May 16, 2011

RESOURCE COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber

CHAIR (Verge): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I guess we are ready

to start.

The first thing I want to do, the minutes were circulated for the last

meeting of the Resource Committee which heard the Estimates for the Department

of Fisheries and Aquaculture, can I have a motion, please, to adopt the minutes?

Moved by Mr. Ray Hunter; seconded by Mr. David Brazil.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I want to welcome you all here to this meeting again of the

Resource Committee. Today, we will be hearing Estimates from the Department of

Environment and Conservation. I will start by asking the members of the

Committee, first of all, on my right, for the purpose of Hansard, the three

members who are seated in the back, if they would introduce themselves.

MR. HUNTER: Ray Hunter, MHA, Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South

district.

MR. DAVIS: Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail district.

MR. BRAZIL: David Brazil, MHA, Conception Bay East-Bell Island.

CHAIR: Mr. Butler?

MR. BUTLER: Oh, I am sorry. Roland Butler, District of Port de Grave.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: You have two researchers; do you guys want to introduce yourselves

for the record?

MR. MILES: Peter Miles, Researcher, Opposition Office.

MS WILLIAMS: Susan Williams, Researcher, NDP Office.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

We also have Mr. Baker who has joined us now on my right.

MR. BAKER: Jim Baker, MHA, Lab West.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

We will start, I will ask the minister in a minute to introduce his

officials. When the minister does, after I call the first subhead, Minister, you

will have fifteen minutes to begin if you want to take that amount of time to do

your introductions and to start talking about your department. The first

responder on the Opposition side or the members of the Committee will have

fifteen minutes. After that, we will go with ten minutes per side, if we need to

be that structured. We may not need to be that structured; we will probably end

up going back and forth a little bit. As long as everybody is okay with that,

then that is fine with the Chair.

So with that, I will ask the Clerk if she would call the first subhead,

please.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister Wiseman.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues from the House of Assembly for your attendance

this morning to better understand the issues of the Department of Environment

and Conservation. I appreciate your interest and, no doubt, the challenging and

interesting questions that you will pose as we go through this morning.

Before we get started, let me introduce my officials who are here with me

this morning.

To my immediate left is my Deputy, Bill Parrott. Then, to his left is Martin

Goebel, ADM. Next to him is Ross Firth, who is an ADM as well. Then, on back,

Peter Howe, who is an ADM; and Scott Jones, Department Comptroller. Next to him

is Chick Cholock, who is my Executive Assistant. On the back is Melony O'Neill,

who is Director of Communications; and Gary Beaton, who is with the Office of

Sustainable Development and Strategic Science.

Joining us a little later this morning will be Leigh Puddester, who is the

CEO with the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

I will not spend a great deal of time, Mr. Chair, giving you an introduction

to the department because I have been there now for four months as a minister.

It has been an interesting and challenging orientation of four months in the

department. It is a department that has a deep reach in the government, involved

in many interesting aspects of the Province's life from either the resource

management, Crown Lands, water resources, we are talking about our natural

heritage, the park systems, and we have then the Multi-Material Stewardship

Board which is an independent agency that reports directly into our department.

This morning, as we go through the Estimates, I think everybody will get a

flavour for the depth and the reach of the issues that we deal with. I do not

want to take too much of my colleagues' time from their interesting questions,

so I throw the floor open to your questions.

CHAIR: Do we have questions from any members of the Resource Committee?

Mr. Butler, are you going to start?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, Sir.

CHAIR: Okay, Sir.

MR. BUTLER: First of all, Minister, welcome to you and your staff here

this morning. I will begin with a few, I guess, one-liners as we call them.

First of all, 1.2.01, Executive Support, under subhead 01 Salaries, I notice

budgeted last year was $962,000 and it went to $1.3 million. I was just

wondering, Minister, if you could give an explanation on that one. I know it is

up to $1 million again this year.

MR. WISEMAN: That came about as the result of some severances that were

paid. The biggest chunk of that was $345,000 of severance that was paid out to

three retirements. We had an assistant deputy minister, a secretary to the

deputy minister, and an ADM secretary all retire in the same year and their

severances were significant, obviously, because of their tenure. That is what

drove that piece.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, subhead 06. Purchased Services, I

notice $17,000 was budgeted and it went to $36,000. I was just wondering what

that increase was.

