May 7, 1991 SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES

ENVIRONMENT & LANDS (UNEDITED)

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Welcome to the Minister and his staff and ladies

and gentlemen of the media.

First, I would like to introduce to you the Members

of the Social Services Estimates Committee: to my immediate left is the Member

for Humber East, Ms. Lynn Verge; Mr. Arthur Reid, Member for Carbonear; the

distinguished Member for St. John's East Extern, Mr. Kevin Parsons; next to Mr.

Parsons is Mr. Aubrey Gover, the Member for Bonavista South; and Mr. Doug

Oldford, M.H.A. for Trinity North. I would also like to introduce to you our

Secretary, Miss Elizabeth Murhpy, Deputy Clerk of the House of Assembly.

Without any further ado I would turn it over to the

Minister for an opening statement and perhaps the Minister would also like to

introduce his staff.

Mr. Minister.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to greet the Committee Members, staff

and also the media present. I would like to take this opportunity to say how

pleased I am with the work that has been accomplished by the Department of

Environment and Lands in 1990 and the early stages of this year. I welcome the

opportunity to briefly outline for the Committee the principle thrusts of our

spending plans for 1991 and 1992.

As the Chairman suggested, I would like to

introduce the people I have here with me, though not part of my delegation but

in attendance is Mr. Claude Moreau my Executive Assistant who is sitting the

next block over. The official present are: Mr. John Fleming, the Deputy Minister

of the Department of Environment and Lands; Mr. Bob Winsor, Assistant Deputy

Minister of Lands and Parks under our reorganization; in the front line Mr. Ken

Dominie, Director, Civil and Sanitary Environmental Engineering; in the next row

behind, Ms. Kay Mullins, Director of Human Resources; Mr. Frank Harris, Director

of Financial and General Operations; Mr. Don Hustins, Director of Parks

Division; and Mr. Jim Hancock, Director of Wildlife.

If I may before I get into my statement I would

just like to make a comment. In the couple of years I have been Minister, in

fact two days past two years now, I would like to comment on the great group

that I have working with me in my Department. We have been able, despite

budgetary restraints and so on, to roll with the punches to a degree and I think

by dedication and professionalism of the staff we have been able to roll with

the punches and absorb the things that have come to us from the point of view of

fiscal restraint, downsizing and a variety of other requirements we had to face.

I would personally like to thank everybody, the officials present, and the

Department generally for an excellent job, in my opinion, that they have been

carrying out since I have been the Minister and no doubt in the years prior to

my coming here to the Portfolio, Mr. Chairman, and Committee Members.

The Government is committed to preserving and

protecting our natural environment. We are maintaining all existing programmes

in the Department of Environment and Lands and within the limitations of

expenditure restraint undertaking some new initiatives. An additional $2.5

million in new funding is being provided so that the Government can enter into a

joint programme with the Federal Government to clean up contaminated sites in

the Province.

Funding is also provided by the operation of the

Round Table on Environment and Economy. The Round Table was appointed last Fall

and the first meeting has already been held. It consists of decision makers and

leaders from private and public sectors in the Province. We look to the Round

Table to provide leadership in building consensus between all sectors of our

society of the integration of environmental protection with sustainable economic

development.

Secretarial services for the Round Table will be

provided by a new policy and planning division to be established in the

Department of Environment and Lands. This new division will enable the

Department to put increased emphasis on environmental policy development,

especially in such areas as waste management and recycling.

I am pleased that we were able to provide for full

operation of our park system. As I recently announced in the House of Assembly

there will be changes to the fee structure for provincial park usage to give all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians equal access to our parks.

All wildlife management programs will be maintained

and some increased funding is provided for field equipment and improved

communications and safety equipment for wildlife protection staff.

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the highlights of

our Department's plans for 1991-92. I would now like to give the Committee a

brief overview of the Department's structure and operation following the format

in the Estimates.

As a standard throughout Government our

Departmental Estimates initially and provide for the operation of the Minister's

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

Estimates reflect the organization of the Department in three branches,

environment, lands, parks and wildlife. Now, that has actually been re-adjusted,

as I have indicated, in the fact that one of our executive positions is now no

longer with us and we have at least temporarily organized where parks, wildlife

and administrative had been a separate branch of the Department the parks and

wildlife responsibility has been assigned to the existing two ADMs.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Committee is aware that

our Department is reduced, and I just mentioned two or three, and the recent

down sizing has caused us to do some reorganization, as I have just mentioned.

The Parks Division is reporting to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Lands, Mr.

Bob Winsor, and the Wildlife Division to the Assistant Deputy Minister of

Environment, Mr. David Jeans, and the Human Resources and Financial

Administration Division report to the Deputy Minister, Mr. John Fleming, and

that is our reorganization in fairly brief terms.

I now briefly review the principal programs of the

branches as shown in the Estimates. The Environment Branch consists of five

technical divisions. The Environmental Investigations Division is responsible

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

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

also responsible for oil and chemical spill response, processing applications

for fuel storage systems, and for processing environmental approvals for small

scale developments.

The Civil Sanitary Environmental Engineering

Division is responsible for the investigation and identification of

environmental problems related to the design, construction and operation of

municipal infrastructure systems. The Division also carries out an operator

training program for operators of municipal water and sewer systems throughout

the Province. The Industrial Environmental Engineering Division ensures that all

industry in the Province complies with the requirements of legislative

environmental standards including the evaluation of air quality in sensitive

areas. A network of seven precipitation stations is operated to monitor and

assess the impacts of acid rain in the Province.

The Water Resources Management Division is

responsible for the implementation and evaluation of approved programmes

relating to the conservation, development control, improvement and proper

utilization of the water resources of our Province. The Water Investigations and

Water Rights

Section issues approval for stream alterations and water use

authorizations.

Environmental Assessment Division administers the

Environmental Assessment Act and the Pesticides Control Act. This Environmental

Assessment Act provides for the protection of the environment of Newfoundland

and Labrador by requiring the registration for possible assessment of all

undertakings which may have a significant impact on the environment.

The significance of this function has been

magnified recently through the Department's role in the preparation and

implementation of the Environmental Protection Plan for the Hibernia GBS

construction site. The EPP describes a specific environmental protection measure

which will have to be taken throughout the life of the project from GBS

construction through to site decommissioning.

The Government is working with Nodeco and the

Hibernia Management and Development Company Limited on an ongoing basis in

developing appropriate standards for the construction, operation and eventual

rehabilitation or subsequent future use of the site.

In the Lands branch, the Crown Lands Branch is

responsible for the administration and control of Crown Land; the Division

processes Crown Land applications and issues Crown titles. This work is largely

decentralized through regional offices in St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook and

Goose Bay.

The Crown Lands Division is also responsible for

maintaining the Crown Land registry, which houses all the official documents

that deal with the granting leasing, licensing and transfer of Crown Land in the

Province. Related to this, is the cadastre mapping

section which is actively

plotting all Crown titles on large scale mapping; the Division also operates a

map and air-photo library where maps and photos can be viewed or purchased.

The Land Management Division is responsible for the

orderly planning of the Province's Crown land resource. This Division, through

the Interdepartmental Land Use Committee, reviews proposals which may impact on

Crown Land; examples include draft legislation, municipal and regional plans,

reserved draft regulations, waste disposal sites and silviculture plans. The

Land Management Division prepares land-use plans and undertakes certain small

scale developments; this year, $200,000 has been budgeted in the capital account

for the development of cottage and residential lots in selected areas. All

development under this programme are on a cost recovery basis.

The Surveys and Mapping Division has responsibility

for the provincial geodetic survey and topographic mapping programmes. Funds

have been budgeted to extend that network of geodetic stations to provide

adequate coverage for reference of legal and engineering surveys to a common

positional reference system.

Work will continue in the production of large scale

maps for use in resource planning and property mapping. The surveys of Mapping

Division provides support services to other departments and agencies of

provincial Government in standards, specifications, contract inspections and

consultation in the areas of legal surveys, mapping, air-photography and

geographic information systems.

The Parks Division and the Parks and Wildlife are

now separate, and as I have said The Parks Division is one of the major

components of the Department and is responsible for all matters relating to the

planning and management of our provincial parks system. We have a total of

eighty provincial parks, thirteen ecological reserves and two wilderness

reserves in the system of parks encompassing an area of 4,497 square kilometres.

The largest of which, I guess as you know is roughly 3,500 square kilometres,

the recently announced Bay d'Nord Middle Ridge.

Our system of provincial parks protects some of our

Provinces most valuable resources. Government is continuing to preserve and

protect these special natural areas while providing high quality standard

services for the general public.

Several new initiatives are under way this year as

part of the preplanning for new ecological reserves and waterways parks.

Provisional ecological reserve status has been granted to four sites: Fortune

Head, Baccalieu Island, Hawk Hills and West Brook red pine area. Once the

planning and public consultation programmes are completed for these sites, I am

hopeful they will be given full reserve status thereby increasing the amount of

protected land in the Province.

In addition, park officials are preparing a

management plan for Main River, Sop's Arm, the first river in the Province to be

designated as part of the Canadian Heritage River system.

Now, the Wildlife Division is the agency which has

responsibility for the management and protection of our provincial wildlife

resources. I am pleased to report that our big game population has continued to

thrive enabling us to increase hunting activity. On the Island a total of 29,227

moose licences are available for the 1991-1992 hunt. This is an increase of

5,369 licences or 22.5 per cent over the 1990 quotas. There are 2,640 caribou

licences available which represents an increase of 195 licences or 8 per cent

over the 1990 quotas. In Labrador 145 moose licences are available for the

1991-1992 season. An increase of fifteen licences or 11.5 per cent over last

year. There are no quotas placed on caribou which may be taken from the George

River herd in Labrador, of course, and this herd exceeds 600,000 animals.

My Department will take significant steps in the

coming year to improve the wildlife conservation and protection efforts by

providing additional equipment to our wildlife protection officers. That

equipment will include a modern communications system to improve their

efficiency and to increase officers safety.

I might add the training course now has been

completed for all our regions. It has been very successful. We are receiving

very positive input from the people themselves and others who have an interest

in that particular thing.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my review of the

general responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Lands. I trust the

information that I have presented will help provide an accurate appreciation of

the significance and diverse responsibilities of my Department.

Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for what

I consider to be a very concise and interesting statement.

I now give the floor to the hon. Member for St.

