean up together with these regions. We

are looking at moving on that this year.

It is a big issue because we are doing the

deposit-return system now, so that is going to create some revenue for some of

the municipalities, if they handle their landfills in the right way. We are

going to be talking to them about that. The Federation of Municipalities has

decided to make it an issue now in the last couple of years. In the last year,

they sponsored a conference on waste management in Corner Brook. So there is a

fair bit of momentum.

There was a fair bit of effort put into St. John's

Harbour and to get that issue moved, and in the St. John's area, that has

started to move quite readily in the last year. I think we are going to shift as

much of our emphasis as we can now towards the regional waste management issue

because it is the biggest issue out there, besides the other issues that we are

dealing with. It is one that we can move on with some momentum. We have

identified the problem, we have identified some solutions, and now we have to

spend some time doing it. It is a big issue, and if we are going to promote

tourism in the Province we are going to have to start cleaning it up.

MR. H. HODDER: On the issue of industrial and

domestic waste again, trying to deal with the hazardous waste components. We

know that we have various guidelines on that, and we have had various programs

promoted in certain regions of the Province. Collection times and disposals and

that kind of thing. How is that program going in other parts of the Province? I

am somewhat familiar with the Avalon north area. By Avalon north I mean this

part of the Avalon, not the Carbonear part. How is that being carried out in

other parts of the Province, and what initiatives are we undertaking to ensure

that hazardous wastes are being disposed of in a proper manner?

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are developing, and we have

a final draft, of hazardous waste regulations ready, new regulations. We have

looked at P.E.I., what they are doing, and other jurisdictions in Atlantic

Canada. The regulations are just about finalized and ready to go. We also have

been involved in some of the sponsorship of hazardous waste days which, in the

St. John's area, has been very successful. Last year I think Corner Brook was

tried? I think it was Corner Brook.

We are now working on a further initiative to look

at other regions of the Province, working with the municipalities. One of our

officials has been in direct contact with a number of municipalities that are

interested. We are also, and have been approaching, the producers of hazardous

waste, the companies that contribute to making hazardous waste, to get them to

give a contribution, stewardship-wise, to help them clean it up. In other words,

the stewardship initiative, when it comes to the Stewardship Board, it is the

same type of philosophy. When we reform our new environment act, which is also

in the process, we are looking at being able to give the department the

authority, the minister, to really get involved with the stewardship initiative

heavily, to promote it heavily, and to get the companies that develop the waste

or make the waste, to ensure they get involved in cleaning up the waste.

That initiative is under way as we speak and there

will be a report probably next week, from which I hope we will see five or six

municipalities this year, major ones in the regions, get involved in hazardous

waste collection days. That goes hand in hand, too, with proper regulation which

we have to finalize, and also with regional landfills that can handle it. That

is important.

MR. H. HODDER: Are you suggesting that, for

example, every time we go to purchase a gallon of paint that we would have a

surcharge put on and that would then be channelled back? Or are we suggesting it

be at the consumer-retail level, or would it be at the manufacturing level, so

that we would be collecting it right at the point of manufacturing, or at the

consumer end?

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are looking at what other

jurisdictions have done right now. I believe we should approach the industry

first and say: Look, this is a problem, and we believe you should contribute to

cleaning up the problem. If we cannot get industry to come on side, then we will

have to look at the other options. That is the way we approached the

deposit-return system. We asked the industry to develop their own effective

system, and we ended up coming with our own regulation, but working out an

arrangement that was really a partnership at the end of it.

If the stewardship principle is going to be put

forward, then we believe that a lot of the companies that are producing the

waste - and this is pretty well getting standard across Canada, in a number of

jurisdictions - should be involved in contributing to the costs of the clean up.

There is a number of ways of doing it. It might be a levy that you may end up -

you could look at that idea. We are going to approach the industry first.

MR. H. HODDER: By the industry, you mean the

manufacturer or the wholesaler?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Really the producers of it, the

manufacturers of it, and the users of it. The users in particular. Some of the

big industrial users of hazardous waste in the Province that produce it at the

end of their processes - so the bigger companies.