MR. WISEMAN: There were some additional advertising costs that had not

been anticipated, plus there was a staff development day during Environment Week

that was a unique and different experience. Some of those activities drove that

additional cost. They had room rentals and the cost associated with the

sponsorship of that event together with the additional advertising costs.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Heading 1.2.02 Administrative Support - I know this has to do with C.A. Pippy

Park Commission - this is not a large amount, but under subhead 10 it was

budgeted and no revision last year, it is still $608,000, and gone to $648,000

this year.

Being an avid camper, I am wondering what the new work is that is going to be

done over in Pippy Park, or is that what it is in relation to.

MR. WISEMAN: No, that $40,000 deals with collective agreements,

negotiated salary increases. So you do not get free water in your campsite.

MR. BUTLER: 1.2.03.Transportation and Communications, budgeted was

$86,500, it went down to $48,200 and this year it is up to $115,000. I was

wondering why the decrease, and I guess more is being budgeted this year.

MR. WISEMAN: The Province is involved with the Atlantic Climate

Adaptation Strategy, and the additional costs are associated with participation

in that process.

MR. BUTLER: Numbers 05 and 06 under the same heading, Professional

Services and Purchased Services, I know there was $600,000-odd for both of them

and the revised was $400,000 and $300,000. I wonder what the reduction was there

that you had anticipated.

MR. WISEMAN: That decrease of $260,000 reflects a decrease in our

spending based on our forecast. We had anticipated a more aggressive expenditure

as part of the Atlantic Province's Climate Adaptation Strategy. We did not spend

as aggressively as we anticipated, so that is why you saw the reduction of the

$600,000 down to $400,000 and now we are back on track again for this year.

MR. BUTLER: Subheading 10. Grants and Subsidies, I know the budget was

$11 million, revised at $2 million and up to $6.8 million again this year.

MR. WISEMAN: That was some major capital projects that we were doing.

Scott, if you could just speak to which projects they were.

MR. JONES: What is included in the 10 - that is the Grants and Subsidies

you are speaking to, correct?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. JONES: That is EcoTrust applications, for grants for EcoTrust. There

were some delays in expenditures this past year. Some of that money then was

re-profiled into this fiscal year now. I do not have a list of projects on hand

here right now with me, Minister.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Chair, I could not hear him. I do not know about my

colleagues. I should have put my earplug in I guess.

Just in the beginning, I did not hear what you said right in the beginning

there.

MR. JONES: That is grants and subsidies which relates to the EcoTrust

that is funded by the Department of Environment and Conservation. There is an

application process for receiving funds on that and then there are related

projects. That is just delays in the completion of the projects. That is why the

funding was not all disbursed this past fiscal year.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

Under 1.2.03 again, down in the bottom where we talk about provincial and

federal funds, I notice last year it was budgeted $500,000 from the feds and

there was nothing received. I was just wondering, could you explain that?

MR. WISEMAN: Other than just a cash flow point of view, we did not

receive it last year. We are going to receive it in this year. It will be taken

in the revenue in this year. It is a processing mechanism.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

1.2.04. under Salaries, I know the budget last year was $770,000 and it went

to just over $1 million.

MR. WISEMAN: That is as a result of some increased effort in the Caribou

Strategy that we announced. We needed to deploy some additional resources last

year to assist us with the capturing of information that we needed to help

inform that process, so we brought on some additional temporary staff to help us

with that strategy.

MR. BUTLER: Seeing you mentioned the caribou, and it is probably in one

of my general questions, if it is I will not ask it the second time now. How

much has been spent of the $15 million? I think it was $15 million went into

that study. Is that mostly used up now, or how much has been spent to date?

MR. WISEMAN: Scott, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I think we are

close to it was a five-year strategy, we are now going into year four. I think

we have close to $10 million spent, roughly.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, 1.2.04. Professional Services, I know

last year $257,000 was budgeted and it was just a little less than that, this

year it is up to $607,000. I was wondering, what are the additional professional

services that are budgeted for this year?

MR. WISEMAN: That is an additional $350,000. We are forming a partnership

with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. It is a piece that

we are doing with a particular group - within that organization there is a

particular group called the Sustainable Use Specialist Group and that is going

to help inform a piece of work we are doing with the Caribou Strategy and other

things like that.

You mentioned the Caribou Strategy in one of your earlier questions. That is

a piece of work we are doing that is a well structured piece of scientific

research. We want to make sure it is founded on good science and they are able

to map out a way forward with that kind of scientific research. To help inform

that piece of work we will be doing, we want to tap into the resources that are

available to us internationally. This is a partnership we are going to form with

this organization.

