Government Services Committee — Department of Environment — 4 March 2030

2030-03-04

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

April 30, 2003 GOVERNMENT SERVICES

COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Aylward, MHA for St. George's-Stephenville

East replaces Lloyd Matthews, MHA for St. John's North.

CHAIR( Aylward): Order, please!

Welcome to all members of the Government Services Committee. I am

substituting for Mr. Lloyd Matthews. Also, welcome, Mr. Minister and your

officials, to the Estimates for the Department of Environment.

If we could have the members of the Committee introduce themselves into the

microphone, we would appreciate that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Jack Byrne, MHA for Cape St. Francis.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Tom Osborne, MHA for St. John's South.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South.

MR. JOYCE: Eddie Joyce, MHA for Bay of Islands.

MR. McLEAN: Ernie McLean, MHA for Lake Melville.

MS KELLY: Sandra Kelly, MHA for Gander district.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

If we could have the minister also introduce your officials before we start,

Sir.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bob Mercer, Minister of Environment.

My officials will identify themselves.

MR. DEAN : Paul Dean, Deputy Minister of the Department of Environment.

MR. DOMINIE: Ken Dominie, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment.

MR. CROCKER: Gerry Crocker, Director of Financial and General Operations.

MS TURPIN: Carmel Turpin, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: What we will do now is have the introductory remarks of the

minister, normally fifteen minutes or less. Then we will have a response from

the official critic, the opposition, and then some further questions to

yourself, Mr. Minister, and the officials.

When you do speak into the microphones starting off, especially the

officials, if you could introduce yourselves, just give your name so that the

Hansard people can record it. If you are answering a question, it will help with

the identification.

Mr. Minister, you can initiate your proceedings, Sir.

MR. MERCER: Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

My introductory remarks will be brief, just simply to say that in the

Department of Environment our mandate essentially is to protect, preserve and

enhance the Province's environment. At the same time as we do that, we have to

be careful that as economic development proceeds in this Province we do so in a

very environmentally friendly way. I guess the keynote is one of balance. We try

to balance the needs of the environment and the needs of the people who live

within the environment to be able to make a living for themselves and to raise

their families and their children here in this Province.

We have a very broad mandate, and to help us deliver that mandate the

department has broken itself down into four principle lines: the Water Resources

Division, our Pollution Prevention Division, Environmental Assessment, and

Environmental Policy and Planning.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, we operate primarily out of the St. John's

office here at Confederation Building, but we also have offices in Corner Brook

and Grand Falls, offices which I would like to see enhanced over time; because I

think the real functioning of the environment is out in the other parts of the

Province, other than just the administrative centre which is St. John's. So, I

think it is very important that our department be well dispersed throughout the

Province and to meet the needs of the people as those needs arise.

I really do not have a great deal more to say, other than to say that the

budget of the Department of Environment is - I have not sat down and compared it

to the budgets of all of the other departments, but it does not appear to be an

excessive amount of money. I think our total budget is somewhere in the order of

$7.2 million or $7.3 million. When you net that down for some consequential

revenue of about a $1 million, we have a budget of about six point two.

Having said that, total money spent is not always indicative of what a

department does. The one thing that I have found since being in the Department

of Environment is that we have a very professional, well-trained, well-educated

staff, staff who are recognized for their abilities, not only within this

Province but throughout Canada and throughout the rest of North America.

I am very proud of my staff. They are very competent, very professional

individuals. Having come from a bureaucratic background myself for some

twenty-six years in another government department, it is good to see good

technical people doing good, sound, technical work, and that is the kind of

people we have in the Department of Environment.

With those few introductory remarks, I will pass it back to you, Mr. Chair,

and to members opposite.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that.

Before we start with the remarks of the Opposition, if we could open up the

subhead for 1.1.01., and leave it open, if that is okay with the members of the

Committee. We will leave it there.

Mr. Osborne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start off with 1.1.01. Minister's Office. There is a difference in

the revised amount under 01. Salaries, and the estimated amount for this year, a

decrease of about $31,300. I am just wondering if you could give some

explanation as to the difference.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Deputy, if you will.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Minister.

In the previous year there were some additional salary costs in additional

staff in the Minister's Office. I believe there is one less person in the

budget year for this year compared to the previous year, so that would account

for the substantial difference from the revised number to the budget in the

coming year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What position would that be?

MR. DEAN: It was an extra secretarial position in the office in St. John's.

MR. T. OSBORNE: There were additional staff hired on, I guess, last year

over what was budgeted last year? There is a substantial increase in the actual

revised and the budgeted amount for last year as well.

MR. DEAN: There was one position which was not budgeted for last year,

which was hired, where there was an additional position, and there were savings

elsewhere in the department to pay for that position.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What extra position was put there last year?

MR. DEAN: It was an extra secretarial position in the Minister's

Office. That was, I believe, put there in April of last year and that was

carried through to, I believe, February of the previous fiscal year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So the secretary who was put there is the position that

is now missing this year?

MR. DEAN: That is correct.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What would explain the difference in the $213,000

budgeted last year and the $242,000 this year, then?

MR. DEAN: That would be the same explanation. The $213,000 budgeted last

year and the $242,000 this year, those would be salary increases and step

increases for staff in the minister's offices.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under Transportation and Communications, there was $26,000 additional last

year spent as compared to the budgeted amount. Again, we are back to $50,000

budgeted this year. Any explanation on what that was...?

MR. DEAN: There was some additional travel of the minister's office in

last year over and above what was budgeted. Those related to some additional

federal-provincial ministerial meetings, and also the additional expenditures

associated with the minister's trip to Spain to view the oil spill in Spain.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess the trips - the Canadian Council of Ministers of

the Environment meetings are pre-planned, so I guess the $26,000 would primarily

be the trip to Spain?

MR. DEAN: No, I think the estimate, as I recall, and I stand to be

corrected by Mr. Crocker, is that the cost of the Spanish trip was somewhere

less than $15,000 in total for that cost attributed to the minister's office.

There were additional federal-provincial meetings last year related to

discussions on the Kyoto Protocol that were not planned. They were additional

meetings called of Environment Ministers and Energy Ministers for Canada, and

the minister found it necessary to participate in those additional meetings. I

forget the exact number of meetings, but normally there were a couple. I think

in the last year there were three or four meetings called, some of them called

on short notice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under subhead 1.2.01. Executive Support, there is a substantial decrease in

salaries this year over what was budgeted and revised last year. What would the

explanation be for that?

MR. DEAN: Last year there was an additional Assistant Deputy Minister

position in the department for a period of time, and that position was, I guess,

taken away near the end of the current fiscal year. There was two Assistant

Deputy Minister salaries in the budget last year. There is only one Assistant

Deputy Minister salary in the budget for this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Was that a permanent position, the second deputy?

MR. DEAN: Yes, it was a permanent position but it was a person who had

spent some time in other departments of government, came to Environment to do

some work with environmental industries, focusing on environmental industries,

and the department paid the salary during the term of that assignment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Who was that? I am just curious because I thought I knew

everybody in the department.

MR. DEAN: That was Mr. Sid Blundon, who has since retired from the public

service.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under 1.2.01.06. Executive Support, Purchased Services, there was a budget of

$15,000, again this year $15,000, and the revised last year was $50,000. I am

just wondering what those expenditures were for.

MR. DEAN: I think I will ask Mr. Crocker to answer that question.

MR. CROCKER: Some of the expenditures there related to the Environmental

Awards Program, and some advertising costs and printing costs were also a little

greater than anticipated. We are back to the base budget of $15,000 for this

year, and hopefully we will be able to live within that this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Environmental Awards, that is an annual program.

MR. CROCKER: Yes, it is.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What were the overruns for?

MR. CROCKER: I would imagine it was mostly promoting the advertising for

it, and also the reception for it, and that type of thing. I guess there are

other things also included in there, such as printing, not directly related to

the program; but the whole budget for advertising for the department is budgeted

under Executive Support, so a lot of the advertising comes out of that area.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Advertising for the department itself?

MR. CROCKER: All department advertising, yes, goes through the

Communications area which is budgeted under Executive Support.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Would that take in advertising for the MMSB as well, or

would they have their own advertising budget?

MR. CROCKER: No, they would have their own allocation. The MMSB would pay

their own advertising.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On page 98, under

section 1.2.02 Administrative Support,

subsection .01 Salaries. There was a substantial decrease last year from

$148,200 to $104,700 and this year we are back up to $141,900. Was that as a

result of a position that was eliminated last year?

MR. CROCKER: There were some temporary assistance costs there that were

not utilized. It was identified that we needed some additional dollars in some

other activities within the department. There was less temporary assistance paid

for last year out of administration, so that $43,000 was used elsewhere. This

year we have it back in again. We will see what happens with the rest of the

salary allocations if we have to move it again.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Transportation and Communications, there was

$15,000 there that was not utilized. Was that transferred to Transportation in

another area of the department?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, it would have been transferred to another area. I guess

probably our telephone costs and some other related costs like that would have

been less than anticipated, so it was utilized in other activities.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Other Transportation within the department?

MR. CROCKER: Not necessarily. Within the transfer policy we can move it

around within any main object of expenditure across any activity. I guess,

probably, you would need almost to go back over every transfer that was done

during the year to see exactly where that activity went.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Information Technology, the same heading,

Administrative Support, last year's budget was $167,100 and there was actually

$232,700.

MR. CROCKER: During the budget process, $167,000 was basically budgeted

for project costs for different IT projects that were being carried out by the

department. We usually get very little funding for our hardware and software

purchases. What usually happens is all the divisions, if they need new

computers, printers or related software, it is usually transferred into

Administration and then the purchases channeled through the administration area.

So that $65,000 would be the purchase of hardware and software for the full

department.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Sure. That acquisition has been done now so you are back

to $189,000.

MR. CROCKER: I guess the IT budget is a little different than some of the

other areas. Every year the amount fluctuates, depending on the projects that

are submitted. It is not as if you are going to get the exact amount every year.