John's East Extern, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Looking over the estimates for 1991 certainly I was

surprised to see that overall your Department only increased, in a monetary way,

by a little better than 3 per cent. I thought that to be a measly amount because

on the first page the executive support expenditures this year would be for

$148,000 more on the executive support staff than last year, and that was

inclusive in the 3 per cent overall. I also did a little small bit of

subtraction there and I found that on the increase you have, $452,000 of that 3

per cent was the increase in federal funding over last year's amount, so your

Department had very little in excess of last year monetarily. My surprise was

not in lands but on the environmental side of it. With the advent of Hibernia I

thought there would be many more dollars allocated towards environmental issues

and I was surprised to see that there was very, very little. As the Minister was

reading his statement he certainly addressed all aspects of his Department. I

noticed that he did mention Hibernia and the GBS construction in Bull Arm, and I

wondered, and perhaps the Minister could address it, what structure is in place,

or what offices do we have there? Do we have to ask the Minister of Environment

and Lands to oversee, or to have a watchdog effect on what is happening in that

structure out there while GBS is being built? I hope there will be nothing of a

tragic nature happen as it pertains to the environment while Hibernia is being

developed, as we have already seen in other phases, especially with the

workforce out there and accidents. There are none of us infallible and certainly

accidents will happen, especially where there are a lot of people working. I

hope the environment does not suffer. Certainly, I think, I would be adverse to

what I believe, in saying that anything should be done to hold up, or stymie the

Hibernia project in any sense of the imagination. I believe it is good and it is

going to be good for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we certainly need it and

I think, too, that we will have to be always conscious of what we are doing and

how we are doing it. I think there is a mechanism in place whereby we could

protect our environment and still do a real bang-up job as it pertains to the

technical side of it. There are several things that I would like to bring up and

relate to as it pertains to the Department of Environment, and perhaps a little

bit, too, about the lands part of it. Over the last two or three months, and

even longer than that, I believe it was once last fall, that you had

applications to your Department as it pertains to hazardous waste.

We had one down in Robin Hood Bay Road down at

Sugar Loaf Road, where you had an application and we all had an input in it for

hazardous waste to be stored in the old Alcan building. It used to be the old

Kento Place on Sugar Loaf Road and I must say that I think the Minister acted

prudently in saying to them that they had to have much more information before

they could get the go ahead to place that facility there.

I think that the day has come when we will have to

address the hazardous waste and I think we will have to have some place where we

can perhaps store it and isolate it from residential areas and I think that we

do have plenty of areas that perhaps this facility could be built and to make

sure that it would not be detrimental to any of our residents.

Only a few months ago you were called on again as

it pertains to the septic sewerage, the septic waste at least that was being

trucked in to Robin Hood Bay and as far away as Carbonear. Anyone who is

familiar with septic systems - I am on a septic system, the trucks come along

and every time you want to get it cleaned out, usually I do every two or three

years, but it has to be trucked somewhere; it is a business type venture and

those people come in with their equipment and it is much better than it used to

be years ago, but still they have to find some place to dump this waste and it

is being dumped in Robin Hood Bay.

We addressed it here in the House on several

occasions but it is not going to go away and the only thing that worries me

about it, is the sanitary fill at Robin Hood Bay. The fill itself is becoming

exhausted and I think that the Department of Environment has to address it and

has to do so quickly, because what we are getting there is, this waste will not

pass through, once it is freed, through the earth which is there.

I think that most of the land fill out there is

filled to capacity anyway and what we are getting now is a shaky bog effect,

quicksand; you can throw what you like in it but it just does not absorb. The

people in that area have been critical over the years, but at least they adhered

to what was happening in that particular area and when that dump went there in

Robin Hood Bay, there was not as great a number of citizens living there as what

is there today and I think the Department should be cognizance of the fact that

this did happen.

If we are going to put a dump or a dump site in

some part of the Avalon, then we should be very, very leery and aware of what

has happened in the past and certainly we should not have this type of adventure

again in the future, but that is a prime concern of mine. I have been down there

and looked at it and it is something that you just do not want to talk about,

but, it must be brought out in the open.

Again, looking at the people from Logy Bay and in

that general area, Sugar Loaf Road, they have been talking about this for years,

that the dump should be moved. I know the Minister is aware as well as I am that

at one particular time there was a dump site chosen, I think it was in the West

End outside of Mount Pearl, Ruby Line, and there was such an outcry from the

people that it just fell by the wayside. But I think we are going to have to put

some effort behind it and perhaps we can go farther afield and exclude that area

from any residential area. Now, I do not think we are going to have to go miles

and miles because we are going to run into another problem, and that is to truck

it there, or to find that it is going to be costly on the municipalities and

whatever if that dump site is out a long distance. But I think there are areas

and certainly the engineering part of Government should have the facts and

figures before them to show us some locales from which one could be chosen that

would perhaps facilitate the people in this area. The area has certainly grown

over the years.

The other thing I have spoken to the Minister about

is, I think perhaps 10 per cent or 12 per cent of material that goes into dump

sites is paper and paper materials. I think if we had a good recycling programme

ongoing, then I think we could at least cut that by 10 per cent or 15 per cent

and that would be advantageous to any site because I do not think we are ever

going to get a site big enough to absorb all of what is being dumped now. People

will say what did we do years ago? It is nonsense. The material that is going to

dumps now was never around years ago. It takes a number of years to fill up any

dump site and I think we are at that point now. On behalf of all the people that

I represent, especially in Logy Bay and those areas which are rat ridden, alive

with rodents, and the people have been very quiet over the years. I think the

time has come, we are in the 1990s now. People might say that well, when you

were part of Government why did you not address it? I certainly addressed it on

every occasion that I could. I have to be responsive to the constituents that I

represent and in saying that I have seen it myself. It is hard to keep something

like that in control especially in a residential area. Although it is not

completely residential it is approximately surrounded by a residential area. So,

I hope that the Minister's concerns are as grave as mine are in this respect.

The other thing I did mention some time ago, and I

did not have any great feedback from it, but it is something that concerns me -

and that is the dumping of offal. I am not sure ecologically what is really

happening and I am not sure that anyone else knows either. This offal is being

dumped at sea out in those bays and we have been only doing it to any great

extent over the past number of years, especially on the Avalon. I am just

wondering what it is doing to the fish, I am talking of specific things. I am

thinking about lobster, crab and this type of thing where all this mass of old

offal is being thrown down, I am wondering what it is going to do to the

fishery. I am wondering if the Minister can address it and if he would give us

some information on what the Department has found, if anything, and if this

dumping has been addressed and if there is anything scientifically that we

should know about it.

The other thing is the spawning grounds themselves,

the 2J+3KL, where there is considerable effort especially on the northern cod

stocks. I think it is somewhere from December to March where all this fish

congregate and spawn. We know ourselves that the fishery is almost extinct in

some areas in Newfoundland where not so many years ago it was plentiful.

Certainly, the information that we have been given from the Department of

Fisheries and other agencies does not relate to what has happened or never did

relate to it. The only one I knew of who spoke about what is happening was Dr.

Keats who was a Memorial University Professor. He addressed it and said that no

one really knew what was happening out there. My concern and the concern of many

other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is that while the draggers are raping the

spawning grounds, during the time those fish are gathered together, the result

may be disastrous. I do not think that Newfoundland and Labrador can just go

along with this with a blind eye and say hopefully this is not happening. I

think there should be great concern. Especially, I think, it is an environmental

issue. I think it has to be taken out of the Fisheries Department and placed as

a major environmental issue. So, I would like for the Minister to have something

to say on that. With that said, I think I will clue up I will be back later on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Although

your questions were broad I am sure the Minister would want to respond to some

of them.

MR. KELLAND: I am not clear on your procedures.

Would you wish that I respond at the end of each person's questioning in blocks

so to speak, I am happy with that, so I will know where I am coming from?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously, you may find a Member

who would ask you a very direct and specific question in a given period of time.

What we like to do is equalize the time to each Member of the Committee.

Obviously, when the Minister has an opening statement then we would like to give

the critic in the Opposition approximately the same time. I think the Member

asked some general questions and I would suggest maybe the Minister might want

to respond now to those general questions. Then we will move on to other

Committee Members.

The Committee Members may want to direct questions

one at a time and you can respond or they may want you to jot them down or

whatever. So, we will take it and play it in that format.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I submit

to your guidance and your decisions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. Yes.

MR. HARRIS: I do not wish to stop you in

flight, Mr. Minister, there is a history with this Committee of the procedure

lurching along and then someone having to rein it in and see what is happening.

We have a fairly lengthy and informative opening address and a fairly lengthy

response. If the Chair wishes to have another rebuttal to that or a response to

the response from the Minister, again I have no objection. I do not know if it

was intended there be that length of exchange. If there is, fine. Then I hope

that I will have the same amount of time to participate and do the same thing. I

know the Chair is keeping track of the minutes and he will let me know, when I

start, how much time I will have between myself and the Minister responding to

do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point. I think the hon.

Member makes a good point as such, but as you have already seen in three

sessions of reviewing Estimates with Departments, the Chair is obviously very

conciliatory, very fair, very balanced, and we will continue to be that way, of

course, and I would like to tell the hon. Member that. However, I would like to

give the Minister the opportunity. The Member for St. John's East can be assured

that he will have equal time.

Mr. Minister.

MR. KELLAND: If I can say so, I have a group of

officials here because I simple do not know everything and cannot keep every

detail of the Department in my head. I can answer the general questions that the

hon. Member asked. We have allocated, as I understand, three hours, but we are

prepared to come back another three hours, and another three hours, if Committee

Members do not have enough information, bounded by whatever the Chair's

judgement is. We submit to your decisions in every case and would be happy to

provide information. We want to be forthcoming, in other words. I am not

interested in political confrontation. We are here to answer, or respond to

enquiries from the Committee Members and we will do the best we can. If there is

some information we do not readily have amongst our knowledge and expertise we

will endeavour to get it as quickly as possible for all hon. Members.

If I can quickly respond then to the hon. Member

for St. John's East Extern, my good friend and critic in the House of Assembly,

I will try to be as brief as I can. There is only a slight increase in our

departmental overall funding. I agree, I would love to see a lot more, to be

quite frank about it. We always try for funding that would allow us to do more

than we currently do, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks I am very please

with what our officials in the Department are doing with our somewhat limited

funding. We did have an increase, at least, and it was not a stay-even or a

cutback, so from that point of view I am pleased. He mentioned the executive

support staff, and I thought I covered that in my statement, but there is

$140,000 in that increased funding which covers the policy and planning unit

which I mentioned in my opening statement and which serves two roles. One is to

provide secretarial services for the Round Table on the environment and the

economy and the other role is to do simply what I said, policy and planning, a

unit we have never had and which should allow us to make great strides in giving

direction, establishing policy, and doing some of the planning we have not been

capable of doing heretofore, relying mostly on technical people which we had to

pull from other jobs. That is a good part of the $148,000 I just mentioned.

On the structure of the gravity based system, the

Hibernia question, I am pleased that the hon. Member, my colleague, supports the

concept of getting the project going, and I think he was referring to

environmental accidents as opposed to accidents that we have heard discussed in

the House which are of a different type. Our ADM of environment and wildlife

chairs the Hibernia construction site monitoring committee, Mr. David Jeans is

the Chair, so we are involved in that sense. That is a question you asked. We

have a monitoring technician dedicated to the project and we will be also hiring

a socio-economic co-ordinator who will work under that particular committee, so

you know we are directly involved. You do know that the environmental protection

plan, which was an absolute requirement when the exemption was given, the

exemption was only given on the basis that an acceptable environmental

protection plan would be provided. That has been submitted to our Department and

is under review. I believe the deadline for public input is June 10 of this year

following a period of ten or fifteen days in which we would reach a decision on

whether or not the environmental protection plan is acceptable and one that we

that environmental protection plan are fully met and the monitoring structure

that I already mentioned will be in place to make sure that is carried out. I

know that will alleviate some of the worries the hon. Member has.