MR. BUTLER: Having said that, 06 and 07 under the same heading, I guess

that is in relation too. It was $142,000, back to $142,000 this year, but last

year it revised to $308,000.

MR. WISEMAN: You are talking about the Purchased Services piece?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: No, that is to do with a leased space we had. It increased

to $166,000. It reflects an increase in cost of leased accommodations. Then we

had a one-time transfer to the division of wildlife as a part of that strategy

as well. That is one of the costs we had in last year.

MR. BUTLER: That space, Minister, what would that have been for?

MR. WISEMAN: Peter, or Ross rather, I am sorry.

MR. PARROTT: Last year

CHAIR: One second there, Mr. Parrott for your light to come on. I would

like to remind the officials when you speak, as you just did, say your name

first but wait for your light for the purpose of Hansard.

Thank you.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, last year our wildlife division was in Building 810 in

the old American base at Pleasantville. Those people had to move out of that

building to accommodations up on Columbus Drive. There is an extra cost in

rental accommodations,

whereas the other building was a government building.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. I guess the $57,000 for furnishings there, that is what

that was for because there was nothing budgeted for? Under 07, I am sorry.

MR. WISEMAN: That was not necessarily associated with that move per se.

That $57,000 reflects some equipment that was purchased. There was a

photocopier, some phones, a generator and a camera. There were some

miscellaneous purchases that were not budgeted for.

MR. BUTLER: 1.2.06.06. Purchased Services, the budget was for $5 million,

revised at $2 million and this year back up to $4.8 million.

MR. WISEMAN: We are doing a piece of work on Crabbes River Bridge and

that change reflects some cash flow, the way the project was flowing. Money was

forecasted to be spent last year. It did not get spent, and now it is going to

be brought forward and spent this year.

MR. BUTLER: I have a few questions now, Minister, with regard to the

wastewater treatment regulations. I know in February, I think it was, 2009, the

provincial government indicated it would not be signing onto the federal

government's new strategy to manage municipal wastewater because it was too

expensive. I was wondering: Can you provide an update on this issue and whether

or not there have been any changes in the Province's position?

MR. WISEMAN: No, there has not been, actually. As I understand it, the

federal government is proceeding to develop the regulations. They have been

doing, at the official's level, a fair bit of work on drafting them, but our

Province has not taken a change in its position.

Obviously, this has a significant impact for municipalities throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador and by extension, obviously, a significant impact for

the provincial government. The federal government has still not indicated their

intent with respect to any kind of funding associated with these new

regulations. They are proceeding at the official's level to do their background

work in readiness for, I suppose, consideration by a future parliament and we

are standing pat on our initial position, which is that we are not signing on

until we understand what the costs are going to be and understanding clearly

that there is going to be some federal funding coming to help municipalities and

the Province with the cost.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I understand the federal government are expected to

impose the standards by 2020. I also understand the plan would require 660

sewerage outfalls in the Province to be upgraded. I know you said you have not

signed on, but I was just wondering: Has the Province looked at that possibility

when this comes into play and are you considering an influx of cash to help the

municipalities meet those standards?

MR. WISEMAN: I think your question is a valid one. I think the challenge

we are having is until the federal government fully fleshes out their standards

then it is a bit of a moving target at this particular point. Obviously, the

signal is very strong in that there are going to be more stringent standards

than we have today, but to start moving at this particular juncture and start

doing upgrades on any of that infrastructure, start a planning process with

municipalities for that systems upgrade without knowing necessarily the

standards that might be in place and, secondly, not know the source of funding

would be a bit premature. We will still work with the federal government in

ensuring that as they bring these standards in there is money accompanying it.

We will still work with other provinces to apply continued pressure on the

federal government to ensure that the adequate funding accompanies that kind of

regulation change. When we know clearly what the standards are, what the

timelines are going to be for implementation, and what the source of funding

will be then we can start working with municipalities to try to identify a

solution.

Clearly, it is something that the municipalities themselves, through their

federation, are very much aware of what is coming down. They, too, have as much

anxiety as we do as a Province because it, in some cases, could present a

significant cost to municipalities around the Province. As you are pretty much

aware as well, over the years the infrastructure that we now have has been

developed, some of it many, many years ago when standards were very different,

towns were a very different size and many municipalities have expanded

significantly since that time. The standards have changed over that period of

time as well. So, until we get a better handle on the standards themselves and

the funding, it is difficult to start doing a whole lot of preplanning.