You are going to get a similar figure, close, but usually it depends on what is

submitted. Based on the projects that are approved by ITM in their review of our

IT budget submission, that is what we get our budget from.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Policy Development and Planning, the Salaries there

last year, $316,500. There was a decrease and a substantial increase this year.

So I guess a two-pronged question: Why the decrease in the actual allocation

that was spent last year and why the increase in the budgeted amount this year?

MR. CROCKER: The $44,000 difference in the Revised is related to a vacant

position during the year. The additional funding that is provided for 2003-2004

is $116,000 difference. We had an additional position approved, plus you have

salary increases. There are other things that relate, I guess, to all of the

salary allocations. There are always salary increases, the annualization of

salary increases, steps, and then the fluctuation in different salary options

from one year to the next.

For example, last year under Policy and Planning there was a salary option to

save approximately $57,000. Where that was not required, we did not do that this

year. So that money was sort of put back in. I guess it appears to be an

increase.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What position became redundant last year in Policy and

Planning?

MR. CROCKER: No, there was no position which became redundant. There was

vacant position that was not filled.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, that just was not filled?

MR. CROCKER: Right. At least there was a delayed recruitment of that

position. It may be filled now. I will check for sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You say that position has been filled?

MR. CROCKER: I will have to check for sure and see exactly which position

it is.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

In addition to that, you say there was an additional person hired?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, there was an additional position. We had additional

funding out for $63,800 for another position, and we offset it with some

revenue. That is why the revenue is also up to $63,800; the related revenue.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The additional position at $63,800, what position would

that be?

MR. DOMINIE: That is a person who is providing support to the Policy and

Planning division to deal with the waste management issues in the department.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. So it is specifically for waste management issues?

MR. DOMINIE: Generally, yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would not come under Pollution Prevention?

MR. DOMINIE: No, that is providing support to the Policy and Planning

division. We have allocated that position there.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How long would that position be required to deal with

policy planning for waste management? How long do you anticipate that position

being within the department?

MR. DOMINIE: Of course you are aware that the waste management strategy

was announced last April, just about a year ago now, so it is just in the early

stages. It is difficult to say how long, but certainly in the early stages we

felt that the extra assistance would necessarily provide some direction in

kick-starting the waste management strategy. It is going to take eight or ten

years to roll out the strategy totally, but whether this position will be

necessary for that full duration I am not sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Professional Services, there was $34,000 budgeted

last year and again this year only $15,000 spent. I am just wondering what the

reason is for the difference in the allocation last year?

MR. CROCKER: There was $34,000 budgeted there for services related to the

analysis of issues relating to climate change and coastal zone management and

other environmental planning and management projects. During the year there were

less consultants hired. So we only spent $15,000, but it is back in there again

for next year, $34,000.

MR. DOMINIE: Most of that was not spent - was on the ocean strategy

business. We started some work on that last year but we did not do quite as much

as we anticipated. On the climate change I think we did spend a fair bit of

money, but on the ocean strategy, the coastal management projects, that was the

area where we did not spend as much as we thought we would. I think we got

overtaken by events on the waste management strategy. That piece did not advance

as quickly as we thought it would.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Pollution Prevention, 2.1.01.01. Salaries. There is

a difference in salaries there this year of - from what was budgeted last year,

what was revised last year, $1,201,800, this year it is $1,371,600. I was just

wondering what those increases would be for?

MR. DOMINIE: We had a number of positions in the department that were

vacant. We sought approval this year and got additional funding to refill those

positions again on the Pollution Prevention side of the department. That is why

we had an increase in salaries there. We had three positions that were obligated

last year to keep vacant because there were not enough salary dollars to cover

it all. We went out this year and sought approval for those three positions and

we did indeed get approval for them. The recruitment is underway, and I do

believe two are actually on staff at the moment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What would those three positions be?

MR. DOMINIE: One was a pesticides inspector and a couple of biologist

engineering-type positions dealing with waste management studies or the various

contaminated sites around the Province that people come in and ask for approval

on their properties; people who deal with those types of issues. We have

recruited people from the university with masters degrees in environmental

sciences - type of people we have on those particular projects.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, there is one pesticide inspector and two under waste

management?

MR. DOMINIE: Well, it is just pollution prevention dealing with, like I

say, the issues like contaminated sites. That is the area we are in. They are

classified as environmental biologists but, essentially, they are engineering

biology type people.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many pesticide inspectors does the Province now have?

Last year we had one. Is that correct?

MR. DOMINIC: Yes, I would say right now we have one-and-a-half. We have

one person on the West Coast who dedicates some time with pesticides and one

full-time working out of St. John's who would, essentially, cover other areas

of the Province as well, obviously.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess I should ask, is that adequate to cover what

needs to be done under pesticide inspection?

MR. DOMINIE: I guess it is always difficult to say how many inspectors

are adequate. What we are attempting to do is work with the industry more and

put some onus, as well, on the industry and how they would sort of - I should

not say self-police, but certainly there is an obligation on the industry to

ensure that they follow the rules as well. So we are working with the industry

to see how we can get an adequate or a proper enforcement or inspection program

throughout the Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: With the new regulations that are anticipated for

pesticide use in the Province and municipalities bringing in pesticide bans, or

hoping to, what type of activity would be undertaken within the department to

meet those demands?

MR. DOMINIE: We are looking at revisions to the pesticide regulations or

administrative regulations on the books since the early seventies or

mid-seventies anyway. Of course, they are still just under discussion at the

moment. We will be talking with the industry to see how they would be managed if

we did bring in changes.

With regard to municipalities, there was some thought that they would perhaps

have a bigger role, but the Federation of Municipalities actually voted last

fall, at their conference in Corner Brook, that they did not want an enhanced

role in pesticide management in the Province. They would rather leave that to

the Province. The way they put it, I think, was, to leave it to the people who

have the expertise.

Right now, municipalities have the ability to regulate pesticides on their

own properties, any municipal properties, public properties, but with regard to

regulating -

MR. T. OSBORNE: But not publicly?

MR. DOMINIE: No, they do not have the ability to do that now under the

Municipalities Act, and the signal we received from the federation was that they

do not want that authority. There was a resolution put forward at the annual

meeting last fall in Corner Brook, by the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

I guess I would have to ask again, that being the case on pesticide use

within the Province, and seeing what many other jurisdictions are doing with the

control of pesticide use with, I guess, first of all, one-and-a-half positions

in the Province as far as pesticide inspectors, what plans does the Province or

the department have to control the use of pesticides in the Province?

MR. DEAN: I think we proposed to overhaul the pesticide regulations, but

to go back to what Ken Dominie was saying earlier, that we licence pesticide

think we would ever have enough inspectors to be out there looking over the

shoulder of every company that is applying pesticides or has a licence. I think

we do have to rely on the industries that have these licences to abide by the

We are also interested in, and we are examining the sale of, pesticides. For

instance, you can go into Canadian Tire today and buy pesticides. We are very

interested in how pesticides are sold and distributed in the Province. We really

do not have a good handle on the inventory and the sale of pesticides in the

Province. This is something we want to examine and consult with other

stakeholders on, how we move forward.

To go back to your inspection question, I do not think we would ever have

enough inspectors to be out there enforcing every permit that we would issue,

and that would not be our intention.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What type of control does the Province have? I mean, you

drive across the Province and, in a number of locations across the highway, you

see vegetable stands. What type of control or what type of ability to oversee

the growers of this produce and the type of pesticides and chemicals that they

are putting on the produce - I guess what I am asking in a more direct way is,

what assurances do the general public have on what they are consuming?

MR. DEAN: One of the things, in terms of authorizing pesticides for use

in Canada, that, in fact, is done by Health Canada, by the federal government.

So, in terms of the testing and research that is done on a particular pesticide

before it comes on the market, that is essentially done by what is called the

Pest Management Regulatory Authority, which is an arm of Health Canada. As a

consumer, you would sort of say, well, Health Canada has or has not approved

this particular pesticide for that particular use.

In terms of how much is applied, well, the person applying it should be

abiding by whatever is on the label, or whatever is appropriate, and that

labelling is controlled by Health Canada.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So it is very much buyer beware, basically. The buyer of

the produce -

MR. DEAN: The buyer of the produce, of any farm produce.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know in other jurisdictions, here in Canada even, there

have been improvements in regulations on products that can be sold on shelves,

such as Canadian Tire or hardware stores, Wal-Mart, that type of thing. Are

there any plans by the Province to regulate or control what is actually being

sold for private use or private spraying within this Province?

MR. DOMINIE: I think when Mr. Dean mentioned that we are going to have a

handle on the inventory of pesticides, that is what he is referring to. With

regard to commercial pesticides - and there are only a handful of suppliers in

the Province - we do have a good handle on that, but it is the area like you

just mentioned, like Canadian Tire, the convenience stores or whatever. That is

the area where we are looking into what level of control is necessary on that

sale, what we call domestic products. That is an area which we are looking at

how we would get involved in the sale and distribution of domestic products in

the Province.

On the other side, the larger stuff, we know what comes into the Province,

how it is dispersed and sold, and they are all licensed. It gets a significant

issue when you talk about all the domestic stuff. You can go from Canadian Tire

down to the smallest convenience store. That is the area that we are looking at

now, how we might manage that under a revised set of regulations.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Back to the commercial applications, is there any guarantees, on a commercial

application - we know what is coming into the Province and supposedly what is

being used on an annual basis, but there is no way of knowing for sure what is

sitting in somebody's barn or, for that matter, what is being disposed of

improperly. Does the Province have a handle on the semi-professional growers, I

guess you would call them, who set up vegetable stands on the side of the

highway and derive a likelihood out of selling produce to people travelling the

Trans-Canada Highway?