MR. H. HODDER: What do you mean by that? For

example, let us say, looking at manufacturers - I am just thinking about paint -

we would be looking at, say, Standard Manufacturing and Matchless, and those,

but we would not be touching at all the great massive volumes of paint products

that are produced in Montreal, let us say, and brought in here and sold by firms

like the Paint Shops.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We dealt with that one also

through the deposit return system. We had importation of products that are not

manufactured here or processed here but we were able to deal with it at the

wholesale level, so everybody is dealing with it in the marketplace. Here you

would look at approaching the companies. A lot of companies who produce, for

example, paints and other products, also have environmental policies, so they

are into trying to promote what they do, that what they do does not hurt the

environment, or that they are involved, so we want to get them talked to about

what we think they should be doing to help. We will see what comes out of it.

MR. H. HODDER: Of course, I do not want to - I

just used paint as an example.

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, that is just one. There are

a number of others.

MR. H. HODDER: There is a great, long list of

other household products that are very common, that we did a lot of identifying

in Mount Pearl when I was there. We had a very aggressive committee working on

that, very commendable to several of the councillors who were spearheading the

drive at the time.

On the issue of water, and the resource management

policies, we know probably that Canada has one of the great reserves. In fact, I

was listening to an interview the other night by the former Margaret Trudeau,

who is an environmentalist. She was giving one of her rare interviews, on I

think it was CBC, a couple of nights ago in the late evening, and she was

espousing there - and I think she was right - that as years go by, Canadian

resource, with its clean water, is probably going to be among the greatest

resources that we will have. Some people have misgivings that we will either

treat it too lightly in the sense that we think it is a God-given thing and we

do not want to manage it, overdo it, you might say, in terms of controlling it.

Other people feel that we might become too stringent. What are we doing in this

Province to: (

a) make sure that we keep our natural water supplies as pure as we

can; and, (

b) what regulations are we putting in place to ensure that all of the

spin-off benefits that come from the exportation of water - and we know about

Gisborne Lake and the Grand -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Grand Le Pierre.

MR. H. HODDER: Grand Le Pierre in Fortune Bay,

and that kind of thing, and there is good support for that, but we want to make

sure that the maximization of the benefit stays with the people of this Province

or, for that matter, on a national level. You deal with a national level as well

with your colleagues across the country. We have a good policy for

Newfoundlanders and, of course, also a good policy for the country.

MR. K. AYLWARD: There are a number of

initiatives under way. When it comes to water resources and protection,

municipalities are involved there now with declared watersheds in their

protection, and policies to protect when it comes to development activity.

There has also been, I would say in the last four

or five years, if we look back at it, a great number of watershed areas that

have been developed. Boundaries have been developed by the department working

with regions for protection purposes to allow for limited development in areas,

development that is appropriate for an area. There has been a lot of evaluation

of the watersheds of the Province done by the water resources division.

There has been some really good work done through

the Canada/Newfoundland water resources agreements that we have had over the

last few years, a lot of detailed GIS work, geographic information system work,

that has given us a lot of homework as to how watersheds operate, how they flow,

and where development should go in a certain area.

So there has been a lot of homework done, which has

been very helpful, and it will help us in the planning, and we have to do more.

There is a lot more to do, but there has been a lot done, and I think it very

much helps. That, with the Environmental Assessment Act, when it comes to

activities that are being looked at for development, you put the two together;

and, you know, development will not occur unless it meets a lot of stringent

requirements.

When it comes to the water export policy, that has

been developed over the last year. Gisborne Lake is the first proposal that is

on deck. We are still looking at and talking to the proponent, the first one who

has been put forward. There is a second one for the same lake area, but there

has not been any further development recently because the first proponent has

not been into too heavy a negotiation, at least recently. He has been doing some

further environmental work, I believe, but we expect some negotiations will

start.