With respect to septic waste: I certainly do share,

as I mentioned in the House, the concerns of the hon. Member. He has raised it

with me in the House of Assembly and I give him credit for that because that is

a topic of interest that should be considered by people certainly in the

Northeast Avalon and general area who have a concern with that sort of thing. It

is a problem, as the hon. Member mentioned. I think it was in 1974 there was a

study undertaken and they did identify a site, Mr. Chairman, at the Ruby Line

which was eventually turned down because of high public pressure.

We are in consultation with the City of St. John's

and other municipalities and in correspondence with them and with the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to try to find ways and means of funding a

study that would identify another site. It is not a simple thing to say: well

Robin Hood Bay is now beyond what we can expect to do with septic waste for

example and, therefore, we will pick spot (b), (c), (

d) or (

x) or whatever to

put another one. We do need something to the tune I understand of $100,000 to

$150,000 to adequately carry out that particular study. As I mentioned in the

House some time ago, my colleague promised or gave the commitment to the cities

that we met with a little while ago, the municipal representatives, that he

would revisit the prospect of finding some funding to do that.

Quickly I will go to the other couple of items that

he mentioned, Mr. Chairman. He mentioned the offal dumping. Even though that is

under federal control we do have a concern. In recent times I have seen some

information, it is not in great detail, but there is some work being done with

perhaps eventually commercially, an operation which would combine offal with

bark, sawdust and other materials, organic, which would be used to create a

humus soil to be used in agriculture. I do not know how extensive that can be.

But I understand Memorial may have done some work on that and I do know there is

some entrepreneurial interest in that as well. That may be an opportunity to

solve some of the problem but the actual control of offal dumping is federal.

But we do have a concern and we consult with the federal authorities with

respect to that.

On the spawning grounds or let us say the fishery

generally speaking off the east coast of Canada and off our coast. I would like

to inform the hon. Member that this past weekend I attended the Canadian

Councils of Ministers of the Environment Conference and I again raised that

issue which I take to be serious. I raised it before there. As Members may know

in June of 1992 there is a United Nations Conference in Brazil on the

environment and development. I have asked that item be given a very high

priority by the Canadian delegation who will be, as I understand, lead by Mr.

Jean Charest, the current Minister of Environment. And, we have been given a

commitment that indeed, where it had not been considered on the federal list

prior to our submissions, that they will now include it and raise that issue so

that we can bring and focus some public attention on foreign overfishing in

particular and get some world focus on the problems we are experiencing in the

spawning grounds and so on.

It is not purely a Canadian abuse problem but

rather a global problem where you see European and foreign overfishing. We have

asked that this be raised in profile at the unsaid thing in June in Brazil and

we have been given the commitment that such will be the case. I am very pleased

to be able to report that to the hon. Member. I believe those were all the

points you mentioned.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, very much, Mr.

Minister.

Mr. Reid.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) financial questions for

later on, but seeing my hon. colleague for St. John's East Extern started with

general questions I just want to get a couple of brief comments from you. I

would like to know, first of all, and I have heard so much about this Round

Table on the environment and the economy right now, I would like to know exactly

what you plan, what the long-term plans are for that particular Round Table, and

what their mandate is, what you have set as a mandate? I would like a little bit

of information on that one, and the other one is, there has been a lot of talk

recently, especially out in my area, in the Long Harbour area, as well as on the

southern tip of the Avalon area, about hazardous waste disposal. The question I

have for you there is, and I hope I am not putting you on the spot here, Mr.

Minister, but the question I do have for you is, how do you feel about that

overall, about bringing hazardous waste, say, into the Province as it relates to

the problem we had in Labrador last year, for example, with the burning of

hazardous waste and this sort of thing? I do not know if I am putting you off

what you came here to do tonight but I am interested because in the Long Harbour

one, for example, I feel personally that there is some way we could accommodate

some sort of industry out there that could deal with - and when I say hazardous

waste I cannot elaborate on that, but we could deal with, in Newfoundland,

certain waste products, and ultimately create employment and so on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. KELLAND: In brief terms I can describe the

Round Table. We were the last jurisdiction in Canada to establish a Round Table

on the environment and the economy and it took a while to do that. First of all

there was the determination to do it, to find the funding, and then select a

group of people who, through their knowledge and experience would be able to

provide good advice. This Round Table Committee stepped far away from political

considerations in its appointment. What we tried to do is get people with a

broad range of knowledge and experience and not be representative of any

particular group, but their association with various industries and activities

would give them the knowledge and experience that we thought would be required

to give us the very broad based group that we do have. I do not know if you

could have appointed a better Committee. When you look at the overall makeup we

have included people in industry, movers and shakers, decision makers, people

who have gained experience and knowledge and expertise in a variety of fields

including labour, women's issues, environmental issues, big business, big

industry, and all those sort of things. That Committee reports to the Premier of

the Province and not to the Minister of Environment and Lands. Their mandate in

simple terms would be to advise the Premier, and ultimately the Government, on

how we can have an integration of the environment and the economy so that there

is not development at all cost, or at any cost, but rather development while we

can still sustain what we have already have, and to advise us on ways and means

of developing but also to be conscious of the environment so that generations

after us will have the same opportunities, at least that we have now and perhaps

even improved opportunities, because I suppose that is a brief reference to it.

On the other question the hon. Member asked, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. REID: Would someone in that group then make

recommendations - let us see if I can take an example, let us take the Corner

Brook Mill as an example, if there was an environmental problem within the

Province would that group have the authority to assess and make recommendations

to the Premier on that particular problem?

MR. KELLAND: Well specific problems would be

handled through the Environmental Assessment Act in our Department; in other

words, a project that was about to start or some adjustments to an existing

programme would require registration and permission of the Environmental

Assessment Act.

This would be broader in the sense that the concept

I guess, of what should happen in the pulp and paper industry and how that may

impact on the environment or how it can live with the environment and the

environment can be sustained while allowing certain levels of development, would

be a broader policy issue that that particular committee could advise the

Premier and help him formulate the direction Government would take with respect

to a balance between the environment and the economy that would be closer to

what I think the mandate is.

On the question of hazardous waste if I can say so,

Mr. Chairman, our policy in Government is simply this. I may have stated it

publicly before; we will not turn down any proposal out of hand. In other words,

if someone says: we would like to import wastes and handle it in a certain place

in Newfoundland or Labrador, we simply would not turn it down out of hand; we

would allow or accept a description of the proposal; it would obviously require,

I think, a personal opinion here perhaps, the full environmental assessment

process to be followed, and then as a requirement in the legislation, that if

you go to the full EIS route that Cabinet would make a decision, but it would

make a decision, in my estimation based on the merits of the project.

If you consider that Newfoundland and Labrador has

done and will yet do, an activity which ships some of our waste out of our

Province, that would tend to make you believe that logically, we could not very

well say: if we could ship hazardous waste out that under certain conditions,

acceptable conditions that is after full assessment, that we may not take some

in, so out of hand, we just simply would not turn down the project, but hear the

description and judge it on its merits, subject it to full environmental

assessment and ask Government to make a decision based on the merits of the

thing.

You are talking about places like Trepassey for

example and Long Harbour, and I can tell you that even though there has been a

proposal put forward to the Town of Trepassey for example, and we have copies of

that information; as far as I understand it at least up to Friday, the project

has not been registered under environmental assessment, but it certainly will be

required to be environmentally registered and it will go through the full

process before any decisions are taken one way or the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms.Verge?

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to ask the

Minister a very general question to start.

What do the Minister and the Department of

Environment, Lands, Wildlife and Parks, regard as the worst environmental

problems in Newfoundland and Labrador, what are presently the worst problems or

threats to our environment?

MR. KELLAND: I thank the hon. Member for her

question, in a broad sense I guess, in a general sense, the biggest

environmental problem we have is the broad issue of waste management in my

opinion, which of course encompasses an awful lot.

Waste management is not what I would call, yet in a

comprehensive form where we can say in this Province that we have an adequate

and good waste management plan; we are not just talking recycling or septic

waste in Robin Hood Bay, we are talking about the whole broad issue, so waste

management I guess would be the broad, major concern of our Department, that we

would address in a number of components but generally speaking in the whole

context.

MS. VERGE: What are your present ideas for

tackling that problem or the many problems associated with waste management?

MR. KELLAND: To be frank about it, Mr. Chairman

- and I thank the hon. Member for the question again - we have been dealing with

it in components, largely, in that we try to - we are doing some work now with

respect to a recycling programme that will be Province-wide, for example. It has

not received any sort of publication, it has not progressed beyond a fairly

extensive consultation process. The question of solid waste and landfill sites

have been addressed in another aspect. Our water resources and clean air and

water have been addressed sort of in a component sense, that each problem has

been addressed individually.

Part I would think of our planning and policy unit

which we will soon have will give us a greater ability to address the problem in

a broader sense. And we will intend to make us of that in conjunction with the

use that the Round Table will make of the secretariat services, to be able to do

a better planning job, to be quite frank about it, Mr. Chairman, to address the

overall problem. I cannot be more specific at this time but it is something that

is an ongoing concern of ours and we have been addressing it - I do not want to

use the term "piecemeal" but componently, and we would like to address it in a

broad sense. And I believe we will have a greater capability in the coming years

to deal with that broad question by making use of our planning and policy unit

we are about to establish.

MS. VERGE: Would the Minister say that the

problems of waste management are greatest where the population is largest and

most concentrated, i.e., in the St. John's and Corner Brook areas?

MR. KELLAND: Yes, that would probably be true.

I think it is fair to say that, Mr. Chairman. Where there is a greater

concentration of people there is more likely industrial and commercial

developments of a greater scale than you would see in the smaller, more rural

communities. And possibly the waste management then becomes a larger problem

overall.

MS. VERGE: I gather the Minister and/or

Department officials recently met with representatives of the three cities, St.

John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, to talk about ideas for the cities'

recycling some types of garbage. From talking to a couple of councillors I have

the impression that they cannot see how they can do anything. This is their

perception. They cannot see how they can do anything in the way of municipal

recycling without money from the Provincial Government and there has been no

offer of Provincial funding thus far. Does the Minister share that perception?

Do the municipalities really need extra funding from the Province to carry out

recycling programmes? And if so, will the Provincial Government be responding by

providing the necessary funding?

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Chairman, yes indeed, I will

confirm that I met with them, or representatives, at least - all mayors were not

there - of St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Corner Brook, and also the president of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. I wanted to talk

about recycling at that time but other issues were addressed such as Robin Hood

Bay and some other concerns. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper was mentioned by the

Mayor from Corner Brook, and so on.