MR. DOMINIE: Apart from the people who apply pesticides to lawns and

things like that, and people who are very visible, I think one of the biggest

programs we have had in the department in conjunction with the Department of

Agriculture, Forest Resources and Agrifoods, is working with farmers. We have

had a very, very active program with them, education-wise, over the past,

probably, ten years now. I think we have made a lot of gains with regard to

proper use amongst farmers. One of the very successful programs we have run this

year in conjunction with the industry was getting rid of the old pesticide

containers. You may have seen that program. We had depots set up in half a dozen

places across the Province and we just invited people who had pesticides or

containers to come forward. There were certainly no penalties, just give them to

the organization that was doing it and they were taken away and disposed of

properly. Farmers were very responsive and very responsible, and when they had

something in their sheds or whatever for years, they took advantage of this

program last summer. It may be repeated, I am not sure, but it certainly was a

good pilot project last year. We did one in Labrador and I think it was four or

five on the Island part of the Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Government properties, such as, I guess, here at Confederation Building,

Pippy Park and other areas - is government still using pesticides on public

properties?

MR. DOMINIE: To the best of my knowledge, yes, but they would have to use

a licensed operator the same as anyone else would in the Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Again, under Pollution Prevention, 2.1.01, Transportation and Communications,

we have gone from a revised of $78,000 for last year to $123,800 this year. I am

just looking for an explanation on the increase in that allocation.

MR. DEAN: I think the revised last year was just that we had less need

for travel. This year, as Mr. Dominie said in his comments, we actually have

three additional people on staff, so there will be additional operating costs

and travel costs associated with those extra three people who we are in the

process of hiring or have already hired.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That allocation, then, wouldn't be as a result of the

new waste management strategies, it would be three new people hired on?

MR. DOMINIE: As the minister said, the place for these people is not in

St. John's, it is out across the Province. We hope to have these people out

working in areas outside the head office, certainly during the summer months.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Professional Services we have gone from a budgeted

amount of $618,200 last year to $118,200 this year; $500,000. Why the decrease

in Professional Services?

MR. DOMINIE: We had an allocation of $600,000-odd last year and it was to

deal with a number of sites which the Province is responsible for: Jerrys Nose,

West Bay, some small mining properties in the Baie Verte area. We were picking

away at it, I guess, and we have made some progress. We finished up several

sites. There is certainly a need for some dollars, perhaps some significant

dollars, to deal with these sites over time. I guess government found themselves

in a position to share that. The small allocation we had was probably not

properly dealing with these properties. We still have a small amount of money

there to deal with emergencies, but I think we will set out a plan for future

years to perhaps more properly deal with the near ones, I call it, that we still

have left to do.

The small amount of money we had, we have made some progress. We have

decontaminated (inaudible). I am trying to remember them now, but there are some

properties on the West Coast, out in the Stephenville-Port au Port area. We had

some, I would say - the Baie Verte area is another one we are completely

finished with right now. We use some of this money to deal with New Harbour,

which you are familiar with, we sponsor studies out there. So we still have some

money to continue on with that but we still have some sites left to do which

will require an infusion of funds over time. We are confident, at this point in

time, that there is nothing that is an immediate risk to health and safety. If

we do come across those types of situations I am sure will find the wherewithal

to deal with it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The remaining $118,000, what is that allocated for this

year? What particular projects?

MR. DOMINIE: The only one we have on our radar screen at the moment is

New Harbour. We still have committed more work for that group out there to do

some work, and that is the only one we sort of feel that we have to make a

commitment to this year. The consultant right now is developing a budget for

some more work out there, which we anticipate to do around June month. The rest

of it, I think, as the need arises we will allocate it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Purchased Services, there was an allocation of

$80,000 that was spent last year; $19,000 this year, a $61,000 reduction in that

particular area. I am just wondering why there is $61,000 less being spent for

Purchased Services this year?

MR. CROCKER: There was a vehicle there that was involved in an accident

which was replaced. So that was a significant portion of that. Plus, there was

also greater than anticipated cost for vehicle repairs, advertising, printing,

training, and acid rain monitoring was also greater than anticipated, for the

total of $61,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a couple of questions - not focusing, in particular,

on an allocation.

With the New Harbour site, there was some confusion, as was in the media,

some sparring back and forth between myself and my counterpart. On the backhoe

operator, Hobbs Construction still claim that they had not dug to bedrock. I am

just wondering whether or not the department contend that they had gone to

bedrock or, I guess, what the explanation is for Hobbs saying they had not dug

to bedrock and the department being satisfied with the latest test results?

MR. MERCER: I can't speak to Mr. Hobbs' contention that he never got

to bedrock. All we do know is that the contract which was given to the company

was that they were to go to bedrock. There were people onsite from the

monitoring committee. It would seem they were satisfied that the operator had

gone to bedrock, and the consultant assures us that he did. Now, that is the

piece of information as we know it today.

Mr. Hobbs - I have no idea who the gentleman is. Why he said he never went to

bedrock or whether he was the operator who actually was taking the samples at

that level, I am not sure, but the requirement to go to bedrock was clearly

stated in the contract. The contractor states he did go and the people who were

onsite confirms that he did. You would have to talk to Mr. Hobbs as to why he

made the observation that he did.

MR. DOMINIE: I attended a public meeting one night last week in New

Harbour when the results of the study were presented. That question was asked,

and the consultant had photographs there. He felt confident that he had done

what he was asked to do under the contract. Mr. Hobbs was at the meeting, I do

believe, and he did not challenge that statement by the consultant at the public

meeting last week. He felt comfortable that he had gone down there and he had

photographs demonstrating what he had done. Like the minister said, I think we

can only assume - Mr. Hobbs has not come forward since that time in disputing

that fact again since last week.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Unfortunately, I was not in town. I was not able to make

that meeting. I have not spoken with the chap from Hobbs Construction since but

if he was at the meeting and did not challenge the company, I guess we have to

be satisfied with that.

The other question I have is, Newfoundland Environmental Industry Association

put out a news statement shortly after the budget was released, concerned about

the reduction and the allocation under Waste Management, some $170,000 less this

year under Pollution Prevention. I believe it was the amount that they quoted, I

cannot recall now, but in their news statement they say there was an actual

reduction in the allocation for Pollution Prevention this year versus last year,

and concern that there is not enough movement in the direction of waste

management in the Province. I am just wondering what the department's reaction

to that news statement would be?

MR. DEAN: I did not see that statement, Mr. Osborne, so I cannot comment

on it. I know that we have a reasonably good line of communication with the

Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association and they are big supporters of

the Province's Waste Management Strategy that was released a year ago. They

keep saying to government: This is a good strategy; you should keep with it and

move on with it.

There is an advisory committee to government on the implementation of the

Waste Management Strategy, and NEIA is one of the groups that is represented on

that advisory committee. I believe there is a meeting later this week, Mr.

Dominie, of that advisory committee, to meet with senior government officials on

the strategy.

In answer to your basic question, I did not see the release and I am not sure

any of us saw the release from NEIA with respect to the Budget. I was aware that

they did make a presentation to the Minister of Finance when she was doing her

public consultations throughout the Province, saying that there should be more

funding for a number of initiatives, but I was not aware that they had put out a

release since the Budget came down.

MR. MERCER: I am just going to ask my deputy for a point of

clarification, because we have met with NEIA. I am just trying to fix my mind,

when was that, pre- or post-Budget? Do you have any recollection?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Post-Budget.

MR. MERCER: When we met with them?

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Then they certainly never made -

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know they sent a copy of the new statement to my

office. I can only assume that they released it, if they sent it to my office.

MR. MERCER: My only point, Tom, was that I had met with NEIA. I am going

to ask my deputy whether or not we met with them after the Budget or before.

They certainly never raised any issue of that nature with me, and I have met

with the full board. Can you confirm that was before or after?

MR. DEAN: That meeting was after the Budget did come down.

MR. MERCER: If, in fact, they did have concerns and we did meet face to

face, they never raised them with me.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What plans does the department have this year dealing

with waste management? Where is the Waste Management Strategy? What plans does

the department have this year for it? I guess, in talking about waste

management, the chair of the Waste Management Strategy Committee has been

vacated for some time. What are the plans to replace the chair of that

committee?

MR. MERCER: I will speak to that briefly. That is a question more

appropriately asked of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and he

will be making an announcement as to the replacement for that person in the very

near future.

Our role in the Waste Management Strategy is to develop the guidelines and

the regulations with respect to waste management, composting, transfer sites,

disposal of industrial materials and so forth. Most of those things we have

done, and most of those documents are now out before the public for discussion

and feedback to us, but the actual establishment of the actual waste management

sites themselves is more a function of the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Once they have, in fact, determined the site, they will, of

course, be required to submit a registration, the normal process, and we will do

our due diligence at that point.

I think that is the information that I would have. If my deputy would like to

add to that -

MR. DEAN: Just to add a few things, I think the minister is right. There

were several commitments - in fact, a large number of commitments - in the Waste

Management Strategy released a year ago. One of the things that was committed to

be done in the first year was to do the new standards for the new waste disposal

sites, and we now have a draft of those standards and we are talking to

organizations such as NEIA to review those. So, that is happening.

We have, I believe, six or seven - correct me if I am wrong, Ken - waste

management committees that are active throughout the Province. There is a very

active committee in Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland, Burin Peninsula,

Northern Peninsula, and now in Southern Labrador as well, regional groups coming

together, and they are all at various stages of developing regional plans for

their region. A lot of that work is supported through the Multi-Materials

Stewardship Board.

I would say that government, the Province, and the regions themselves,

municipal leaders in particular in the regions, have been very active in the

past year and are getting on to addressing things in their regions.

We are also dealing with disposal bans and you will recall that the minister,

in March month, announced the implementation of the used oil program. We will be

looking at other programs in the coming year to consider for waste disposal

bans, waste diversion programs.

There are a number of sites that have closed down. There are a number, on an

interim basis, where regions are together, they are co-operating. For instance,

I believe the Town of Pasadena has closed its site and is going into Corner

Brook. We have seen it coming together in Green Bay, and we are now seeing the

closure of the incinerator in Conception Bay North with material coming into

Robin Hood Bay and elsewhere. We are seeing this kind of pattern throughout the

Province. The Northern Peninsula is proposing, I think, Minister, as I recall,

going from thirteen sites to three at the present time, so it is very active.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In areas such as Conception Bay North, where there has

been a great deal of media attention over the past year or so, what is happening

out there? Where is their waste going at present? What plans are in place to

deal with that situation over the next coming months and, I guess, maybe up to a

year before they are really settled away?