Paramount in the policy is the protection of the

resource, first off, for the Province, that the resource gets first call for the

needs of the people of the Province, which is paramount. Secondly, we are

promoting value-added for water export, in other words potential bottling or

types of value-added activity. And if we were to consider a further industrial

use for water, which would be bulk shipment, the royalty rates would be higher

and would be reflected, and we would also again look at the creation of

employment and so on as a major issue. Right now we are awaiting details of the

proposal. We do not have the vivid detail yet - we are still waiting - and there

is a second proponent.

There is also some interest off the South Coast of

Labrador just recently, so we expect we might get a proposal from there in the

next little while.

MR. H. HODDER: Excellent.

Two minor questions; one is, I always see these

signs on the highway that you must not litter and if you litter you are going to

be prosecuted, and all that kind of thing. How many have you prosecuted

successfully in the last five years?

CHAIR: Perhaps after this question we might

pass it to Mr. Whelan, who has a couple of questions he would like to ask.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am not sure exactly of the

numbers. We did get one out of Marystown last year, but there were a number of

others. We can check with the RCMP, who have been doing a superb job.

MR. H. HODDER: So you do it through the -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, through the RCMP highway

enforcement.

The former Minister of Highways, Minister John

Efford, was involved with the adopt-a-highway program, and that has been pretty

successful, too. It is really starting to catch on. So that, together with the

increase in fines... You put a separate fine on for littering.

MR. H. HODDER: That was an excellent program.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. So that, plus the separate

fine for littering, plus the deposit-return system, all three of those

initiatives are getting at the highway system, at least trying to get it cleaned

up. It gives some incentive to clean it up.

CHAIR: Mr. Whelan, if you want.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just

have a few points.

Getting back to the environmental impact study with

regard to Argentia, the project itself has to wait until the review has been

completed and the report is in, and all this type of thing?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: And you say that will take a period

of fourteen to sixteen months. How long has that been under way, or has it

started yet?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The mine site will be about

fourteen to sixteen months, is that right?

WITNESS: That is right.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is the mine site. The

smelter site, their EIS, they may complete earlier than -

MR. WHELAN: Than what?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The mine site. The smelter site

may be completed earlier.

MR. WHELAN: Yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Because on the smelter site the

issues are a little less complex, so it might be completed earlier. Potentially

it could even be late this Summer, but it could be the Fall, depending. So if

the EIS gets accepted, it gets submitted in the Fall or the Summer, we would

look at it and get a recommendation. If it is acceptable then it goes to Cabinet

for a final decision. So they could potentially be out of the EIS stage earlier

with the smelter than with the mine.

MR. WHELAN: I spent a bit of time up around

Argentia and you cannot walk fifty feet up there, especially where the smelter

is supposed to be going, without seeing a sign, `Danger, PCBs'. Does anybody

have any idea as to what extent these are there? And if so, the initial ground

work for that would have to be a fairly extensive project.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: Is that a sensitive issue, or

should I -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Not at all - no, I hope not.

MR. WHELAN: I see everybody looking at each

other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are on the Committee, do

not worry about it.

MS GRATTAN: We just cannot decide which of us

will leap to answer your question.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We will take a first crack at

it, anyway. There are five years of study that have been completed. It took five

years to study the site, intensively study it, all of the different potential

landfills. There was ground monitoring done, wells were put in place. It was a

detailed evaluation of what is there in the landfills, in the land area. There

is a remediation plan outlined for the next number of years to clean it up. The

approximate cost to clean it up is in the $70 million to $80 million range. That

would be done to acceptable Canadian environmental standards, Canadian

environmental law.

MR. WHELAN: This is where the - okay -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: Go ahead.

MR. K. AYLWARD: In other words, the plan is in

place. Now, with the smelter announcement we are looking at probably speeding up

the work plan. In other words, they would move in more quickly and do more work

and so on, and also, evaluate potentially where the smelter is going. Some of

the work that they may want to do at the site, they may be able to do more

quickly and so on. So we are looking at the work plan with the Federal

Government. The Federal Government is responsible for the clean-up - the

Department of National Defence, I believe, is it, DND?