But we were largely talking about recycling at the

time. I am of the opinion - and it is probably one that perhaps all of us share

-that the polluter should pay for pollution cleanup. Now, it might be hard to

define who the polluter may be -

MS. VERGE: No, if I might interject. My

question had to do with recycling.

MR. KELLAND: Yes.

MS. VERGE: For example, recycling newspapers,

other papers, recycling cardboard -

MR. KELLAND: Yes, I am addressing that.

MS. VERGE: - recycling glass, aluminium and

tin.

MR. KELLAND: Yes, I am responding to that,

really.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MR. KELLAND: And the question of recycling, the

polluter pays. And the polluter in the question of recycling might be defined as

those who put it into the system. That is to say, manufacturers, importers of

glass, plastic, steel, aluminium, the creators of newspaper or newsprint,

high-density plastic - whatever it happens to be; and/or those who throw it into

the environment.

So to say that the Provincial Government should

fund clean up as an entity or that a municipality or city should clean up as an

entity, I am not sure that that should be the case. I believe those who create

the problem should through legislation and regulation be required to pay at

least a substantial part of the clean up. I have not done a lot of public

speaking about the concept I had in mind but I guess I could say it in this way,

Mr. Chairman, a deposit system may very well be a method by which a certain

level of recycling can be attained. I do not mean a deposit system on

returnable, reusable containers necessarily, I am not limiting this to soft

drink containers by the way in my concept but rather any container. For example,

what about the lube oil containers and the high density plastic, there is a

commercial application for that in recycling through the superwood concept that

we talked about in the House of Assembly before.

So, I am of the opinion that those who make their

living from or introduce these things into the system, the manufactures,

importers and so on should have some financial responsibility. Indeed, through

Nova Recycling right now a number of companies are now contributing to that

effort. I would like to make it more mandatory, more regulated and involve

everybody in that process. People who then pollute, though they may not pay to

drive a province-wide recycling system, those who offend the legislation once it

is in place, in other words if someone breaks the law and continues to pollute -

like our stock programme that we announced last year - penalties for people who

toss things out. They should also be held responsible but not in the clean up

sense but to be penalized for individual type of offences.

I do have a concept in mind which I have discussed

with the municipalities which would eventually see a province-wide recycling

programme if I get the approval of Government when we reach that stage.

Currently, in consultation with municipalities the industry will be involving

some NGOs and other agencies that may have an interest.

MS. VERGE: That role undoubtedly will take

years to realize, in the meantime, will the Minister have the Government start

by recycling cardboard, paper, plastic, tin and things that Nova Recycling are

looking for?

MR. KELLAND: Do you mean province-wide?

MS. VERGE: Sure. The Provincial Government, I

mean Departments in St. John's and Corner Brook.

MR. KELLAND: I can tell you that we do not have

the financial ability to fund a province-wide recycling programme.

MS. VERGE: But all we need is a bit of

leadership. All we need is to have collector bins in major provincial government

public buildings to bring our used paper. We all throw out reams of paper in

every one of our offices. We are throwing out cardboard, we are throwing from

the CNIB cafeterias in this building, tin and plastic containers. Why can we not

collect them and lead by example?

MR. KELLAND: Exactly right. I totally agree

with the hon. Member, who in herself by statistics contributes about

seventy-five kilograms of waste paper a year to the system.

MS. VERGE: Probably more, that is the average.

MR. KELLAND: You may be above or below.

MS. VERGE: I think I may be above average.

MR. KELLAND: However, we do have in the works,

and we have not been able to announce yet until some of the fine points are

worked out, a proposal of leadership by example, to institute a provincial

government building recycling programme.

MS. VERGE: When do you expect to get that off

the ground?

MR. KELLAND: I am not able to give you a date

at this time. But it is actively being worked on.

MS. VERGE: I mean, could you sort of round it

off to the nearest six months, when do you think it will be in place?

MR. KELLAND: During my present term.

MS. VERGE: Well, that is pretty vague. With all

due respect, I do not accept that. I think that with just a little bit of effort

that could be in place easily by September.

MR. KELLAND: Possibly so.

MS. VERGE: At any rate, how about ATVs, does

the Minister think that the proliferation of ATVs throughout the woods and

countryside is damaging our environment? If so, does the Government have any

ideas about limiting the use of ATVs to lessen the harmful effect to the

environment.

MR. KELLAND: Yes. If I could just in an aside

indicate, I want to be forthcoming with any information that I give hon.

Members, as I have said I am not interested in any political byplay, that is

whatever Members decide to do themselves. But really I am concerned about

recycling. And the hon. Member, formerly a Minister, is aware that sometimes

details of activities under way which may be considered by Cabinet in some

immediately future time or distant future time for that matter is very difficult

for me to discuss prior to, say, Cabinet decisions being made. So there is some

- I can assure her - and I cannot give her a time frame - that the recycling and

leadership by example is certainly a consideration of mine.

With respect to the ATVs, yes, I am very aware that

the indiscriminate or improper use of ATVs in the Province is causing very

extensive ecologically environmental damage. If you can pay attention to the

experts, and I guess you can, regeneration of some of the vegetation and habitat

that is destroyed by indiscriminate use of ATVs may take as much as 200 or 300

years to regenerate. And that is really frightening. I agree with the concerns

that the hon. Member - again, we have a number of reports filed with us and some

active work is being done - I cannot be really more specific at this time - to

regulate over and above the safety regulations which now apply to some of these

vehicles under another Department, to come up with a comprehensive plan for the

legitimate uses that ATVs may be held to. And I suppose in a broad sense we can

talk about such things as wood roads or trails, perhaps the abandoned rail line

in a recreational and other legitimate use for ATVs. But it is a complex problem

that has existed for a great number of years. It is increasing. I do not have

the figures right in front of me at this moment as to the number of ATVs in the

Province but they are very substantial. Thousands and thousands and increasing

on a regular basis.

We seek to limit and control their activities to

legitimate uses and by that method protect the environment. Having said that,

and once we get to the stage where proper legislation is in place, enforcement

will become an ongoing and never-ending (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Are you looking at -?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would

want to distribute the time as suggested by the Member for St. John's East in a

fair sense. But before I move on to another Member of the Committee I would ask

that the minutes of May 6 that are distributed, be carried.

On motion, the minutes were carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Gover.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have

some general questions to ask. My colleague for Trinity North has advised me

that he and I have the same questions to ask and he has asked me not to ask his

questions. How we acquire proprietary interest in questions I will never know

but I will have to defer. So I may not use the full ten minutes.

The first thing I would like to say is that in

response to a question raised by my colleague for St. John's East Extern about

the overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - well, he specifically

said 2J3KL - I am very happy to see that the Minister has raised that on the

environmental wish list in Brazil. Because I think that is one way to drive home

to the Europeans who are overfishing that this is a grave concern. In November

of 1989, along with other Members of this Chamber, I happened to be privileged

to be on a Federal-Provincial Parliamentary Committee which toured some of the

European capitals, lobbying the European governments to reduce their overfishing

and abide by the NAFO quotas on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

One of the things that struck me while I was in

Europe is that some of the European capitals are lobbying the European

Governments to reduce their overfishing and abide by the NAFO quotas on the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks, but one of the things that struck me while I was in

Europe was that, it is one thing to make an economic argument about overfishing

on the Nose and Tail, but it is another thing to make an environmental argument

and it seems like I guess, perhaps because it is an older society and a greater

density of population, that environmental concerns have a higher profile in

Europe than I would say they do in North America.

And when you make the argument along environmental

lines that overfishing is detrimental to the stocks, you seem to strike a much

more responsive chord with the Europeans, so I certainly do wish to commend the

Minister for having put that issue on the agenda for Brazil in June.

It is certainly an issue of grave concern, not only

to the Member for St. John's East Extern, but certainly to me, since the entire

economy of my district depends upon both the inshore and offshore fishery; so

just as a general comment I would like to commend the Minister on that

particular effort.

Now with respect to some more specific questions

concerning the Estimates, I notice that the Minister, under Capital 32.02, page

99, Cottage Land Developing, has allocated $200,000. I wonder, is that $200,000

actually going to be used to develop cottage sites around the Province, or is it

for planning, or what is the $200,000 for?

MR. KELLAND: With the Chairman's permission, I

would ask our ADM of Lands and Parks as he can give the more technical

specifics, so I would like to ask Mr. Winsor to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Winsor.

MR. WINSOR: The $200,000 is for actual

expenditures, capital expenditures in development. The development would include

surveys, access roads, that type of thing and it is budgeted on the basis that

it is cost recoverable. The developed lots, we make them available to the public

on a draw basis and we recover the cost that we put in, no more, hopefully no

less.

MR. GOVER: Yes. The $200,000 that has been

allocated, has that been allocated to any specific area of the Province for

development?

MR: WINSOR: No specific area. We have several

areas in mind for this year; we cannot guarantee which areas will go ahead

because during the planning stage, we quite often run into a hitch.

The Department of Health may say no to an area;

Highways may say no, you cannot have that because you cannot have access and

there are several other reasons why different Departments may turn us down on a

specific site.

We are, through our regular staff, not the $200,000

budgeted, actively planning areas and certainly some of those that are in the

planning stage will go ahead and we do expect to be able to use that money this

year.

MR. GOVER: Would you have any idea how many

sites $200,000 generates?

MR. WINSOR: I guess on an average over the past

three or four years, $2,000 might be a good average, a little more, so if we are

talking $200,000 I guess you are talking about 100 sites.

MR. GOVER: And this money is recovered in total

when the lots are sold to potential cabin owners?

MR: WINSOR: Yes. The lots are generally leased

to them on a fifty-year lease basis, and the lessee is eligible for a grant

after the lots are developed; the lease is for seventy-five dollars a year, but

they pay the development costs up front, so the $2,000 per lot is recovered up

front and they get a normal Crown Land lease.

MR. GOVER: When the lots are developed, let us

say you developed twenty lots round a particular pond or in a particular site,

how are these lots then allocated to the public?

MR. WINSOR: Any lots that we develop are

allocated on a public draw.

MR. GOVER: On a public draw?

MR. WINSOR: We advertise them extensively in

the media especially the print media I would say.

MR. GOVER: For a fixed price?

MR. WINSOR: No. We advertise a draw per cottage

lots; we have had occasion where, say for thirty lots in a particular place, we

might get 500 people who have put their names in for the draw; from that, we

then would draw thirty names plus maybe another ten, to account for those people

who would drop out. We then have a meeting with those forty people and explain

what is involved in actually getting a lease and what they will have to pay.

Now in the ad they would have some idea of what

they will have to pay, they would know the ballpark figure.

MR. GOVER: And is the ballpark figure based

upon the development cost?

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. GOVER: These lots are not auctioned off?

MR. WINSOR: No.

MR. GOVER: I have another question along the

lines of capital there. I noticed in the Budget there is approximately $400,000

for park planning and development which is on Page 102, 4.1.06, and again with

respect to that particular amount of capital $400,000, is that for the

development of any particular park, or is it merely for planning new parks to be

developed around the Province?