MR. DEAN: Just by way of background, municipal waste is a municipal

responsibility so we leave it to the towns in the area to make their

accommodations. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I think, very successfully

talked to the City of St. John's and encouraged them to co-operate and to take

the waste from Conception Bay North on an interim basis, until there is a new

regional Avalon site, but that was an agreement essentially facilitated by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs on behalf of the towns in Conception Bay North.

In terms of day to day, the waste from Conception Bay North could go to any

authorized site on the Avalon region, including Robin Hood Bay, so it is

whatever arrangements the towns in Conception Bay North want to make. My

understanding is that have gone to tender, looking at collection and

transportation into St. John's. I am not exactly sure where that is in the

tendering process, whether the tenders are closed or anything has actually been

awarded.

MR. DOMINIE: I just understood that tenders have closed and there has

been some evaluation of the bids that were received, ongoing at the moment. I

haven't had direct contact, but I read that in the newspaper.

If I may, just for a moment, you did mention a number of committees. I think

there are about eleven, actually, in the Province, some big and some small. We

have been able to secure funding as well this year to bring these groups

together, probably a couple of times a year, so they can discuss common issues

and learn from one another. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. As a matter

of fact, there is a meeting next Thursday, the eighth day of May, in Corner

Brook, which we will be going to with these - hopefully, all the people will

come together, all of the eleven groups. They have been invited, anyway, to come

together and discuss common issues. We started that last year during the

Federation of Municipalities meeting and found it very useful. I think the

groups themselves found it very useful, so that will continue at least for this

year and see where we go from this. They found it very helpful. There was a lot

of work done in the St. John's area. There is no need to go reinventing the

wheel for Western or Central or the Northern Peninsula, on a lot of the issues

that were discussed, so that is a very, very useful process.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Of these committees, the Avalon Waste Management

Committee, I guess, have more direction from government, perhaps, than the other

committees. Would I be correct in saying that?

MR. DOMINIE: I think that one was born out of a bit of a crisis. You

might say we have a crisis in the entire waste management program in the

Province but that one, of course, was born out of a crisis when Harbour Grace

folks indicated they were going to shut down the incinerator in Harbour Grace.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs at the time, I guess, stepped

in and took direct action in setting up the committee, and worked with them to

carry the project as far as it has gone to date. The others, you know, have

developed out of their own local interest, and anything you need in the long run

for action in their areas. I guess the needs are a bit different and then the

committees got structured in a slightly different way.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am going to allow my colleague from Conception Bay

South to ask some questions here.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne has now stopped his inquisition of the minister and we

will now move on to Terry French.

Mr. French.

MR. FRENCH: First of all, gentlemen, you know I have a couple of issues

in my district and that is basically what my questions are about here this

evening. First of all, I would like an update on the scrap metal proposal for

Incinerator Road in Foxtrap.

MR. MERCER: The proposal to relocate from, I believe it was Long Pond,

the existing operator has a scrap metal yard in Long Pond, in the middle of a

residential area, and he has proposed to relocate to the Incinerator Road.

It is my understanding that this is his second request to relocate. He had

made an application one or two years ago - two-and-a-half years ago - to

relocate to a site on Incinerator Road. It followed due process and it frankly

was approved. That gentleman subsequently decided to apply for another site on

Incinerator Road and that process is nearing its conclusion.

I would say, Terry, if the gentleman had wanted to go back to the original

site that he was approved for two years ago, he certainly could have done that.

Why he chose to move from the original site that he had applied to move to on

Incinerator Road to this one, your guess is as good as mine. The fact of the

matter is, he has been approved once already to move to Incinerator Road and the

request which he has made this time has now gone through the process. Actually,

the due date for my decision on that, I believe, was April 2003.

WITNESS: Original?

MR. MERCER: Original.

We subsequently spoke to the gentleman and asked to have an extension. He has

agreed, and I believe the new due date was Friday past. So, we have already gone

past that. Suffice to say, we are still considering the issue and I have yet to

make a final decision on that particular application. We have, as you know,

received considerable representation particularly from the new subdivision there

on the Foxtrap Access, which is located some three or four kilometres from the

Incinerator Road site.

MR. FRENCH: I would like to remind the minister as well that you have

received these from the school council as well, area farmers - the list is

endless - petitions with hundreds of names on them. There is no debating, I

think, that the current site has to be moved. That is not an issue, I do not

think, on anybody's mind. It is just that the current situation on Incinerator

Road is, we believe that area should be cleaned up before it entertains any new

applications.

If you visited - I have aerial photographs that you are more than welcome to

see - if you see the current site, you can understand the contamination that has

caused where it currently exists.

MR. MERCER: I have been on the site. I have walked the site.

MR. FRENCH: Well, you know.

MR. MERCER: I have seen what you claim to be the environmental damage

there. The point, as I understand it, is that the existing operators who are

there are there in compliance with the zoning of the area, which was, at one

time, under the Town of Conception Bay South but somehow got changed to the City

of St. John's in 1992.

MR. FRENCH: That is a story in itself.

MR. MERCER: Therein may lie some of the concerns with the particular site

in question.

The Rothsay rendering plant, for argument sake, was establishment in 1977,

and there are concerns with that site, there is no doubt, but it is regularly

inspected. It is checked for compliance. I understand the Rothsay plant, as of

last fall, has installed some new equipment to treat the affluent from that

plant which has been a bit of a problem. That work is in the process of

(inaudible) up. I do not know what the due date for commissioning is, but it is

very near, if it has not already been done.

MR. DOMINIE: Construction was started about last October or November and

we understand commissioning is underway at the moment.

MR. FRENCH: I am familiar with that, that is a good move. I salute you

guys for approving that because, from what I understand, it is going to treat

the water that is coming out of the Rothsay plant. It is a water treatment

facility. Anybody who has lived in the area or has had a chance to barbecue some

evening on their back porch could certainly attest to the need for water

treatment for that facility.

Just to go into a little bit of a process: If somebody complains of a current

company or a current facility that is contaminating a certain area, what

happens?

MR. MERCER: If it within the jurisdiction of the department and the

gentleman or the operator of that site is not in compliance with the terms and

conditions of his permit, then we will - I presume we do - conduct an inspection

and note the deficiencies and so note to the operator to have them corrected.

That, I assume, is the normal procedure.

MR. FRENCH: I don't have a permit for anything, and hopefully I am not

a polluter, but let's say, for example, this evening on my own property I

could open an oil barrel and throw it into the drain, and obviously I didn't

have a permit to do that. If my neighbor questioned my motives and phoned

somebody, what would be the process, if he phoned government and said, Company

ABC is polluting in the area? What would be the process?

MR. MERCER: There would be an investigation, of course, and if the

allegation was proven to be correct charges would be laid. There is nothing

unusual about that.

The whole issue of Incinerator Road - I understand your concern is that there

be a complete environmental assessment done of the area, not of any one

particular operator.

MR. FRENCH: Absolutely.

MR. MERCER: My understanding of the environmental assessment legislation,

as we now have it, is that is not within my authority to do. It is within my

authority to approve or disapprove any proposal for development, but to do an

environmental assessment upon an area, it is my understanding and advise that it

is not within our authority to do that. Correct me if I am wrong here.

MR. FRENCH: In the case when there are a number of companies who have

been, and are serious polluters, my God, you must have teeth to be able to go in

there and say: Okay, well hold on guys, we want to check this out. We have to

check this out. You do not just let that go on and on and on, surely God.

MR. MERCER: Well, lets go back to the site in question again. At the site

in question - and the brook that you are referring to, the stream that moves

down through and comes out, I believe, somewhere in the vicinity of the

playground, the swimming pools and whatever. The rendering plant is certainly

close to that site, which was established in 1977.

Perhaps the biggest polluter of the whole works in there is the former waste

disposal site operated by the Town of Conception Bay South, which is right on

the brook itself. Any waste disposal site - this was established in the 1960s,

so it is now getting mature. It is forty-odd years old. There are obviously

materials coming out of that site. Someone has to take a look at it and perhaps

do some rehabilitation work. So there are a lot of problems with any of our

waste disposal sites which are located in or near a water course. Obviously a

situation like that - the same as there is at New Harbour barrens - it is an old

waste disposal site. You can paint it up anyway you want, over time there is

material that will come from that waste disposal site. Unfortunately, when these

sites were located twenty, thirty, or forty years ago, not a lot of people were

thinking about leachates from those sites, but that looks like a site which may

be containing some contamination. We may have to ask the Town of Conception Bay

South, at some appropriate time, to do some remedial work there.

MR. FRENCH: I certainly do not disagree with that. Let's face it, years

ago we were all guilty of dumping our garbage in places maybe that we should

have had a second look at as communities. I think now we have taken the bull by

the horns, or it seems to be that we are getting ourselves together on this

issue. One aspect of Incinerator Road certainly is that.

I have had calls from constituents, as recent as last week, concerning the

Pardy's Waste Management. I have people who have sent me pictures. I am sure

you have these pictures because they told me they were going to e-mail them to

you as well. I have water samples taken from the water right next to this Pardy's

Waste Management. I have seen the sewage in the ditches. I have seen the oil in

the ditches and I know that there have been complaints made. I know that

inspectors visit that site once a week, but yet there is nothing done from the

department. There is something wrong there in my opinion.

MR. MERCER: Well, just to recap your point - and pictures, I am sure, are

available. I always find it better to be on the site and I was on the site last

week. I actually went into their composting facility. While it had a certain

distinctive aroma, it was not an aroma that I was not unaccustomed to having

come from a farm. But it wasn't, in my view, creating any kind of an

environmental problem. Pardy's did have a problem there about two years ago, a

year-and-a-half ago, and there is not doubt whatsoever, they did violate the

should not have been done. They have been taken to task for that. They have been

asked to do certain remediation; some of which they have done, some of which

they have not.