MR. BUTLER: I attended one of the municipalities' conventions where the

municipalities heard this proposal when it was brought forward by the feds and I

know there was some major concerns. The minister of the day - not the Minister

of Municipal Affairs now - was there at that time, I guess he heard the

responses that came back from the MNL. I know, like you said, the federal

government are still in the negotiations on this, but I am wondering: Have

government, through the Municipal Affairs and your department, put forward the

concerns of the municipalities to the federal government as they go ahead with

their plans and hopefully could make some changes or make it a bit easier or

whatever when the time comes?

MR. WISEMAN: We have, indeed, both through our department and through

Municipal Affairs. Obviously, this is a major issue and Newfoundland and

Labrador is not unique in this circumstance. This is going to be a national set

of standards and other jurisdictions, their systems have evolved over time just

as ours have. This will have a major impact, not just on our Province but the

entire Nation.

The pressure to the federal government is coming from all parts of the

country because it will have a huge impact. Whether the city is a huge city or a

small municipality, it is going to have a major impact on the infrastructure

that currently exists and, obviously, have major impacts on budgets, both for

provinces and for municipalities across the country. We will continue to lobby

the federal government. We will continue to make representation on behalf of

ourselves as a Province and municipalities that are in this Province, and we

will do that in unison with other provinces because they are having the same

kind of issue.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

CHAIR: We can go to another member of the Committee now, Mr. Butler, but

I just want to seek some direction from you. I just did not want to cut off

short if there was a certain

section there you wanted to finish up, if it is

only going to take you a couple of minutes or something.

MR. BUTLER: No, that is why I nodded to you. That was the end of a

section and I did not want to start the other one.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to a

section just to get a few more in-depth

answers or a bit more in-depth information with regard to

section 1.2.03.

MR. WISEMAN: Excuse me, could you just give me two seconds? Let me get my

headset.

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

CHAIR: For some reason, I do not know if any other members are finding

it, but I find that the acoustics in here this morning are not as good as they

usually are. You just sounded pretty muffled to me, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Really?

CHAIR: When Mr. Jones spoke back there - because Mr. Butler was saying -

I know I had difficulty -

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: I do not want to miss your question and you accuse me of not

answering your question again or something.

MS MICHAEL: You would never do that in Estimates, Mr. Minister

MR. WISEMAN: I would never do that to you.

MS MICHAEL: Whatever about Question Period, but you would not do it in

Estimates.

[Laughter]

MS MICHAEL: Well, I always use my headset. As you know, I need to use it

all the time. So, the sound is great for me.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: I will make sure I speak clearly so that others can hear me.

I am looking at 1.2.03 where you did make some response with regard to the

clean air and climate change initiatives and explained that things did not quite

go last year as forward as you expected, but now things are sort of more on

track. When I look under Professional Services, there is $512,200 for this year,

there was $664,000 last year, and then when I come down to the Grants and

Subsidies and that amount has dropped down to $6.8 million from $11 million, I

wonder could I just have a bit more detail on what the hopes are for this year

as you are moving forward with the climate change action plan, some more detail.

MR. WISEMAN: The two headings that you have referenced in your question;

let me address those first, then the broader question.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. WISEMAN: Because they are not related, necessarily, in the Estimates.

Let us take the Grants and Subsidies; there was a reference in the early

question that this is a part of the EcoTrust. You might recall a few years back

the federal government established a trust fund.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: So what we are doing is depleting that pot of money. It is

an application-driven process and each application is evaluated on its merit.

Some years, the uptake has been greater than others. Some of these applications

have not necessarily met the test and we have not approved them, others we have.

Obviously, we have some great projects that we funded. Ones that really stand

out for us are the couple that we have done in social housing, for example. A

great project that we are able to financially support. So what we are doing here

is, on an annual basis, we have been forecasting how much we thought we were

going to spend. Sometimes we have approved projects but the money has not flown

out in that year because of cash flow issues. What this figure here is and the

changes you see, there is a pot of money here and we are going to spend it until

it is all gone. The federal government put it up. If we spend five this year,

then the rest will be carried over next year. That is what we have been doing

since the fund was established.

This figure here, as much as we forecasted, we thought we would have it all

out last year, we did not. I suspect by the end of this year there will not be

very much left. We can give you a list of the projects we have funded if you are

interested.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I would be interested in a list of programs.