MR. WINSOR: It is not for new parks. It is for

capital development in existing parks.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Chairman, with your

permission, certainly Don Hustins who is Director of Parks could provide the

specifics for the hon. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Could you make sure

that red light is on before you identify yourself and respond. That gives you an

indication that your microphone is activated.

MR. HUSTINS: Is there something here for me to

turn on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it is done from upstairs.

Just wait until it comes on and then you can respond.

MR. HUSTINS: Okay, there it is. Thank you.

The money we have in the capital program is

primarily oriented towards a possible tourism historic resources agreement that

is hopefully to be signed in the next few weeks for capital development in

several parks. The other component of the $400,000 is related to the normal

capital expenditures of park upgrading in most parks throughout the Province.

MR. GOVER: Thank you.

My final question, in these times of restraint the

Minister has maintained an all park open policy and certainly I commend the

Minister for having fought to have sufficient funds to maintain all parks open.

I just wonder as to the amount of money which is currently being asked to be

voted by the Legislature with respect to park operations, while all parks will

remain open does this entail any reduced operating seasons for any of the parks

in the Province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. KELLAND: I was pleased to announce, in

fact, an all parks open policy this year and essentially all the parks will be

operated as they were in previous years. It is worth mentioning, however, that

we did make some changes with respect to the fee structures which will be

reflected in the overall budgetary considerations. We were really, quite

frankly, faced with the prospect of closing, perhaps, for the current season, as

many as ten or fifteen parks because of budgetary restraint. I preferred, and

asked Government to opt for an all parks open policy and in order to generate -

Just as an interruption I should mention that Mr.

Dominie, one of our officials, has to leave. His wife is currently getting close

to deliver so he is certainly excused, and I wish him well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee wishes him well.

MR. KELLAND: Anyway, I am sorry for that

digression. We are pleased he came anyway, and we understand that he now has to

leave.

To opt for an all parks open policy, and to provide

essentially the same service we have been giving in previous years, and in

consideration of the financial restraints we are under, it was decided to have

an no exemption rule with respect to park fees. That is to say that the seniors

who had previously been admitted to parks free would now have to pay the same

rate as everybody else. On balance we think that was the proper decision, in

that you would be faced with still providing some seniors with that free access

to the parks year round, or having fifteen less parks for them to avail

themselves of that service, we decided to have an no exemption rule thereby

allowing us to keep all the parks open. I must say the fees were really only

nominally increased, and not by any great extent. For example, the standard park

overnight rate which was $6.00 was increased to $7.00 but that $7.00 included

the GST which we are now required to apply to our park fee charges. In other

words it was not $7.00 plus GST but the GST was included in that final figure of

$7.00. There are other rates applicable to different types of parks, but that

was what we opted for and I am pleased to say all parks are open, they will be

open, I think the standard number, on the May 24 weekend, which is a lot earlier

than May 24 as you know. And will continue on in a regular fashion as in

previous years up to the Labour Day weekend in September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Minister. I suppose it is nice to see the Federal Government having an

opportunity to have some income on Provincial parks. It shows that we are

contributing back. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. I want to say at the

outset that I think the Minister's responsibilities are many and varied and most

complex, and he has a big job on his hands, and I guess reflected in the number

of officials that he has brought with him to discuss if necessary the diverse

elements of your work.

One of the things that strikes me as being

important is that we get beyond some of the platitudes that we so often hear.

Things like 'sustainable economic development' and things like that. And I am a

little worried that sometimes we get involved in sort of PR and not really make

the tough decisions when they have to be made. And one of them I guess is one

that the Member for Humber East brings up, and having to do with the recycling

in Government itself and here in the Confederation Building. I know the House of

Commons in Ottawa - the buildings associated with it, I was not there, it

happened after I left - but the House itself decided to declare the House of

Commons and environs to be an example or demonstration project and they decided

to adopt it. And this was done fairly quickly. I mean, it did not take endless

amounts of planning and bureaucracy and vague statements like the Minister is

making such as: well, it will be done some point down the road.

Is the Minister concerned - and I am not blaming

his officials - that we are not taking the bull by the horns, and we are letting

too much planning or too much bureaucracy bog down some things like a recycling

programme for this building and the one attached to it, for example, as a first

example? Can we just start in stages and say: okay, look, let's do it here

first, and do it that way. The big plan, yes, there is going to have to be

thinking and planning. But can we start now in the immediate future with a plan

that is a first step? Have you given any thought to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay, well I will ask another

question.

MR. KELLAND: (Inaudible) just let me finish my

response. I thought I had already answered that. It is difficult to give you a

time frame. And I was being, I suppose, partly facetious when I said those

activities would occur some time during my term. I would hope that they would.

But we have actually already started. Because to say: when are you going to

start, sort of a thing, means that today I would start deciding how it might be

accomplished. But actually that goes back a little ways over a period of time. I

am just not in a position due to the procedures we have to live under to give

you any exact detail.

But we do have a lot of information on the amount

of... let's say waste that is produced in the Confederation Building complex,

including hon. Members' offices - to some degree of accuracy - and all offices

in the building. And you just cannot say: okay, let's start recycling tomorrow,

if you know what I mean. This takes a little bit of time. And to say why not do

it now - in fact we are in the process of doing it now and I would be able to

provide - I cannot this evening, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, and Members - but

within a reasonable period of time I would be able to provide the information to

the House of Assembly.

MR. HARRIS: If I may say, you can start

immediately, in terms of at least sorting out the waste and having some

collection process that collects fine papers in one bin and various others. And

there may be some minimal cost associated with having these bins available and

some processed. Actually, the actual recycling itself may take more. But I guess

I disagree with the Minister's approach, if he is waiting to have it all figured

out before he starts. So I wanted to suggest that maybe the Minister should

think that the long range plan can go ahead and some time later we can hear it

all, but that by starting the ball rolling maybe we could get it moving faster.

Another area that concerns me: You have talked

about environmental assessment programme and one of the most significant parts

of our environment in this Province is our forest. We have the forest divided

into a number of management areas as the Minister knows. And each of these

management areas is required to have an approved management plan in order to

commence or continue a cutting programme, whether it be for firewood, lumber or

pulp and paper. And I want to know, can the Minister tell us whether or not

these forest management plans are subject to the full environmental review

process? Because as the Minister I am sure will know, there are many aspects of

consequences of these forest management plans outside of the sustainability of

the wood harvesting, there is one of quality issues, there is the ecology of the

forest issue, there are animal species that are involved, there is soil erosion

and many other concerns that come into play and I wonder whether or not the

Minister has any comments on that environmental process as it relates to forest

management.

MR. KELLAND: Yes I do, Mr. Chairman, but first

I would like to respond to the last remarks of the hon. Member with respect to

his earlier question. I should tell him that, I guess prior to my time, there

was a possibility that some funding was sought for Government recycling. In

1989-1990, which was our first year in, I guess some time constraints, but we

did make an effort to get some money as there was a certain amount of money

required.

You just cannot say recycle and sort and expect

that there would be no cost, someone has to co-ordinate it. There has to be a

variety of training and setting up of a system, it is not a simple thing. We did

try in 1989 and 1990 to find the funding which was taken from the budget, or we

did not get the allocation, we made another attempt the following year and were

not again successful.

I believe now that having made those attempts

through our budgetary process, we have to take a different approach. I cannot

unfortunately, outline what the different approach is but we have actually

started the process, but it is not something that will start tomorrow resulting

from the issues raised here this evening; I just want to comment on that.

It is not quite as simple as the hon. Member says

it is; now he may be able to do it or any individual may be able to do it in

their own offices on a voluntary basis, that is a simple matter, but to have it

incorporated in the Confederation Building, East and West block complex and

subsequently all Provincial buildings requires a fair bit of effort so I just

want to make that clear, but the thing is in process, I can tell him that and

hopefully some meaningful announcements can be made in the relatively near

future, but I cannot give a specific time frame because of the process.

With respect to forestry management plans, yes, and

in the stricter sense of the word, these plans are required to be registered

under the Environmental Assessment Act, however, there is a problem in that,

that has never been done to my knowledge in the true sense of the word where

these things were registered, they had gone through some environmental

assessment process.

I guess at this point in time I could say that the

final decision on the approach to take on these plans is not really made; it is

an ongoing discussion between me and the responsible Minister and it may go back

to the origin of the whole problem, in deciding whether or not really it is an

environmental problem we are talking about, an environmental consideration or a

management consideration with respect to the development of management plans.

I see the hon. Member shaking his head and I do as

well, often, when faced with particular problems; again, it is not a simple

thing to work out, but we are in active discussion and consultation with the

Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture to try to determine ways and means of

alleviating that problem, and whether or not particular types of management

plans should be subjected to the environmental assessment process, but no real

final decisions as I understand it or could be confirmed by the Deputy has been

reached at this point in time.

MR. HARRIS: So I gather what the Minister is

saying is, yes, they are required to be but they are not, and we are working out

as to whether they will or not. I mean I am very concerned with it I have to

say, and this is why I was shaking my head, because obviously there are many

conditions having to do with the sustainability of the forests, but surely, this

is the very crux of what the Environment Department is supposed to do, to ensure

that whatever is going on in the management area meets environmental safeguards

for the rest of us who are not necessarily directly involved in the management

aspect of it.

I do not really want to make a speech about it, but

that is obviously where I am coming from on it and I would encourage the

Minister to enforce his legislation even against the advice perhaps, of industry

people who may or may not be agreed with by the Department.

The Minister said something I think is quite

useful. He talked about deposits as a method of encouraging recycling

programmes. Can I ask the Minister why he did not use that general concept in

dealing with this issue of motor vehicles and motor vehicles being discarded or

thrown in the woods or left or over cliffs or down over hills or whatever? The

Minister has a very large and diverse Department. You spend $20 million, about

$10 million on permanent employees, and perhaps more. And I do not mean to be

sarcastic about this, but surely your Department and facilities have some better

ideas than jacking up fines for people throwing cars in the woods. Can you not -

and I want to say this seriously, not as a political confrontation - see a way

of developing some deposit system based on the principles that the Minister has

mentioned for a motor vehicle?

If I buy a new car tomorrow, if I am going to spend

$15,000 or $20,000 for a new car, can I not be expected to throw in $50 or $75

to an environmental fund or a deposit fund? That when the time comes, or someone

else has a car wreck that they want to get rid of, if they bring it to an

approved dump, can they get $75 credit? And that would thereby encourage the

people who are perhaps doing nothing right now, instead of throwing cars over

the cliffs after scrapping them will maybe go around and collect them and bring

them to approved dumps and thereby have a sustained fund that keeps the process

going and helps clean up the environment and spreads a few dollars around. And

it can be something creative perhaps as opposed to merely punitive.

And I am not saying you do not have the fines and

you do not enforce the laws. But I am saying, can we have some creative ideas?

Obviously it has to be thought out as to how it would work, and you have

brilliant people in your Department who can figure out the details. But can we

not come up with some ideas like that instead of just sort of saying: well, we

will slap them with big fines?