The site as it is right now - and the complaint came to me last week that

they were, quote: dumping raw sewage on the site. I think I can recognize raw

sewage when I see it. I also recognize composted material. What is on the site,

as I saw, was a facility whereby sewage was being brought to the site, being

pumped into a large tank which was basically a refuge, the water was separated

out and the water was going into storage tanks. The sludge was going into the

building for composting and the water, as I understand right now, is being

back-hauled to the West Coast for disposal in another municipal sewage treatment

facility.

There is, in fact, a fair amount of composted sludge on the site. It is old

sludge which has been there for many years; five, ten years. The difficulty with

it, and the only difficulty as I understand it right now, is simply in

transporting it from that site to an area which will take it. The permit - which

they now have been issued and have been issued for some time - allows them to

take the composted sludge to, I believe, Robin Hood Bay, as one example, to act

as a cover on the garbage dump down there, subject only to them providing to the

Department of Environment analysis to show that the material has, in fact,

composted. I understand that is in the process of being done. I know it is not a

clean site, but again, it is an industrial site. That is what it is zoned for

and that is why -

MR. FRENCH: But because it is an industrial site, surely God there is no

excuse for a wetlands there that is totally contaminated with oil. I cannot

follow - regardless of whether it was in 1977 or 1947, I do not think that gives

a company the right to - if they make a mistake or if they make an error, or if

they pollute an area they should damn well have to clean it up.

MR. MERCER: In this particular case I believe I indicated the

transgression was brought to our attention. They have been asked to clean up the

site. They have been asked to bring forward a plan of remediation. I stand to be

corrected, but I do not recall there being any reference to oil on that site

being wasted from Pardy's.

MR. FRENCH: Well, I can assure you there is oil in that wetlands and if

you speak to any of the inspectors - they visit that site once a week and they

send reports, I assume, to you people. The Department of Environment - the

inspector comes from Government Services and Lands and visits that site. If you

go up there and sit there for a week you will see the Environment vehicle, a

Government Services vehicle coming in, inspecting that road, and leaving again -

some time through a week.

MR. MERCER: I would assume that if Government Services and Lands finds

infractions of any permits out there we would be so notified. I will ask my

officials if they have been so notified.

MR. FRENCH: It would not be a permit, it would be a wetland full of oil.

Don't you guys investigate that then and make the person who made the mess

clean it up?

MR. MERCER: That is what I think I just said. If Government Services and

Lands did in fact find oil in a wetland site adjacent to any of these operations

that we are referring to, I presume they would be reported back to the

Department of Environment. I will ask my officials if they have received any

such reports.

MR. DOMINIE: I am familiar with the area that was contaminated - if that

is the right word -from some of the sewage in the area, because I think there is

a tile field that malfunctioned. I am not aware of any wetlands -

MR. FRENCH: What malfunctioned?

MR. DOMINIE: The septic tank tile field where the decant water liquid was

going. That did malfunction about two years ago and that is what the minister

said.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DOMINIE: Weeping tile field, septic tank. We have asked them to clean

it up.

I certainly will check it out, where there are any wetlands contaminated with

oil. Certainly, I am aware of the sewage issue.

MR. FRENCH: Just a further comment. Anybody who has been in that area

certainly would have to see, unless you absolutely have none of the five senses

at all left, you would have to realize that area is contaminated, between

Rothsay, Pardy's Management, the old dump site, that is just to name the three

major ones in that area.

That water stream, like I said, runs out between recreation facilities, and

for someone to turn a blind eye to what is happening there is absolutely

criminal.

I just want to leave you with that thought. I hope you will make the right

decision, like the previous minister did, who I must commend, by the way, for

making the right decision at the time. I hope this minister does the same.

MR. MERCER: Well, let me leave you with one final thought. No one is

turning a blind eye to anything happening on Incinerator Road.

MR. FRENCH: We will see. Time will tell.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. French.

If you could repeat that piece about the former minister.

Is there anybody else? Mr. Byrne? Mr. Osborne? Okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have just a couple of more questions.

A quick question on waste management before I move off that topic. The Avalon

Waste Management Strategy that was announced and, I guess, their goals on

closing landfills, on decommissioning the teepee incinerators, putting in lined

landfills and so on, how realistic at this point are those goals? Do you

anticipate the Province should attain those goals?

MR. DEAN: In terms of the Province, I just want to clarify and

distinguish between the Province's Waste Management Strategy, which does have

very clear goals in there. I think, in the time frame that they are laid out

there, Mr. Osborne, I would say, yes, they are realistic. The Avalon was a bit

more specific.

The report from the Avalon committee was very specific in that it had a

specific plan for the entire Avalon region and identified a specific site and

identified, essentially, a kind of a governance model and the kind of standards

that we are, in fact, developing. I think that is realistic for a population the

size of which we have on the Avalon Peninsula at the present time. It is

realistic to have one site, and it is realistic to have a governance model and a

payment model that is equitable to all the citizens of the region. Having said

that, I think that means that we are going to pay more for the higher standards

and for the associated transportation costs; so the consumer, the householder,

will likely end up paying more, either on a fee basis or through municipal

taxes, for that higher standard of waste management.

When the Province did its consultations on its Waste Management Strategy, the

public and municipal leaders throughout the Province said, we are willing to pay

more, and that is one of the reasons the Province went forward with the strategy

that it did, because we had very strong public support for taking this kind of

action in terms of higher standards, regionalization and moving to lined

landfills whereby the effluent is controlled and treated so that we do not end

up with the situations that we were talking about earlier this evening.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On the Province's Waste Management Strategy, I guess,

the elimination of the teepee style incinerators, we are only looking at a

couple of years now before we should attain that goal. Is that still an

attainable goal as far as the department is concerned?

MR. DEAN: Mr. Osborne, I would say, yes. I think we, as a Province, are

committed to this through the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment as

well. This was a commitment that was made by former ministers to the Canadian

Council of Ministers of Environment, that we would phase out the teepee

incinerators. That was a commitment that was, in fact, made before the launching

of the Waste Management Strategy itself. I think that a number of those have

been shut down already and we will continue to see, on an annual basis, more of

them closed until we get to 2008 or 2010 when they will, in fact, be all gone.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In the interim, once those incinerators are closed or

shutdown, what are the Province's plans as far as - will the waste just be

landfilled until such a time as there are regional landfill sites that are

properly lined with the proper lagoons and catch basins and whatever the case

may be?

MR. DEAN: Yes, I think we will see some interim measures. The one I

described earlier for the Northern Peninsula is probably the kind of thing we

will see. What I described with Pasadena shutting down its incinerator,

Minister, I understand -

MR. MERCER: That is an on and off decision. Council has made the decision

and then they have unmade the decision. I think they have made it again, but

what it will be next month I am not sure.

The whole issue of solid waste management, I am personally very encouraged by

what I have seen since becoming Minister of Environment. I am very pleased to

see people in groups - we met with the Mayor of St. Anthony and I just forget

the young gentleman's name who was involved with the strategizing for solid

waste management up there. Of their own accord, by and large, they have made

some decisions to reduce their waste disposal sites from thirteen to three and

to phase out the three teepee sites, which they have already up there.

However, when you talk about the provincial waste management strategy, I

think we are moving in the right direction. While at the end of the day we do

things exactly as they are right now in that document, I am not 100 per cent

sure we are talking about, in that document, three major landfill sites on the

island part of the Province. We have a lot of geography. Whether or not it is

actually feasible to carry, for argument's sake, solid waste from St. Anthony

down to, let's say, Corner Brook or Stephenville - is it really possible to

bring it up from Rose Blanche to Corner Brook? Yes, it can be done but it is

done at a cost. As the deputy has indicated, there has to be some consideration

along the way of what is an acceptable cost and what is the cost that the

communities can bear.

Will there be only three major landfill sites in the Province at the end of

the day? I would like to think that there would be, because it makes life a

little bit more easy to manage, but realistically will there be only three? I

cannot make an ironclad commitment to that, even though the strategy itself does

refer to three sites.

For argument sake, I do, in my own mind - and it may not be the right place

to be sometimes, but from the northern part of Gros Morne to St. Anthony might

be an area where it might be more practical to actually establish a landfill

site of some form. Certainly one which would have a liner in it, obviously. But,

would it be possible to bring it down from St. Anthony to Corner Brook or Flat

Bay? It is a long way to come with a load of, quote - we would always call it as

- garbage. It is a long way to go. If it was a load of fish or shrimp, that is a

very valuable product and it has a value at the end of the day.

Those are just my own personal thoughts. They may or may not be shared by my

officials or by the people who prepared the Waste Management Strategy.

MR. T. OSBORNE: With water resources management, what is the department

doing at this stage? I know that there is a significant increase in salaries,

for example. I know that there were people hired on, technicians and so on, the

ongoing training that takes place throughout the Province. I was just wondering

what the Province is doing to continue to try to improve water quality and the

safety of water supplies throughout the Province.

MR. DOMINIE: I think that is one area in the department that we can be

very, very proud of over the past couple of years, in what we have managed to

achieve. We work very closely, obviously, with other departments - the

Department of Health; Municipal Affairs; and Government Services - in getting

water quality sampling done. We have improved our water quality information

substantially over the past couple of years. We have hired two or three people,

and they have just gone out and hit the streets and been doing a lot of chemical

water quality work.

I think one of the significant achievements we have made is in our training

exercise. We essentially have a training unit within water resources and there

are trained people who actually run the systems. That is very key in the rural

areas of the Province, to have someone out there trained so that they know how

to identify problems and work on their systems on a daily basis.

This year we have a new (inaudible). I think we are the only ones in the

country, perhaps even North America, who have a mobile training service. We

found in the past that it is not always possible for small towns to send their

employees in to a central location like Gander, Clarenville or wherever.

Sometimes these towns only have one person, or sometimes not a full-time person.

The councils themselves, or volunteers, run the systems.

We have equipped, and are equipping, three vans. You may have seen them in

the parking lot. Cube vans, I think they are called. We have one stationed here

in St. John's, one stationed in Grand Falls-Windsor, and one in Corner Brook.

We intend to take the training to the people. We are equipping these vans with

training aids, training materials. If someone calls and wants some training, we

will actually drive the van down to that small community and work one on one

with the operator. I think that is going to go a long way in improving water

quality. Once the people out there are trained to know what to do, obviously

that is very significant.