MS GRATTAN: No, Public Works.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Public Works, sorry. Public

Works is responsible for it, and we are on a co-ordinating committee to ensure

that everything goes well.

MR. WHELAN: There was an agreement reached

between the American Government and the Canadian Government over, what, a

five-year period, was it? There was supposed to be x number of millions of

dollars allocated to the Canadian Government for the clean-up of the Argentia

site.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Right, amongst other sites,

yes.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Federal Government

negotiated with -

MR. WHELAN: So the $80 million wasn't

specifically put aside for Argentia itself. It was for a number of sites, was

it?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Canadian Government

committed the funding without knowing for sure how much they were going to get

from the U.S. They were in negotiations with the U.S. But the estimated clean-up

costs - Goose Bay, I think, was about $12 million to $15 million, and Argentia

was in the area of $80 million. Those monies were committed by the Federal

Government before - you know, they were in negotiations with the U.S.

Government, and they gave the commitment to clean it up because they were going

to go after the U.S. Government to get the costs. So that is their obligation.

MR. WHELAN: It was allocated over - what was

it, five -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Five years, yes, five or six

years to -

MR. WHELAN: Will they be forthcoming with the

$80 million, instead of five years -

MR. K. AYLWARD: There is -

MR. WHELAN: Because they are in negotiations

with regard to that.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The work plan this year is

about $14 million or $15 million?

OFFICIAL: Seventeen million.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Seventeen million dollars for

this year, for the work plan.

MR. WHELAN: It was my impression that the

groundwork was supposed to start this year for the smelter, with the view that

it may be finished in maybe two years, so that in 1999, we would say, the

smelter would be up and running. I am just trying to get a handle on where it is

all going. With regard to the clean-up, if you are going to spend $17 million

this year, and it is going to cost $80 million to clean it up, and the smelter

can't be started until the environmental impact study is finished and the

groundwork is done because of this PCB problem, where do we stand? Again, I say

I am just trying to get a handle on when this whole thing is going to be

started.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The work plan is being looked

at now by the Federal Government with respect to speeding up the clean-up of the

site. For example, right now there is not a problem with parts of the site. The

company, when it comes to its EIS stage, the land that they may be choosing to

start building on and construction on, they will be able to start some of that,

because part of the site will be already cleaned up, or there won't be a problem

with it.

So, it depends on the work plan of the company,

right? They have to look at what the work plan of the Federal Government is to

clean it up, and you have to overlay the work they are going to do, plus the

sites they are going to need. They aren't going to need all the land that is out

there. It depends on where they are going to put the smelter and so on. All

those logistics are now being evaluated by the company and by the Federal

Government.

MR. WHELAN: Regardless of where they put it

there on that side of the harbour, those signs are fairly extensive. I walked

right on through and I couldn't find a place where I - down by the stadium you

didn't see too many, but every place else, you know, it seems like there are all

kinds of things buried up there.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Come over to Stephenville.

MR. WHELAN: I am wondering, if they have a

smelter there, I'm sure they won't be putting it next to a sign that says:

Danger, PCBs. I am thinking the entire area would have to be cleaned up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh yes, the areas that have

been identified are going to be cleaned up. They know exactly where everything

is in the sense of the evaluation. It was the most intensive environmental

evaluation of a site done probably in Canada in the last ten to fifteen years.

WITNESS: So it has been done?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, it has been done in the

sense of just studying what the problem is. It took five years to study what the

problem was.

MR. G. REID: But most of the environmental

study is done?

MR. K. AYLWARD: In a sense, yes, because you

know what is there so now, you have to look at your clean-up plan and you have

to look at where you are going to put your smelter site, and that may be in an

area that is either affected or not affected.

MR. G. REID: So the environmental impact study

that has been carried out and funded by the company is not as extensive as we

were led to believe, I guess - or not led to believe, but we assumed?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, there is a fair bit of

work done.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. G. REID: We would not be in very good shape

if we had to start from scratch today. We certainly would not have it done in

two year's time.