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Minister.

MR. KELLAND: I thank the hon. Member for his

comments and questions, I guess. It is hardly a new idea that a deposit be

placed on new vehicle purchases. I can even bend over backwards and credit the

former administration for having thought of that a time or two as far as I know.

And it is one of the options that we considered in the current considerations.

But again, like the recycling within the building or anywhere else, it is not

simply a matter of saying: let's put a deposit on a new vehicle. It is a very

complex matter, and we view it as almost an administrative nightmare.

What about the vehicles that a lot of our fellow

Newfoundlanders go to Toronto and buy and bring back down? What about deposits

with respect to that? How do you administer it? What paper trail would have to

be created from a, let's say, $200 or $250 deposit on a $15,000 vehicle? I

suppose it is not major, perhaps not for a person who has the income of an MHA

in this House of Assembly. Probably insignificant, that $250, but maybe more

significant to somebody else, and then somewhere down the road receive $75 or

$100 back. It is not a bad concept in the initial stages. I just think that at

this point in time, though the idea has been around for years, even perhaps for

ten or fifteen years before the hon. Member was elected here, and it is

certainly not new to me, but it was a consideration we took in our view. The

administrative problems associated with that and the paper trail required to end

up with the final owner getting say $75 or $100 back is very difficult.

What about vehicles, for example, that are

deposited as wrecks and let's say a fellow purchases the vehicle purely to get

some of the parts off it, and then part of it still goes into the environment?

He would never get a full deposit back. I can foresee civil cases under way and

just a nightmare. But it was taken under consideration, as was, by the way, for

years, prior to my time, and including my time, perhaps a slight increase in the

registration fee to establish a fund whereby existing wrecks could be taken out

of the environment. The concept of having a minimum fine where there was no

minimum and loss of a license is to act mainly as a deterrent for any future

activities with respect to depositing car wrecks into the environment. As you

notice, because of legislative requirements and so on, they have an adequate

lead time up to January 1, 1992 which gives anybody with a grain of sense out

there who has a wreck, or has deposited a vehicle that may be traced back to

them, adequate time to take the necessary action, because once legislation goes

through and conviction occurs there is a minimum fine of $1000 and loss of your

driver's license for six months and that is a deterrent to anybody. I agree with

the hon. Member that it does not address the problem that exists out there now,

nor would a deposit system at this point address the problem of the thousands of

vehicles that are out there right now. We are trying to find the ways and means

of deriving a fund for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. HARRIS: Let me just say though that my

suggestion of depositing is not related to an individual vehicle, that you would

not have to trace down this vehicle as to when it was eventually thrown out, but

that is a detail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, very much.

I think it might be appropriate right now, before

we go to Mr. Oldford's questions which are probably very well researched, to

wait ten minutes and have a short break. There is coffee in the Government

caucus room which is to my left, right straight through. I am sure the Minister

will show his staff. We will have a ten minute break and reconvene at quarter to

nine.

RECESS

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am sure everybody enjoyed the short break and now as

we come to order again I ask the Member for Trinity North if he has any

questions of the Minister and his staff.

Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, concerning one of your answers given to

the hon. Member for Bonavista South regarding the charge to senior citizens this

year for entry into parks. Can you tell me how much revenue you are going to

collect from senior citizens in this fiscal year?

MR. KELLAND: I do not know whether or not I

mentioned it already, Mr. Chairman, but it is around $200,000 by our best

estimate. It would be very difficulty to say exactly but we are contemplating

$200,000.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you.

Another question I wanted to ask you is regarding the

caribou herd that used to be on the Bonavista Peninsula. Do you have any plans

to replenish or rebuild that herd?

MR. KELLAND: Well, not specific plans, I suppose,

Mr. Chairman, but for the hon. Member's information the concept of reseeding

former herds and so on is something we support. We have done it on the Island

part of the Province but we do not have to in Labrador. We just have to wait for

them to come back on an annual basis. Nevertheless what it usually boils down to

is, if we can find the appropriate funding, because there would be a cost

involved with reseeding caribou herds, the habitat is there and they did exist

there at one time and perhaps over killing got rid of them, but let us say we

found the adequate resources to do it, I would think it would be a fairly

extensive public relations exercise and we would have to be required to make

sure that not only can we do it from a biological sense, but that our management

chore would be somewhat less onerous if the public were aware of what we were

trying to do. It is not beyond the realms of possibility in other words but

currently though this year we would not have the funding for that type of

operation, but it is the type of thing we can involve ourselves in. I will

complement, if I can, just for a brief second the wildlife branch because it is

through good management practices, and pretty good enforcement practices,

actually, that we do have the thriving wildlife resource we do have in the

Province. We are very proud of that within the Department and I am sure

Government is as well.

MR. OLDFORD: My final question is this: You have

brought in new procedures for obtaining moose licences -

MR. KELLAND: You did not get yours.

MR. OLDFORD: I did not get mine. What is the

rationale behind the changes? Why did you make the changes and how much

additional revenue do you expect to get from the changes in the fee structure?

MR. KELLAND: Well, there is a rationale behind it.

You know the former procedure and there were some changes in that whereby a few

years ago, I am not sure of the exact year, they added $5 to an application fee

which was to be used for, I suppose, management enforcement and all that sort of

thing. I am not sure if we were ever able to get that money back out directly to

the Department in the same sense I suppose as the concept originally called for.

I just felt, and in consultation with the people in

the Wildlife Branch, that we had a cumbersome method in place that cost the

Government money, unnecessarily so. It is due mostly to the administrative costs

of refunding licence fees to people who were unsuccessful in our computer draw.

So we sat down and had some pretty lengthy discussions on this - I had a hands

on thing in this as I do with a lot of things in the Department, of course - I

wanted a more efficient system without loss of revenue and one that would

perhaps do some administrative savings for us and that is exactly what we came

up with.

If I may be permitted the time to quickly explain it

to you, it was inefficient in that heretofore you would have to submit your $5

application fee along with your $25 licence fee, when you were applying for a

licence. The $5 was non-refundable. In fact, if you were successful in the draw

the $25 for the licence fee was not refundable either because you were now

paying for your licence. However, the many thousands, tens of thousands I

suppose, of people who were not successful in the draw it was required that

their $25 be refunded. This caused delays in doing the draw, delays in

completing the final transactions and a substantial cost probably to the tune of

somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 annually by the Department of Finance plus

our own people who were sent over in support of finance to get these refunds

out, which took months. So, there was a substantial administrative cost involved

that I did not think was necessary.

What we decided to do was to allow anybody in the

Province who was eligible to submit an application with no money being sent in.

Once they were successful in the draw they would be advised and their net cost

would be the same as if they were successful in the original draw. In other

words, the new licence fee would be $35, prior to that it had been a cost of

$30, $5 for application and $25 for licence fee. The new cost will be $35. So

individual hunters will pay the $5 extra cost but all the hunters I spoke to -

and I spoke to many, many hunters - I said would you object to an increase of $5

in your net fee if you knew you had your licence and exclusively they said, no.

For two-party applications the cost is identical to

what it was before, $5 for each individual application for a total of $10, plus

the $25 licence fee for a net of $35. They would now pay the same $35 but only

after they were successful in the draw. This meant that people who wished to

move up in the pools were paying $5 a year for application only, just to get

their name in their and no longer will have to bear that cost. So, in the long

haul, I suppose, the cost to the individual hunter over the years will be much

less than it had been before.

So, we have a more efficient system without the delays

in refunding money and so on and will probably, in subsequent years, be able to

make the draw as much as four to six weeks earlier. We had a more efficient

system. We had no loss in revenue because the extra $5 on the individual licence

would take care of loss of revenue from the application fees no longer

submitted. And we saved something to the tune of, I believe it was, $32,000 in

administrative cost by not having to issue all these thousands of refund cheques

to people who had to wait months sometimes for them. So we achieved our

objective which was a more efficient system, no loss in revenue, and a saving in

administrative cost. And that is the rationale.

MR. OLDFORD: Last year, if I remember correctly,

you issued additional licences for the regions along the Trans-Canada Highway.

This year you have issued 5,000 additional licences?

MR. KELLAND: Something in the range of 5,200 and

some odd extra, yes.

MR. OLDFORD: So are they going to be spread evenly

across the Province, or are they going to be proportioned out along the

Trans-Canada again along main highways?

MR. KELLAND: We take a lot of things into

consideration. The ability of the resource in any given area to sustain a

certain level of harvest, in some there are pockets of high density of wildlife

and we would increase the harvest there. So it is not a uniform - you know, take

the number of people and divide it by the number of animals we can harvest and

evenly distribute it across the island part of the Province. From a good

management point of view and a public safety point of view that is not the

practical way to go. So we judged it on management practices and where

concentrations of the big game were causing some problems, say in the highway

incidents and so on like that. So it was done not evenly in that sense but by

good management practice. So it is an uneven distribution from the point of view

of numbers but eminently sensible when it comes to management and safety.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, thank you,

Mr. Oldford. The Member for St. John's East Extern, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all

I want to say to the Minister that the answers that he gave to the questions I

had were well-received. I must say that all the questions that I did ask he

addressed very clearly.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you very much.

MR. PARSONS: There are only a couple of points I

would like to make. When we talked about the Hibernia thing, I talked about it

in an overall view. The roads leading down and everything. The part of the cove

there that is being filled in and looking at it in an overall way. When you

spoke about having to have a study done in other areas that perhaps could

replace Robin Hood Bay. I am wondering what happened to the study that was done

in 1974? Were there more sites than the one off Ruby Line? And perhaps there

could be alternate sites in that study that was done in 1974 when the Ruby Line

one came up. I think there was more than one area defined. And I am wondering if

some of the other areas perhaps could not be.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Chairman, actually the Member

makes a very good point in my opinion. I thank him for the comments he just made

as well. I am not aware that there were other sites of primary choice. My

information that I have received to date was that the Ruby Line was the best

site, I suppose, and for all I know the only site identified as being suitable

at the time. It would strike me - and I would have to check this to make

absolutely certain for the hon. Member - that if there were other alternate

sites at the time of, say, high desirability, that the administration of the

day, once they ran into the problem with Ruby Line, would have perhaps gone to

alternative 2, 3, or 4, whatever.

So what I will undertake to do - and I do not know if

it has to be part of the estimates as such - is determine in fact where that

1974, I believe, study rests now, and whether indeed there were some other sites

that may be suitable. Of course since 1974 there

could have been a lot of developments which may have

taken up some of the space that may have been considered in the 1974 edition.