We had an annual event in Gander this year. It was our third major conference

that we have had. We have had excellent speakers come in from all across Canada.

I heard comments this year when I was out - and the minister was there as well -

that you would not get this number of people at a conference of this size, of

this nature, in Toronto or Ontario. We have 250-300 people attending. It shows

the interest and what we have done in attracting people to our conference or

training sessions. I think that is the piece that is going to help water quality

to no small measure in this Province in the years to come.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One other question on water quality, and I guess that has

to do with HAAs and the Province testing in municipalities where the THM counts

are significantly high. There has been no public education on HAAs. There has

been no release of HAA counts to the general public. Yet, for example, the

United States consider HAAs to be far more dangerous than THMs.

Why is it that we haven't yet made those numbers available to the general

public instead of just to municipalities, and why is it that the Province has

not done any education or any promotion, I guess, of precautions and things that

the general public can do to take precautions against HAAs?

MR. DOMINIE: HAA, haloacetic acid, is really an emerging issue across the

country. We are probably one of the few provinces doing any testing at all, and

we have a developed a pilot project where we are dealing with testing in areas

where there are high THMs, and that has been our signal, I guess, as to where we

would go in.

What the difficulty is, I guess, there is no standard for HAAs anywhere in

the country, so the federal-provincial group that is working on water quality

standards is working on HAAs right now. When they will come up with a number, a

guideline, I do not know. I guess you have to question what the merit is in

putting numbers out there when we have no reference point to compare it to. I

guess that is the challenge we face.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We do with the States, though, who have done significant

research on HAAs. At this point, I guess, we could use the United States as a

reference.

MR. DOMINIE: I am not quite sure what numbers are available in the

States.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Keeping in mind, I guess, an ounce of prevention is worth

a pound of cure, wouldn't it be better to look at the States and what they are

doing, the numbers they are using and use that as a reference until there are

Canadian numbers available?

MR. DOMINIE: I am sure the committee is looking at all these issues and

what would be an appropriate reference point for us to compare it to. I am sure

there might be standards in other European countries as well. When you pick a

standard, your guideline or reference point, you have to be pretty confident

that is the one you want to use and it suits your particular circumstance in

your area.

That is one question, and I am sure the minister has asked as well: What

should we be doing with the information we have? It is not a lot of information.

I think we have been into fourteen or fifteen communities. But we are starting

to pick up information, like I say, and that is one of the areas where we have

made a lot of progress, generally, on chemical water quality and THMs, and now

HAAs has become an emerging issues. That is one we will certainly have to deal

with and how we mull it with the public and things like that.

MR. MERCER: Tom, I am glad you raised the issue of haloacetic acids

because I have asked the same question. We do the analysis, we have the numbers,

why aren't they on the system? The answer I get of course is the one that you

just got, that we do not have any reference points.

In Gander, at the meeting, there were representatives from municipalities

from across the Province. I am glad you reminded me, because I just threw it out

to them. I said: You know we are doing these analysis, give me some direction.

Do you want them on the Web site or do you not want them on the Web site?

Personally, it is not a big issue for us to do it. We have the information, we

can provide it. I have not received a response back from anyone from that

meeting. It might be a good thought for me to go back, not necessarily to them,

but to municipalities and get some direction because we have no reason not to

put them on the Web. They are there, they are available. It will take all of a

few seconds to key them in. Well, per unit. For reading it will take a few

seconds, but it is not a big issue. If there are no standards to judge them by -

is a big number bad or is a small number good? I do not know. I really do not

know. Based upon what - my advise is that there are no standards that we can use

at this point in time.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, I would have to ask why we are not using the

standards that the EPA are using?

MR. MERCER: Well, I guess the point that Ken has made, they may or may

not be the right standards for this area. I cannot answer your question 100 per

cent. It sometimes is not a good thing to use standards which do not apply to

your own area because they may not, in fact, be the right standards to use.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I were to request the haloacetic acid counts that have

been collected for the Province, would they be available?

MR. MERCER: I would take direction from my officials, but personally, I

do not see any reason why you would want to use them unless you wanted to take

them out and compare them to some other standards established somewhere else in

the world and start saying: Well, what a horrendous mess we have out here. I am

sure you would be very considerate in the use and diligent and so forth.

Would we have any objections to giving them to the hon. member? I do not

think so. Anything that we have in the department was collected with public

money, therefore anything that we have in the department should be available to

the citizens. I assume you are still a citizen, sir.

CHAIR: The Chairman is not going to comment on that.

We are going to give the minister a break from the critic. We are going to go

to Mr. Byrne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have just one other question.

CHAIR: One other question, okay.

Mr. Byrne, you will defer to your critic?

Okay, thank you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board, there

is $450,000 allocated this year. I guess the Voisey's Bay Environmental

Management Board is to be set up over a five-year period. Taking from the

Estimates, we put that money out upfront and we will collect the revenue from

the federal government at the end of the year. Is that correct?

MR. DOMINIE: Periodically throughout the year we will submit progress

claims from the federal government, but essentially we will. It is up to

$450,000. It does not mean we are going to spend all that money but that is what

we estimate right now will be the cost of running that board. We will submit

progress claims probably on a - Gerry, it is a quarterly basis that we have

agreed with the federal government, or monthly basis, whatever? So we will not

wait until the end of the year. As we spend money we will claim it back from the

federal government.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Our $225,000 estimated cost as the Province for this

year, is that amount - I mean, over the next five years, can we anticipate that

going up, going down, or remaining about the same?

MR. DOMINIE: That was a notional budget. I am on the board, so we sat

down and sort of developed what we feel would be the cost of running that board,

and that is what we came up with as an estimated cost. That can go up or down,

depending on how many meetings. I would certainly hope that it would not go up.

We have indicated, basically, to the Aboriginal groups, that it is a maximum of

$450,000. That is what we would think is a fair contribution to that board. I

guess time will tell.

The board really got established - well, the agreement was signed last July

so we never had a full year of operating last year. This would be the first full

year of operating the board and we will see, I guess, how the costs go. We

estimated how many meetings we would have with the board, and per diem for board

members, and things like that, and we arrived at a figure of $450,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So it would be reasonable, I guess, to assume that it

would be about the same over the next five years?

MR. DOMINIE: Budgets will be submitted on an annual basis. That is one of

the requirements in the agreement we have with the Aboriginal groups, what you

would prepare every year for approval of the parties. So, I guess it depends on

what year two or year three yields. In the early going, it is just a fair amount

of work for that board to do, now that construction is underway in Voisey's

Bay. Whether that peters out in year two or year three or year four, I guess we

will wait and see. That is our best shot right now, $450,000. I do not see it

going much more than that. It could be rounded out, or slightly less, depending

on how it goes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Are there going to be any contributions toward that fund

from Inco, or Voisey's Bay Nickel Corporation?

MR. DOMINIE: Not envisaged at the moment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Osborne, Sir, for the questioning.

Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

I just have a few questions. I am not going to go through the Estimates, but

I will be jumping around a bit because I have made a few notes.

This is an issue that has been brought up by the critic, and I think the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and it is concerning Placentia Bay and

the emergency response to an oil spill. Can you give us some kind of an overall

view of what is happening there with respect to an emergency response to an oil

spill, because it seems to be becoming a bigger issue all the time with the

amount of vessels in that bay.

MR. MERCER: I will speak to that in general terms, and ask Ken or Paul to

speak to it as well. That is an issue - particularly in Placentia Bay - in which

the former minister, the Chair of the Committee here this evening, has taken a

great deal of interest. Even though we recognize offshore spillages to be a

federal responsibility, we sometimes know that the feds do not always pay great

heed to spillage offshore, as recently was the case with the Tecam Sea

when we found spillage offshore. Charges were laid but when we went to court,

"We withdraw charges, My Lord", and that was the end of that.

There has always been an issue with particularly Placentia Bay, because it is

a major port. We have the transshipment terminal out there for the offshore. We

have the oil refinery. From our information as well, the Coast Guard has rated

Placentia Bay as perhaps one of the areas in Eastern Canada most likely to have

some form of spill offshore.

It is all very well to say that the federal government is responsible and

that they should do this and they should do that, but you know as well as I

know, Jack, regardless of what happens out in the water, as soon as that stuff

hits the shore it is not their problem any more; it is our problem.

MR. J. BYRNE: With the coastline that we have.

MR. MERCER: Yes, and I think it is fair to say that my predecessor - and,

judging by the size of the file on that issue, there has been a tremendous

amount of correspondence between the Department of Environment and the federal

minister. To say that we have made any sort of progress would be an

overstatement of that, because we have not. As a matter of fact, on May 7, the

Fisheries and Oceans Standing Committee are meeting here in St. John's. I will

be making a presentation and I will be reiterating again and again, and over

again, that we are not getting the type of service that we need from the Coast

Guard service.

I was told the other day -

MR. J. BYRNE: So, what happens if there is an oil spill tomorrow or

tonight?

MR. MERCER: Well, there is a certain amount of emergency response

equipment on site around the Province. The officials can perhaps speak to that.

Jack, one of the statistics which I just heard recently, which really throws

me for a loop, is, 25 per cent of all of the Coast Guard personnel equipment is

concentrated on the Great Lakes. Twenty-five per cent of all of the Canadian

Coast Guard material, ships, and men, are there to protect the Great Lakes. I

think, in the Newfoundland area, we get less than 15 per cent of the total Coast

Guard service. Here you are, in the middle of the North Atlantic - well, not

quite the middle of the North Atlantic but well out into the North Atlantic - in

a very hostile sea environment, and we get less protection from the Canadian

Coast Guard service than the Great Lakes. It makes you wonder where people's

priorities are.

Maybe my officials would like to speak about the emergency response which is

in place in the various locations.

MR. DOMINIE: I think there are two issues we deal with. One is the issue

like the Tecam Sea , which is happening, in my opinion, daily off our

coast. They come ashore and there are estimates of many, many seabirds killed on

an annual basis. The other issue, of course, is a catastrophic event like

happened in Prestige, Spain, this year.