MR. WHELAN: It was $80 million, was it, for the

clean-up?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Clean-up and some monitoring of

the site, monitoring after, and that is mostly minimal (inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: Okay. Another point that I wanted

to get some -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Jeeze, you are tough, you are.

MR. WHELAN: Pardon?

MR. K. AYLWARD: You are tough.

MR. WHELAN: Oh yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am only kidding.

MR. WHELAN: The labour agreement with regard to

the turnover project at Bull Arm - you mentioned this in your overview and I

wonder if you could expound on it somewhat, just to let us know what the status

is right now, and if there has been an agreement with the unions, a tentative

agreement between the unions and the company and government, I guess; and if you

have any details on it, I would like to know that; because it is of particular

interest in the area that I represent, as there is a large construction

population there.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is a good question, Sir.

The agreement that has been struck is a voluntary

agreement between the construction trade unions and the employer of the Terra

Nova Group. The Terra Nova Group has contracted with the Grand Bank Alliance,

which is a number of companies, to build the platform for the Terra Nova

oilfield. A number of the components are being evaluated for building or

construction in the Province and the Bull Arm site is a major site for potential

construction activity. So the construction trade unions formed a separate group

and started discussions with the consortium that is going to build the Terra

Nova platform.

MR. WHELAN: The unions themselves voluntarily

decided to approach the builders to come to some sort of an agreement, as to the

way things would be carried out with regard to workers and their rights and all

that kind of thing, wages and whatever.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. They developed a

collective agreement that would govern work conditions, pay rates and so on,

conditions of working at the site; also, the potential for cross-trading, you

know, unions doing cross-trading and so on. It really was a break-through

agreement, because it is the first time in Canada that the construction trades

were involved to the extent they were, of having almost a single collective

bargaining agent. Joe, is that the way to put it?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: It is my understanding that there

will be one union representing all workers up there, and it is a little bit

perplexing for me to be able to fathom how all these unions would come together

and agree that one union would represent all the trades, and I am wondering how

that has been accepted. I know they had all agreed initially but, once it was

determined which union was going to represent all the trades, I have the funny

feeling that this union here will say: Well, this was not done right, we need to

have another look at it, or -

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a collection of unions

but they have agreed on a bargaining agent, one would be the bargaining agent

for the collection of unions.

MR. WHELAN: Would this be an elected individual

or an appointed individual by executives of the various unions?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am not sure of the details of

the constitution. They have their own constitution of how they will operate. Joe

O'Neill, maybe you could give further thought on it.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes. Basically, the new union that

is struck to -

MR. WHELAN: So this is a new union we have?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: That is all we needed.

MR. O'NEILL: It is called the Newfoundland and

Labrador International Building and Construction Petroleum Development

Association.

MR. WHELAN: Say that again. So, is it a union

of unions?

MR. O'NEILL: Actually, it is a single union

comprised of the sixteen building trades unions, and you are quite right in that

no doubt, everybody has heard by now that there are, at least one union maybe

two of the building trades who do not quite see it the same way as the other

fourteen trades. That is an issue that is being dealt with internally within the

building trades who are in the Petroleum Association now. But essentially, it is

a one-union set-up, and they have a collective agreement with PCL Constructors

to look at future development at the Bull Arm site. So it is a one-union

concept.

MR. WHELAN: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And it is also to give it a

competitive edge in dealing with the site itself, in dealing with trying to

attract business, and that is one of the reasons (inaudible).

MR. WHELAN: We are not assuming you know but,

by the way you are talking, I would assume that the Bull Arm site was the site

where the construction for part of the topsides, or whatever, was going to be

held, but that is not necessarily so?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is not fully decided yet.