But I will undertake to do that for the hon. Member and provide that for him. I

do not know if he will need to wait in the Estimates until I get that for him

but I will undertake to do that for him. He makes a very good point actually and

I thank the hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) Mr. Minister to hold up

the Estimates as such but you have offered to respond to the hon. Member and

that is fine. I am sure the hon. Member would not have asked the question if he

did not want to know the answer. It is nice to see the cordiality which exists

between the Minister and the Member.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Now, the other thing that I addressed

was the offal situation and the dragging on the spawning grounds. I realize

fully that is under Federal jurisdiction but I always felt not only through this

Government but in past Governments as well we did not espouse enough to the

Federal people about situations that were occurring in our own backyard. I think

sometimes bureaucrats in Ottawa have very little knowledge of what is happening

so close to home for us. When I spoke about the offal as you know, just to the

south of us there was a great big offal plant and that offal plant is no longer

there. Offal can produce high protein in cattle food and also can be used as

fertilizer. It has tremendous value as far as protein is concerned in cattle

feed.

On the other side of the coin there might be an

opening there for the Minister to look into, I know there is a consortium now

that are looking at the offal to manufacture fish food, as well. It is in its

infancy but certainly there is great potential there.

The Trepassey thing: I certainly wanted to say to the

Minister that I am sure there is going to be an EIS on the situation as it

evolves. But I personally attended a conference in Washington a couple of years

ago and I have great concern that Newfoundland, because of geography and because

of availability, could be used as a dumping site for the rest of North America.

This concerns me greatly. I look at, not myself, but the future that will bring

to our children and our grandchildren. We looked at Bell Island many years ago

and we also had people who looked at Buchans and on both occasions those sites

were refused for the same reasons. I would like for your Department to leave no

stone unturned. I am personally and teetotally against such an endeavour.

I will just deal with the old wrecks. You mentioned

the old wrecks. Perhaps, it used to be in your time, Mr. Minister, but certainly

it was in my time when a $2 fee was placed on the licence. When you brought your

licence you paid $2 extra and that $2 was used to remove some of those old

wrecks. Now, the problem the Minister says is great and so it is because on many

occasions the people who have those wrecks around, not always now, but in some

instances when people have those old wrecks around when you do go to them to get

them to move them they do not have enough money to paid for it. If you do fine

them, they have no money to pay for the fines, it is unending. I do not know

what kind of a process could be brought in by the Minister and his Department

but there is no easy solution to it.

On the recycling: I must say to the Minister again I

think recycling should be uppermost in your Department. We just have to look at

Newfoundland Tel. They have brought it in as a private enterprise and have

certainly made great strides in recycling and also, MacDonald's.

Before I finish I would like to make one comment on

the ATVs. I have a good friend in the east end, I am not going to say his name;

he is certainly environmentally conscious of what is going on and he has on

numerous occasions said to me that we are going to kill all the bogs, we are

going to disrupt our whole environment if this thing is allowed to happen.

I personally have a four-wheeler; yes, and I travel

hunting and fishing and I can see where those concerns are coming from; in some

countries of the world, they are not allowed to exist, now I do not think that

is right, but I think that the damage that has been done, especially to the bog

lands, I am not sure if it can ever be repaired or if it will ever repair

itself.

The other thing I had to say, is that I have to

compliment the Minister for bringing members of his staff along. Certainly he

was well acquainted with all aspects of the questions that I asked anyway, but

it was nice to see those people there, with the Parks situation for instance, it

was nice to see that you did have your support staff with you, who could answer

anything that perhaps the Minister did not know and I thank you for your

answers.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will

respond; I will try to hit the items as quickly as I can in the interest of

time.

Yes, I agree with the hon. Member. Again, there are

economic opportunities with respect to the handling of offal. I thank the Member

for pointing that out because there are positives, even though it is a waste and

is quite obnoxious.

It is a federal jurisdiction; we deal with the federal

people with respect to offal and other considerations on a continuous basis, I

can assure the hon. Member of that. Also, I am very-

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) responsibility as it

pertains to building those facilities, those offal facilities-

MR. KELLAND: Oh yes.

MR. PARSONS: - you know, the ones that have been

destroyed now are not there; that comes under the jurisdiction of the Province.

MR. KELLAND: Oh yes, from the point of view of the

facilities. I am agreeing with the hon. Member that there are economic

opportunities, so there is not just waste that can be not put to use, but then

you would not call that recycling of course, but you could call it perhaps

re-usable material that is otherwise pure waste and creates a problem for us, so

there are a number of economic opportunities there and I would think that

organizations such as- perhaps E and L would address that.

I know Memorial University is doing some work on it

and some other entrepreneurs have expressed an interest in either fertilizers or

the protein feed and perhaps humus or soil applications for landscaping and

other agricultural uses, so I am pleased that is out there, but it does require

some push from Government to get those considerations made.

With respect to waste disposal in the sense he talked

about like Trepassey or Long Harbour or whatever, we do not have a registration

for Trepassey at this point in time, but as I said earlier, a proposal was made

to Trepassey and we are aware of the proposal, but you can be assured that such

an operation or proposal would be subjected to absolutely full environmental

assessment process.

This is not something we would release on registration

or anything like that nor intend to, and in fact, I will give you one example;

with respect to the Baie Verte proposal for disposing of asbestos waste into the

ground from which asbestos came, legislation does not require the Minister

responsible, to go with a requirement decision to Cabinet at the EPR, The

Environmental Preview Report stage, but because of the significance, perhaps in

the precedence involved with that, we have already decided in Government that

even at the EPR stage, that would go to full Cabinet for a decision, so it is

not something that we take lightly.

But we do not on the other hand turn down proposals

out of hand without full assessment, and full assessment will be applied, I give

the Member full assurance of that. I do not think we touched on it before, but

he also made reference to deposits and so on. I believe, a few years ago there

were a couple of dollars per registration. I think there is something like

300,000 registrations a year right now in the Province which would be a

significant amount of money for various cleanups if we could do that, if we

could have the money dedicated to, say, an environmental green fund or something

like that. The trouble is that generally goes into general revenue and it is our

efforts in the pre-budgetary process to try and get that back out for our use

for environmental matters. At that time, I believe the information I had showed

that it was unfortunately a one shot only kind of a deal but it did clean up

something like, I believe the figures I saw was something to the tune of 19,000

to 21,000 vehicles which were taken out of the environment. I thought that was

significant and perhaps we should have looked at some ways back then to even

continue on right up to this year. If you could get even $500,000 or $600,000 a

year by some means into a green fund, or some fund of that nature, it would go a

long, long way in helping out communities that have no economic ability to clean

up the messes within their boundaries. I support that concept, I can tell you

that. Getting it through the whole system thought is not quite as simple as it

seems, but those are some of the options I have looked at, and am prepared to

promote the ideas with my colleagues.

You mentioned recycling. I think I have adequately

answered what we are trying to do at this point in time, but I would like to

invite the hon. Member, and I do this sincerely, invite him to drop over to my

office sometime in the near future and I can give him some details as I see a

concept which I have discussed with other people already in the industry and in

municipalities. I would like to perhaps have a discussion with him for perhaps

ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes, or a half hour, whenever he has time, and get

his reaction on it, as to what the concept is. It has never been committed to

writing, but I make that invitation.

He touched one more subject and I will try and get

that one without using up too much time. He mentioned the ATVs again. Yes, I am

quite concerned and it is a serious matter. On our break I was informed that we

have well over 100,000 ATVs, snowmobiles, and the whole business, in the

Province of which something over 35,000 are classified as ATVs, and it seems to

be increasing. Certainly, if it is increasing there is a fair level of perhaps

what I call indiscriminate use, or inappropriate use of these vehicles when you

are not talking about going on a track to your cabin, or going along some

recognized area, a well established trail or something, where you are in over

the wet lands or the bog lands that could take 200, 300, or 500 years to perhaps

even regenerate is a major concern of mine as well. We have a lot of

information, a lot of input of information now and we are trying to get to the

stage where we can actually get some sort of final decision for Cabinet to take

a position on and get something very active going on it. it has been ongoing for

quite a long time and the Member can be assured that is under active

consideration and a very high priority with me personally.

Those were all the points, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

At this time I would also like to welcome to the

Committee hearings the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, Mr. James Walsh. If

we have an opportunity and Mr. Walsh would like to ask a question of the

Minister and his staff then the Chair will do everything to give him the

opportunity.

Mr. Reid.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, for some years your

Department in conjunction with the Department of Social Services had a number of

people around the Island, I think they were called environmental protection

officers. They were local people who were hired to keep a close watch on

environmental issues within a certain region. I noticed that in the Conception

Bay North area, in particular, I think this is the second year now that those

people have not been with your Department or with Social Services. You can see

in just that short period of time that there is a deterioration again. An

example of what I am talking about is the number of people - I guess this is

true of a number of areas of the Province - who are getting into salvaging car

wrecks, for example, without licences. And for some reason or another it seems

like the entrance to a particular area of the Province, Roaches Line, as an

example, the first couple of houses you come on to on Roaches Line on the left

hand side there is a car dump there. And it would not surprise me - I have not

checked it out - to find out that that particular person does not have a salvage

licence. In fact, there are very few salvage licences around Conception Bay

North. In fact, down in my area I believe there are only two in the whole area.

But the question I have for you is that as a previous

mayor of one of the largest towns in Conception Bay I found it very advantageous

in my community to have these people. The previous minister, and through the

joint mayors of Conception Bay North - and at the time I was president - we

talked about it. And of course the comment that was made to me was that: well,

the towns would have to try to absorb some of the cost of these people. But you

are talking about some pretty small towns out there in that particular area, and

I suppose any part of the Province and to come up with extra dollars for

salaries was always difficult.

Now the question I have, Mr. Minister, is that that

programme must have been assessed by your Department. I am just wondering if it

is not a programme that should be reconsidered because - at least I feel - there

is a deterioration right now because these people are not working in the area.

Do you know what I am talking about, Mr. Minister?

MR. KELLAND: The only thing that I am aware of

with respect to our Department and Social Services, I believe, and my

understanding is at least, that it is related to the programme that the hon.

Member for St. John's East Extern referred to. In that people under social

assistance programmes were involved with the cleaning up of some of those

wrecks. Now that is the only thing I am aware of. The hon. Member shakes his

head 'no,' but I can only say that is what I am aware of. I do not recall a

programme that was in existence in the two years that I have been the Minister,

but I will tell the hon. Member though nevertheless that we have recently

entered into correspondence with the Minister of Social Services with respect to

Provincial parks.

Now we are somewhat limited in what we can do in times

of fiscal restraint, and there is always a need to provide some employment and

income for people who are disadvantaged one way or another. So I can tell you

that we have corresponded with the hon. Minister of Social Services with respect

to whether or not there are some people in any of these programmes that we could

have do some work. Not shift work as such but specific project work within our

parks, some of which will be involved with the cleaning up. And I would be happy

to extend that kind of a request, perhaps to areas where we are not talking

Provincial parks or protected areas as such, but areas that would be

environmentally unsightly at this point in time.

I have not done that at this point in time but we have

opened the door at least in discussion with the hon. Minister with another

division of my Department, as I said, to do with parks, some of which will be

cleanup. And I would be happy to explore that a little further. But I have no

direct knowledge beyond that of the programme that the hon. Member refers to.

MR. REID: Does your Deputy Minister know what I am

talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, by all means.