Right now we understand the capacity in the eastern part of the Province more

particularly so, is a spill of about 20,000 tons. That would include about -

there is a company called ECRC, East Coast Response Corporation. The shippers

themselves are responsible, and they contract with this company, ECRC, to

provide response, and they have certain obligations to provide certain amounts

of equipment. The Coast Guard itself has some equipment as well, almost

equivalent to what ECRC has, actually, a fair amount of heavy gear, but is it

enough? It is difficult to say. We talk about a 20,000 ton capacity. I am not

quite sure of the numbers that were in Prestige, but they would be much more

than that.

There are certain recommendations going forward now, I think, as a result of

Mr. Aylward's visit to Spain earlier the year, on what type of processes

should be put in place, what type of equipment, safe havens, and things like

that. A whole bunch of things can be done. I think the key, to be quite honest

with you, is prevention and what types of tankers we have on the seas and what

types of gear. So that is a very important piece as well, to work with the

federal government - and that would be Transport Canada, I assume - to make sure

that vessels which ply our waters eventually get upgraded to double hull and

things like that. That is very important to make sure that piece gets dealt

with, as well as the provincial side. Hopefully we will never to have to deal

with an incident.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully, but something like that, prevention with respect

to double hulls and what have you, is not going to happen overnight. This is

going to take a long time. We could be looking at a spill - hopefully, that will

not happen but we could be looking at a spill any time.

With respect to Nova Recycling. They just recently had a pretty bad fire in

Corner Brook. Up in Airport Heights Nova Recycling exists now and there have

been a lot of complaints through the residents committee. Indeed, the City of

St. John's have been out there almost daily doing inspections over the past

year, two years. I am wondering - and there has been a lot of new development

around the area. I am sure everybody is familiar with it. There is always a mess

up there. We had problems with the tires lately, and what have you. Is there

anything in the provincial regulations which says that if they do not follow

provincial regulations or they are in violation of them so often that it can

cause these people to relocate or something because there are a lot of

complaints about that business in that area?

MR. MERCER: Well, the site on Rhodora Drive - I believe it is - has

certainly attracted a lot of media attention recently. If you want to try to put

the best face on it, if you want to try to do that, we have just come through a

long winter of six months and I am sure a lot of material tends to accumulate

and gets revealed -

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to interrupt you here because I have been attending

regular monthly meetings for the past six years at Airport Heights and this

issue comes up monthly. It is not just the past six months with a (inaudible).

MR. MERCER: From what I can understand right now, the situation out there

is worse than it normally is because as the snow melts whatever is underneath

gets - anyway, it comes more to the core.

The other situation of course which you have up there - again, I can only

view the area from what I see - is that there has been a substantial amount of

residential construction which occurred around the area. Now, does that accuse

Nova Recycling from running a messy operation? No, it do not, but obviously it

makes people more aware because there are more eyes there to see what is going

on. There are regulations regarding all sorts of things, for argument's sake,

the tires - we heard a lot of stories about the tires that were placed at the

Rhodora site in the last little while.

Yes, there are regulations which stipulates that you can store up to a

certain number of tires on site without any approval from our department. I

cannot recall the exact number but it is a substantial number. Again, how many

tires are at Canadian Tire or how many tires are at King's Bridge Esso this

time of year? There are tires around town everywhere. The point of the matter is

that if there is that kind of material on the site it should be stored in a way

which is less visible to the public and taken out of there as quickly as

possible because it is not meant ever to be a storage site for tires. Don't

ever kid yourself of that. It is not meant to be a site for tire storage. Maybe

Mr. Flight needs to be encouraged from time to time to ship some of that

material out more quickly, particularly the tires.

MR. J. BYRNE: It has been a serious situation for the past number of

years, as I said, with respect to the plastics, the papers and what have you. It

has been an ongoing issue for some time. I am just wondering, what is going to

be the end result? Eventually, if they keep going the way they are going, they

are going to have to relocate.

MR. MERCER: Just to me - and again, not speaking as Minister of

Environment, but it just seems to me that if the residential development that

has occurred in the area continues and you have that kind of an operation there,

it is only a matter of time - either the gentleman and the operation cleans up

their operation, builds a bigger building to keep it inside, or they find

another location. It is just, to me, that is what I have seen happen in that

kind of an operation many times before.

I will ask the deputy or the assistant deputy about infractions that we have

been responsible for because again, I would assume that most of this is

happening - well, it is within the City of St. John's and City Hall is

probably dealing with that more so on a daily basis than we are.

MR. DOMINIE: We have to have some general legislation, talking about

littering and things like that, but the City of St. John's has actually, to my

understanding, littering bylaws which they are probably in a better position

than we are to tackle that immediate problem.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I think the city has finally decided to take them to

court.

MR. DOMINIE: Yes. I read that in the paper, I believe the other day,

yesterday, or certainly recently anyway.

MR. J. BYRNE: Artesian wells: last summer around the Avalon, around the

perimeter of St. John's, say down my way and up in the Kilbride area, I heard

of a lot of complaints with respect to a lot of the wells being - I do not know

if polluted is the right word, but there were certainly problems with the wells.

I am thinking, and I have been told by some people who install these wells, that

when you put the casing down it could be one length of twenty feet - to hit the

bedrock it might be three lengths. I have three lengths in my artesian well.

What is happening is the companies that are installing these are not required to

put at the bottom of the casing, and it goes into the bedrock, a seal that is

put down and then somehow or other it expands out against the bedrock and then

will not allow any top water to come down the side and go down into the flute.

Are there any regulations in place that will require these seals to be put at

the bottom of these casings in artesian wells, as they do in other provinces, in

Ontario and places like that?

MR. MERCER: I hope you know the answer to that one, Ken.

MR. DOMINIE: I have the well drilling regulations in my briefcase. I

honestly do not know. We do have well drilling regulations. I can check and see

if there is any provision in there for - I am quite familiar with how the well

should be drilled and sealed. Well, from gravel into the rock and caps put on

top. I will check into that -

MR. J. BYRNE: Because if that regulation is not in place, then maybe it

is something the department should look at because there were a lot of

complaints. I do not know if you heard of it but there were a lot of complaints

last year on the artesian wells.

With respect to the environment, the U.S. Navel Base in Argentia, in this

document, the Economy 2003, they are talking about spending $81 million from

1996-2004 on the base out there. What is the status of that? Also, with respect

to other bases, former naval bases or military bases within the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; one being in my district, Red Cliff, is there any

work being done, I suppose, federally and in the Province, to have these old

sites cleaned up? I am, of course, particularly concerned about the one at Red

Cliff, and I have my reasons for that. The Red Cliff in Logy Bay, I am talking

about.

MR. MERCER: I am going to ask Ken to respond to that. The only piece that

I have some knowledge of, is that some of the old radar sites that we had across

the Province, the old Pinetree sites, a deal was cut between the provincial

government of the day and the federal government for some -

MR. J. BYRNE: Red Cliff is included in those, I believe.

MR. MERCER: If that was the case, if they were, there was a deal cut in

the mid-1980s with the federal government to do cleanup and the feds said, here

is $5 million. We eventually got $5.5 million out of them and they said, do what

you can with $5.5 million and that is it.

If Red Cliff was a part of that - Ken is saying it is not, so he may be able

to speak to that.

MR. J. BYRNE: It may not be part of the agreement but it was a part of

that. If you go into the Net you can see on - what do you call it?

MR. MERCER: The Pinetree site.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Pinetree site. Red Cliff comes up in that group.

MR. MERCER: The site that I am referring to, Jack, refers to the sites

that were on the Labrador coast over in - not Seglek. What was the name of the

place you said?

WITNESS: Seglek was one.

MR. MERCER: Seglek was one, but there was a place over on the border, the

Quebec border.

WITNESS: The Border Beacon.

MR. MERCER: Border Beacon, the Northwest River site, St. Anthony. There

were a whole bunch of sites across the Province which the feds at the time said:

Here is $5 million, go and do what you can.

To be quite frank and honest with you, that money has run out long ago and

any cleanup on those particular sites is now being done with provincial dollars.

Ken is saying that the Red Cliff site, perhaps, was not part of that original

agreement.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why would that be?

MR. DOMINIE: That particular agreement which negotiated a deal was

primarily sites in Labrador at the time, and one on the Island part of the

Province. That was St. Anthony. There was a package deal reached, as the

minister said, with the federal government. It was $5.5 million. We took that

money and we cleaned up those particular sites. As the minister said, we didn't

get all the way with them, there are still some issues we have to deal with. The

federal money has run out and the Province is, I think, absolved of any further

responsibility for those sites.

Particularly in Red Cliff, we haven't done much from the Department of

Environment's perspective. We tried to get a handle last year on the

landownership up there, because there is a myriad of landownership, some

provincial, some federal and some that has been passed over to people like the

Newfoundland telephone company. There is a variety of landownership up there and

it is very difficult to say to one person, one group or one government that they

should take responsibility for that site. Essentially, I am not aware of any

action being taken up on that site.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, are you planning on trying to take some action on

this or approaching the feds? I mean, if it was left out initially in the

original deal, are we not following up on this and trying to get some money to

do these sites?

MR. MERCER: I am not sure that it was left out in the original deal,

because the agreement I referred to was referring to the pine tree sites,

primarily in Labrador. The base cleanups at Argentia, Harmon and here in St.

John's, I don't know what agreements those were. There must have been

separate agreements for those? Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: With Harmon, for instance, the federal government still has

a fair amount of responsibility over there, doing some work. There was a portion

of Harmon in Stephenville that was given to the Province way back when they

shutdown, and the Province did some work over there. Argentia was completely

federal money and still is federal property, to the best of my knowledge. With

Goose Bay, for instance, the work up there, that is all federal money.

On some of these lands that have been transferred back to the Province, as

you mentioned, the base down here, the Housing Corporation is doing some work.

There are still some federal lands and some provincial lands down in Fort

Pepperell. The Housing Corporation is doing a lot of work primarily around home

heating tanks and things like that. The federal government, I understand, is

doing some work now on some of the properties they have left down there.