MR. O'NEILL: No. The minister referenced

earlier to... this sort of arrangement is an arrangement that - I knew when I

started to speak that the lights would go out. It is the sort of arrangement

that will help to market Bull Arm as a first-class, world-class fabrication

facility that can attract potential - and I guess, it is more fabrication than

construction. It is fabrication of topsides, modules and all that sort of thing,

and there is a lot of that work around the world that Bull Arm can logically

compete for, providing it had a good, sound labour agreement. And this is

exactly what this agreement does, it really puts Bull Arm in the running, I

guess, for future projects.

MR. WHELAN: So, how detailed is this particular

agreement? I mean, the wage structure and all this type of thing, overtime and

holidays, all that type of thing, has all been -

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: Is that right?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes. It is a collective agreement

in terms of having all of the markings of the collective agreement, you know,

grievance and arbitration procedures, wages and benefits. One of the key

elements of it is that, even though it is structured from fourteen building

trades unions, there can be no jurisdiction disputes, which I am sure, as you

know, that was quite a feat to pull off.

MR. WHELAN: (Inaudible), problem there

(inaudible).

MR. O'NEILL: Well, once a contractor assigns

work, say, on a particular job, if the operating engineers feel that the

labourers are doing their work, they cannot claim jurisdiction to the labourer's

work. The assignment of work is solely up to the operator. It is a major

breakthrough.

MR. WHELAN: There may be some internal problems

as a result.

MR. O'NEILL: Oh yes, they have some internal

issues from that.

MR. WHELAN: So this deal, is it signed, sealed

and delivered, agreed to by the unions and signed by the companies?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, the agreement has been signed

by both sides.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have two union leaders and

two unions which are challenging the agreement to a point because they feel that

there are certain provisions, I think mostly within the constitution of the new

agreement, in that -

MR. WHELAN: Yes, that is the operating engineer

and -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, and the labourers, and

they have the right but, you know, the thing is, they have all agreed on that

one collective agreement.

MR. WHELAN: Can they hold it up? I mean, does

it have to be 100 per cent of the unions agreeing or, is there some sort of a -

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are evaluating that now,

Sir, because we may have to amend the legislation, it depends. So we are looking

at potential amendments and it depends on the

interpretation of the legislation.

And their concerns may be dealt with internally yet, or they may not be, so it

depends again on what they do further. But we will evaluate the agreement and

look at the application to the Labour Relations Act. It is a voluntary

agreement, they come together and our legislation recognizes voluntary

agreements, but we may have to amend the legislation somewhat.

MR. G. REID: Is this unique in North America or

in the world to have one group like that representing a particular area?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is not unique. In Scotland,

the competition that they would be facing off with, to do fabrication, has a

single union environment, the same type as here, so they know that. They have

been over there and have seen it. They have met with the people over there,

working with their union leaders and so on, so they are familiar with what the

competition is, and I think it is safe to say, that was part of the influence of

what they saw. You know, the union leadership, I think if you talked to them and

asked them if that was part of (inaudible) -

MR. G. REID: It certainly makes it more

attractive.

MR. WHELAN: Who is the business agent? Has

there been one appointed to represent the members of -

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, I don't think so.

MR. O'NEILL: The agreement it provides calls

for a site rep, so that when work does commence at the Bull Arm facility, there

will be a site rep who will represent the unions and there will also be a site

rep who will represent the contractor, but at this point in time, they have not

been named. But you are quite right in terms of the competition, and the notion

was put forward early in the process that unless there were some kind of

arrangement made with respect to the Bull Arm labour relations situation and

labour being for Bull Arm, that Bull Arm could not even make it on the bid sheet

for world projects. So this agreement was an absolute must.

MR. WHELAN: - was significant. The status quo

was as things were with the Hibernia project.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes. It would not make the bid

sheet.

MR. G. REID: I cannot imagine a company wanting

to come in and negotiate with twenty unions.

MR. O'NEILL: Absolutely. It is part of the

problem, yes.

CHAIR: Very well. Perhaps, John, you would -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There are just a couple of

points I would like to touch on. I remember a topic that was raised last year,

actually, at the Estimates committee meetings: the Workers' Compensation Review

Division, and I remember during our discussions about a year ago, there was some

concern expressed about - I don't know if `efficiency' is the right word, but

certainly the fact that perhaps a majority of the appeals were being heard by a

particular member as opposed to a cross-section of the members who were

appointed to the Review Division.