MR. JOHN FLEMING: Not really. I know I have heard

of something about a programme whereby I think social assistance people were

used to document or to verify non-ownership of car wrecks or....

MR. KELLAND: (Inaudible) car clean up programme,

the only one I am aware of myself.

MR. REID: Well, there was a programme, and I will

talk to you at a later time about it, Mr. Minister, and your Department was

involved with it. But it was not your Department because it was in the previous

government (Inaudible). They were definitely there, and -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just as a point of information. It

is not normal for the Chair to get involved as such. But presently there is a

constituent of mine in the person of Doug Strickland, whom a lot of people are

familiar with, who is bringing in a piece of equipment that will take not only

car wrecks and what have you but all metal discards. Whether washers, dryers,

the whole thing. And he is hoping to set up a shredding - this machine will

actually shred cars down to minute size pieces, about the size of a penny. And

we are hoping to have that in place within the next six months to provide

twenty-two jobs and do an awful lot, rather than just compressing the old units.

But this piece of equipment which now functions in

Montreal, a similar piece of equipment, will actually shred it right down to

fine, minute-type particles, and that will be able to be shipped out an awful

lot cheaper and obviously with more dollar value to Mr. Strickland. Of course,

again, it does two things. It cleans up the environment from a metal standpoint

and it offers twenty-two full time jobs. So.

MR. KELLAND: Yes. If I could just quickly respond,

if the hon. Member would not object. As I said earlier there are a lot of

economic opportunities involved with, say, reducing and recycling. Everything

you read from other jurisdictions seem to indicate - I read a headline not too

long ago saying `Gold in Garbage' and that type of thing. That may be an extreme

view. I would not want to see garbage created so someone could get an economic

benefit from it. But we should be exploring ways and means that things can be

reused and recycled and there are many, many opportunities. We are just not at

the stage of development that some other jurisdictions are with respect to that.

I believe Ontario probably has a few operations underway and Alberta does have,

and there may be other jurisdictions. We have to recognize the fact that if the

waste is out there, it is not just a dumping problem which is an unending thing

and hard to deal with, but if there are economic opportunities where not only

can you make use of the garbage for some good purpose but provide employment as

well and still take it out of the environment, and that is the kind of thing we

should be looking at.

MR. REID: I would just like to make a comment

about the offal question of my Colleague for St. John's East -

MR. KELLAND: Did you say awful? The awful question

he asked? I thought it was a good question.

MR. REID: It is just a comment really, I do not

know if you want to react to it or not, Mr. Minister. But, we have one of the

largest fish meal plants, I suppose, in the Province and we can in Carbonear

take as much offal that is thrown at us. Quite often there is a shortage of it.

The only problem we have right now, and it just happened recently, is that under

the highways regulations there are a number of new regulations coming in with

regard to the transfer of offal and that is giving the company in Carbonear all

kinds of headaches. We can talk about our problems we have in offshore dumping

but we are causing all kinds of headaches for those who are taking care of a

major portion of the offal on the east coast of Newfoundland and we are giving

them more trouble than they need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ried.

It is Ms. Verge's turn but maybe she would relinquish

to the Member for St. John's East Extern for one quick question?

MS. VERGE: Sure.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you Madam Vice-Chair.

I think I would be remiss if I did not say to the

Minister up front that there is one piece of legislation from his Department -

the bill has been written and it is the third time since 1989. It came in as

Bill 53, then Bill 25, and now it is in the books as Bill 22. I have to voice my

concerns and say to the Minister that I think if it is Bill 53, if it is Bill

25, or if it is Bill 22 it is wrong. I do not think for the ordinary citizen it

will be a deterrent one way or the other. But I do believe the opportunity is

there for people to abuse. I believe that in that new piece of legislation that

is coming before the House, that a person who would have the capabilities

monetarily and space to build boat houses that would cross the 10 metre

reservation and then on both ends - say of a small beach or whatever, people who

cannot afford to have vast areas of property, they could have boat houses on

both ends of a beach, thereby - just visualize it - two large boat houses, a

thirty-foot boat house is not a great big boat house, I have seen them fifty

feet and more than that - two large boat houses coming from the side of the lake

out to the reservation. Now you could have a chain link fence to that ten

metres. With those two boat houses that person could have a private beach, as

far as I am concerned.

And I know of people who would avail of that

opportunity. And I think that if there is one chance that someone will do it

then I think that part of the Bill is wrong. I think that 7 (2) should never be

changed. I think that in the first instance the old bill naturally - and I feel

justification with the Minister in saying that the generalities of the Crown

Lands' Act had to be changed. In general. But the old part of that bill, in 7

(2), what we see now, there was nothing wrong with it. And you should have left

it alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, (Inaudible) no, it is not

Hogan's pond section, it is out farther than that. And there are areas of

concern that I have with it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes. I mean, the people who were -

MR. GOVER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my point of order is

as follows: this is a particular piece of legislation which is on the order

paper. I do not know if the Bill has been printed yet or not. But it is on the

order paper. That really has neither here nor there to do with my point of

order. Obviously when that Bill comes before the House it will be debated at

second reading and in Committee of the Whole. And in Committee the clauses of

the Bill will be examined. And in fact there is an opportunity to debate the

Bill on third reading.

This however is a committee on estimates and not a

committee of a Legislative Review Committee or a Committee of the Whole in the

House considering the Bill. So my point of order is, Mr. Chairman, that I think

that detailed discussion on a particular bill which has no monetary implications

no matter what other implications it may have to the Department, is out of

order. Although since the Member for St. John's East Extern has raised the

matter I think the Minister should be given an opportunity to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: To that point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) wasting time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member just would, for

one second.... Okay. Yes, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: There is no point of order, as the

Chairman I am sure will rule. But the point remains, and I say to the Chairman,

that it is relevant. It is relevant because it is - the Member there, my hon.

colleague says, it has no monetary effect. I say it has. In many respects. I ask

the Minister to give it some consideration. The Bill has been written, the Bill

is ready, and I would like for the Minister - I think there is still time there

- to revert back to or make some changes in the Bill. And that is why I brought

it up tonight. I think there is still time left and I think that it is a good

piece of legislation with the exception of 7 (2). There might be some other

areas of concern but I would like him to address the 7 (2) part of it. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. To that point of

order, I would rule that I suppose it could be perceived that there is monetary

overtones to the legislation, and as long as the Member for Humber East does not

mind relinquishing her time, then the Chair really has no problem, but what the

Chair wants to make sure is that each member of the committee has equal time to

ask questions, so I want to thank the Member for St. John's East Extern and in

all fairness, I think I should give the Minister an opportunity to respond to

the statement, not the question.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no

objection at all talking about the bill which I think is a good piece of

legislation and in thinking about it, there may be that the hon. Member for St.

John's East is more right in his assessment than perhaps my colleague who raised

the point of order at the time, but I am not to judge that, that is the

Chairman's job.

I think it is a good piece of legislation and 7.2,

that Clause that was in Bill 53 originally really is not there anymore, as you

probably had a chance to read the Bill I guess, when it was No. 25, the second

last time? I believe that within that whole legislation, the changes and all the

concerns that the hon. Member may have, have been addressed adequately.

The intent of the former administration was not to

prevent anybody from having access to water bodies, in fact the former

administration also wanted to ensure that the traditional rights of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were addressed and by the same token the

present administration shares that view.

Because there was considerable public concern raised

about 7/2, as our friend from Mount Pearl used to refer to it. I gave the

commitment - I think it was on February 7th, 1990, if memory serves me

correctly, in a press conference. I gave a commitment at that time, followed up

by a commitment by the Premier a couple of weeks later, that if there were

clauses there that would indicate people's rights were being taken away from

them, that I would make the necessary legislative wording changes to make sure

that would not happen and I proceeded to do that.

We went through the process - the hon. Member knows -

of the Parliamentary Review Committee, and a lot of changes were suggested, and

as far as I understand it we have addressed them all. But as the Chairman and

the hon. Member said we will have a chance to adequately debate that; it has

been in three times and I am as persistent as the hon. Member is adamant, and

hopefully during my current term, not only will we have recycling and a lot less

car wrecks, but we will have our new Lands Act through the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Wildlife law enforcement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Just part of my time, there is a stop

watch -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), rule on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I will rule by your reckoning

which the Chair does not consider as a reckoning, Mrs. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Wildlife Law Enforcement: I refer

you to pages 104 and 105 of the Budget Estimates, under the headings, Wildlife

Management and Wildlife Protection. Now what I want to know about is wildlife

law enforcement. The wildlife enforcement officers, through their association

president, raised grave concerns about a shortage of personnel, about

insufficient and inadequate equipment, and about unacceptable levels of risk to

the safety of the personnel. Now, the President suffered for that but I am

wondering if the Government has provided in this new Budget for additional

personnel? The Minister has said there is provision for additional equipment,

including a communications system, and I would like for him to elaborate on just

what additional equipment and what kind of a new communications system. Finally,

will the threat to the safety of wildlife officers be alleviated by any

provisions in this new Budget? A related question that I want to get out now

before I am cut off is whether the Government is inclined to adopt the

constructive suggestion of the Opposition, the Loyal Opposition, of amalgamating

one of the Premiers favourite concepts, amalgamating or integrating, wildlife

law enforcement with environmental protection, forestry protection, and possibly

negotiating a transfer of responsibility for inland fisheries from the Federal

Government and forming a united uniformed force that might be called the

Newfoundland Ranger Force to police the wildlife laws, the environment laws, the

forestry laws, and the inland fisheries laws?

MR. KELLAND: I thank the hon. Member for those

questions. Those are all very pertinent, by the way, Mr. Chairman, and I will

try to hit them all as you addressed them to me. I share your concern, to be

quite honest, with the number of personnel we have had, the amount of equipment

we have had, the quality, for that matter, of the equipment, and the risk to our

officers. I am proud of the training program that was provided through the

auspices of the RNC, that course is quite a comprehensive one and what I would

like to do at a later point, sometime after this evening, is provide the Member,

if she wishes to have it, a copy of the course outline. For that matter when we

do get some assessment from field personnel I do not see anything wrong with

making that public or providing the hon. Member with it. I have had feedback on

the wildlife protection officers safety training course which was geared mainly

and primarily to their safety and will enable them to conduct their job with

attention to their safety. That is what it was all about, how to handle certain

equipment. Specifically, we were talking about, with respect to enforcement in

the course context, was the night sticks and handcuffs. Now, heretofore on a

couple of occasions the officers felt they needed them and and had purchased

some personally because the Department had not provided them. Now, we sent out

an order asking them not to do that until the course was completed, and I think

I mentioned that in the House, because we were a little concerned that if they

made use of some of this training equipment for example, unauthorized use of it

without proper training that not only may the Department or the Government be

subject to say some civil suit or something, but perhaps an individual officer

could have been. I was concerned that that might happen to them. So (Inaudible)

MS. VERGE: Could I interject? I would like the

Minister before the Chair cuts us off to tell us quickly the number of wildlife

enforcement personnel which will be p