MR. J. BYRNE: How do we go about getting the feds to get involved in

this, or whoever, Americans, feds? I don't care who it is. I mean, the site

should be cleaned up because I have some fears down there of -

MR. DOMINIE: I think the first thing we need to do is determine who owns

the land up there. That would be the first person you might sort of suggest to

go -

MR. J. BYRNE: It was transferred to Transport Canada back in the 1960s. I

did a lot of work up in that area before, in my former life type of thing. A lot

of the land ownership, I have done a lot of research on it, have it, and it is

available. The federal government then transferred some to the Province. There

is a combination of responsibilities, I suppose, but it is something that I

think should be looked at and is going to have to be looked at eventually.

WITNESS: Are you saying that land was transferred from the federal

government to the Province?

MR. J. BYRNE: From the Americans to Transport Canada - I stand to be

corrected on this, but I believe the Province may have ended up with some of it.

I am thinking back fifteen or twenty years when I was doing some work there, but

I would have to check it out. It is something that has to be looked at.

MR. DOMINIE: We have been doing some research into land ownership up

there and it is a real patchwork quilt. There are a variety of things up there.

The RCMP has a spot up there, Newfoundland Telephone Company, and the Province

may have some, but we do have a preliminary document of land ownership. I can

dig it out and see exactly where that is, (inaudible) person working on it. That

is one of the new people we have back this year in our budget, so hopefully we

can.... We lost that person (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The older grants to some of the Bolands, two or three

different families of Bolands, where they divided the grants and took the land

for the base and what have you, the old survey lines are up there, the old

survey pins were found, and all that type of stuff. Anyway, enough on that. If

you could follow up on it, it would be great.

The Hope Brook gold site, $17 million to be spent, I think, in 2002-2004, for

mine site decommissioning and environmental restoration. Who is responsible for

that $17 million?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We are doing it, the Province? Why is that? What went wrong

there? The boys come in, Hope Brook gold comes in, makes the bucks, takes off

and leaves us with $17 million, that we know of, right here, in 2002-2004.

MR. MERCER: Maybe the deputy, I think, from his former life, might have

some information on that as well.

MR. DEAN: The situation in Hope Brook comes out as a result of the

bankruptcy of the company itself. Royal Oak mines went into bankruptcy before

they had a chance to do the rehabilitation. There was a rehabilitation plan put

forward which was accepted in principle by government. The company went bankrupt

before that was able to be implemented at all. Through that bankruptcy, the

Province ended up with the liability and the assets, everything that was left

down there. The government, through the Department of Mines and Energy, said, we

will clean this up to modern day environmental standards, and money was budgeted

last year and the current fiscal year to do that.

At the same time, the Department of Mines and Energy passed new legislation

in the Mining Act, and it was three years ago, as I recall now, it passed

through the House, whereby mining companies have to provide financial assurance

for reclamation upfront, so that money is there and we don't have a repeat of

this situation at Hope Brook. I think the initiate estimates at Hope Brook were

somewhere in the range of $10 to $12 million. It has come in at considerably

higher than that, because of some unforeseen circumstances on site.

MR. J. BYRNE: You made the point there and I was going to say, someone

had to fall down on the job that they didn't require some kind of

environmental bond upfront for this very purpose, if at the end of it something

did happen.

This $17 million, it says here, to be spent in 2002-2004, is that the total

amount or is that just for those years?

MR. DOMINIE: Which page are you on?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am on page 27 of the Economy.

MR. DOMINIE: I am sorry, I don't have that document with me. I think

the estimates are certainly going to be in excess of $15 million, maybe closer

to $20 million, before it is all over. I really haven't got a high degree of

confidence in that number at the present time.

MR. J. BYRNE: Has this been started to be cleaned up?

MR. DOMINIE: Oh, yes. A considerable amount of money was spent over the

past twelve months at Hope Brook.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, for 2002-2004, that $17 million is for that. There was

nothing done before this. So, it is expected to be done for $17 million is what

you are saying.

MR. DOMINIE: I am just looking at the estimates in the Department of

Mines and Energy in the Estimates book to see what is there. I am referring to

the estimates in the Department of Mines and Energy which I have no authority to

speak for. I can comment on them on page 142. The budget last year for Hope

Brook was in the range of $10 million, give or take. There was actually $12

million spent and there is an additional, in round numbers, $6 million to be

spent in the current fiscal year.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, it is $18 million.

One other thing is - I know you are going to say it is a Municipal Affairs

responsibility to a certain extent, but it is an environmental issue - here in

this book, the sewage treatment plant going into St. John's for $90 million,

but I am thinking about the smaller towns and communities around the Province

where the sewage is running directly into the harbours without going through a

treatment plant first. I know it is going to take an enormous amount of money,

but is there any talk within the Department of Environment to address that

concern across the Province?

MR. MERCER: It certainly has not been a topic of hot discussion since I

have been there - maybe Ken could speak to that - but certainly throughout the

Province it has been almost tradition in the last number of years that you run

your lines out into the nearest harbour outlet. We have become a little bit more

sophisticated in the last few years. Instead of having a pipe out from every

house, we have had pipes leading out to one big pipe - fewer pipes going, but

they are still going out in the ocean. Unfortunately, not many communities in

the Province have gotten into the notion of -

MR. J. BYRNE: They cannot afford it. That is the problem.

MR. MERCER: A lot of them cannot, but I am thinking about the area that I

am representing right now. In the Humber Valley, for argument sake, Deer Lake

has just put in two very large sewage lagoons. There is no more effluent or no

more raw sewage going into Deer Lake from that community. The community of

Pasadena has had sewage treatment for - I have been there for twenty years.

There was a mechanical plant when I got there. They have now upgraded to sewage

lagoons, so they have been involved with that for some long time. They are

fairly larger towns, there is no doubt about that, but I think, as

Newfoundlanders, we have to start making priorities of how we do things, whether

we want to continue to spill our wastage into the oceans and our solid waste

into the woods, or are we going to take some pride in what we have and try to

keep things in, as we call, a pristine environment. You know as well as I do,

there are certain parts of this Province where the word pristine does not

necessarily apply with any degree of confidence. Terry laughs because I know the

area exactly he is talking about; he spoke about it earlier.

Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: Thank you, Minister.

That certainly is a big issue and I have been dealing with that one

personally almost my entire career with the Department of Environment. Wayne

Churchill and I did an estimate - Wayne, with Municipal Affairs - of something

like $3 billion.

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. DOMINIE: Three billion dollars if we want to service the entire

Province. Obviously that is a very difficult task.

What we have done this past four or five years is search for new technologies

that particularly would be suitable for rural, small areas, and we have applied

some of these. We have worked on some systems which have had some success, and

some have been unsuccessful. Indeed, tomorrow morning I am having a breakfast

meeting with the Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association, at 8:30, to

talk about the industry's view on this and how we might be able to - what

technologies they could suggest, or approaches they might suggest, or how we

might begin servicing some of our smaller areas.

Like the minister said, we have a handful of municipalities in this Province

above 5,000 people, and I think they are eventually getting taken care of. It is

when we get into the other group. We did some estimates just recently of how

much it would cost to service those towns, and I think that is somewhere like

$300 million or $400 million just to service ones above 5,000 people. Then we

have a lot of others below that.

Municipal Affairs has been stretching their consultants' imaginations and

saying, when you come in with a proposal, we want to make sure you have

considered basically all reasonable alternatives. They have been asking their

engineers, their consultants that they hire on, to come in with alternate

proposals for the past four or five years.

We have been trying. It is a very challenging job. I do not think there is

any pixie dust, any magic, in any of this. It is just finding something that is

suitable, that can work for us. That is another thing we found in these small

municipalities, something that is not too mechanical, because we run into the

same problems. We do not have the operations expertise, so it is the initial

capital cost and then what type of operation it is once we get it going. Lagoons

have worked well. They are relatively passive systems. We have been working, and

we have been trying to improve the situation, but it is a long road. Like I

said, tomorrow morning I will have another go around with it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am finish with my questioning. I would like to thank the

minister and his staff for being here tonight and answering the questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

There is one question, I think, from Sandra Kelly.

Ms Kelly.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much.

I just have one question around all the interest, I guess, that there is in

the West Nile virus that has been causing a problem on the mainland. Because we

are an island we expect that this part of the Province would be somewhat

isolated, but Labrador, because it is connected to the mainland, would they have

any expectation of having to deal with that?

This morning, I think, we were hearing on CBC that some large cities and

municipalities are using insecticides to try and prevent some of the larva

forming and so on. Would we ever consider such a thing in this Province?

MR. DEAN: Perhaps I will attempt to give a general answer.

I think we are seeing a number of instances of new diseases. There are some

in the country who would attribute some of these to climate change and to global

warming so that insects, larva or whatever are able to move further north than

they normally had done previously. For instance, there is another disease called

Lime disease, which is spread by ticks. Up until two years ago we had never had

an incident of Lime disease in this Province. We now have incidents of Lime

disease in the Province. We have yet to see West Nile virus or any real threat

of West Nile virus. There have been instances of dead birds in Nova Scotia, for

instance, which have been diagnosed as having carried the West Nile virus; birds

fly. Perhaps we can expect this kind of thing to happen here and perhaps other

similar things as our general climate gets warmer. I know it does not feel like

that after the winter we have gone through, but we are seeing these kinds of

trends throughout North America. I think we can expect to see those kinds of

things start to appear here as well. But given that we have yet to have a

documented first instance of West Nile virus, I think it would be a little bit

premature to be taking specific action at this time.

MS KELLY: It makes sense.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.3.02 carried.

On motion, Department of Environment, total heads, carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you very much to the committee members for a diligent

evening here of questions, considering the House of Assembly was for five-and-a

half hours or whatever it was today. So I very much appreciate all of the

members being here.

To the minister, his committee, and his staff, a very honourable presence

here this evening. We appreciate it. To the Clerk and also to the Page, thank

you very much for your time.

On motion, Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2030-03-04
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_govservices_ga44_gs03-04-30.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c71fa06c0a8459001823745f606f72fb49473ded

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).