I am just wondering: Has that situation improved?

Is there now, I guess, a fair representation of appeals being heard by various

review divisions, and I ask that question from the point of view of a claimant

or appellant, who perhaps, would feel best served in terms of having his case

heard, by having it heard with at least the possibility of a particular review

member hearing it, as opposed to just one member? So I am just wondering, how

has that situation changed, if at all, in the past twelve months?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you very much for the

question.

We looked at that in the past number of months and

through Program Review, we looked at, of course, every part of the department

and also the functioning of the Workers' Compensation Review. We have had

various representations. Some have been very supportive of having as much as

possible, a single adjudicator. It certainly has benefited in the sense of cost

in the whole operation of the system; the costs have been lowered, the time

lines have been lowered, the response has been, on the most part, very, very

effective and quick, as quick as possible, but we are looking at the

appointments of other Commissioners. We do have more than one right now and we

will have probably three or four over the next few weeks.

We have, I think, three now. And we are still just

judging how it is operating. We are getting the public review which is due in

shortly with the Workers' Compensation Review and we expect that will have some

recommendations as to the effectiveness of the Review Division, and any

suggestions they may have.

There has been some suggestion that we look again

at a tripartite committee that would do the hearings but, for the most part, we

feel it is working pretty well overall, the cost certainly, but also the

efficiency and effectiveness to the clientele who have been availing of the

review. Their response time has been much better. There has been a scattered, I

suppose, client, who has had some difficulty, but considering the volume, we

think it is running pretty well. We are going to wait on the outcome of the

recommendations of the committee and that will happen in the next thirty days

when they submit the report.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I notice there in the

Estimates, Professional Services of $175,000. Is that representation for the

Review Division when decisions are appealed? Is that what that refers to?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is a good question. I am

not sure. Any help, Gerry, what do you think?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, $175,000 would be for the

single adjudication costs and would also include legal fees for the Workers'

Compensation Review Division.

MR. K. AYLWARD: If they need that?

MR. CROCKER: Right, if that is required.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And the salaries, I think, are

the staff?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, that's right.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And the Commission (inaudible)

staff, three or four.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. Just one final point

that I have. There has been some representation, as you know, in the House of

Assembly and by various groups in our society for amendments to the Human Rights

Code. I'm just wondering if, in fact, it is the plan of government, through your

ministry, to make these amendments within the near future.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are in the final stage. We

have some recommendations. Final recommendations are ready for the caucus and

government, and I am hopeful. We are moving on it and we will have deliberation

on that subject very shortly. It has required an extensive amount of work

because we had to look at the other jurisdictions and the evolving law, because

it has been changing even over the past year. We have had Justice involved

heavily, and there are some final recommendations now for consideration. Very

shortly we will be bringing forward our recommendations.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have no further questions,

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Gerry?

MR. G. REID: No.

CHAIR: Mary?

MS M. HODDER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Don?

MR. WHELAN: No.

CHAIR: There being no further questions, we

thank you, Minister, and your delegation this evening, for your answers. Some of

the questions perhaps were coming a little bit unexpectedly, but we thank you

very much for your answers, and we all learned greatly from them.

Before we clue up, the Committee has a couple of

items of business. We have the Minutes from the meeting of last evening dealing

with the Department of Health. I would like to have those Minutes moved and

seconded.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: The Minutes of the meeting this morning

dealing with the Social Services Committee of the House on the Department of

Human Resources and Employment.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: We now need a motion to approve the

heads of the Department of Environment and Labour.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 6.1.01, carried.

On motion, Department of Environment and Labour,

total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Committee. We next

meet, I believe, on Tuesday May 6.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the

kindness and the effective questioning by the Committee. The minister was

grilled and looks forward to Question Period tomorrow.

The Committee adjourned.