MR. WISEMAN: There have been some really good pieces of work done there.

That will address the depletion of that fund. I suspect maybe next year, if not

the year after, that line will be gone.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. WISEMAN: Now, going back up to your other point around the

Professional Services, I made a reference that was a part of the Atlantic Canada

Adaptation Strategy, that the federal government have created a pot of money for

Atlantic Canada to work together on projects of mutual interest and advancing

the issues around climate change. That is what that speaks to. That piece of

work is progressing, there is a lot of co-operation between the four provinces

and we are doing some great work together.

The bigger question you raised is the whole issue of climate change. We have,

as you recall, established within Executive Council, an Office of Climate Change

and energy efficiency. To help us with our process we have established a

ministerial committee. It is co-chaired by myself, and the Minister of Natural

Resources together with, I think there are five other ministers around that

table, together with a deputy ministers' group as well. It is in early drafts

now - or some of the early drafts I might characterize it as of developing a

strategy around climate change and energy efficiency.

We will have two strategy documents that we will be releasing sometime during

this year. I am not in a position to refine that date any more than it is now.

Like I say, there has been a lot of work done on that piece, a lot of

stakeholder consultation has taken place around that, and a lot of research has

been done. We have some very capable, confident people who are guiding that

process on our behalf. We have an early draft now of what those strategies will

be framed up like in terms of the outline of the content and some detail built

around it.

I think the Province will see clearly that our government has made a big

commitment to these two subjects, climate change and energy efficiency. These

strategy documents will reflect our thinking and be guided by the information we

have gotten through the consultation. I think it will reflect a very progressive

view of where we want to take the Province.

MS MICHAEL: You hope that within this fiscal year you will have that

strategy?

MR. WISEMAN: Within this year that should be ready to roll out.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. WISEMAN: There were some investments announced in this year's Budget

you might recall. There was some funding this year allocated to do some flood

risk mapping. Some mapping and assessment of coastal erosion for example, are

two areas in particular. We saw the results of Igor last year. It was a stark

reminder to all of us that we are very vulnerable and we do have some low-lying

lands we need to better understand. We are a coastal Province and we will be

impacted in a significant way. We need to better understand the impacts of

climate change on our coastline.

MS MICHAEL: Minister, when you talked about the Atlantic-wide initiatives

we are involved in, could you just give me an idea of what you meant by that?

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, maybe I will ask my deputy to give you he has been

closer to it longer than I have. Maybe, Bill, you can give her an understanding

of what work has been taking place and where we are now with some of these

things.

MS MICHAEL: In co-operation with the other Atlantic Provinces.

MR. WISEMAN: Exactly, yes.

MR. PARROTT: Yes, the Atlantic initiative is an initiative that is

jointly funded by the Atlantic Provinces and the federal government. It is

designed to look at climate change adaptation issues and it is designed to look

at issues that span all four provinces. Work that is being done in New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, or PEI is applicable across the board.

Some of the initiatives we are doing now are coastal zone management, flood

risk mapping, and there is a whole suite. There is a tool kit being developed in

conjunction with our partners. There are a lot of partners involved: the

Atlantic Planners Institute, the professional engineering association,

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and the various groups that are

related to municipalities, like the municipal administrators. The intent is to

develop a suite of tools that municipalities can use throughout the whole

Atlantic region as it relates to climate change.

The focus has been on water because in the Atlantic region the main issues

related to climate change are related to water, whether it be flooding related

to deluges of water, sea level rising, or storm surges. So that has been the

focus. The money got underway last year and will move into this year. It will be

the main area of spending. There will be a series of contracts go out and

consultants, and work being done. There are a lot of presentations at

municipalities throughout the Province, as well as with the various

administrative groups. We bring resources in from the Atlantic region and some

of our specialists have gone to the Atlantic region to give presentations at

their workshops.

MS MICHAEL: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. It is all good

stuff to hear, actually, and it is nice to get that detail.

Again, a couple of more questions just to probe more deeply into the areas

that Roland asked about, but just to probe a little bit more deeply. With regard

to the whole issue of our infrastructure as it relates to delivery of drinking

water et cetera, we continue to have a number of communities with the boil water

advisories. I understand a small number of these are microbiological in nature,

the majority are not. Sometimes the ones I understand, too, that are

microbiological, they are things that happen momentarily, get dealt with and

probably move onward. With regard to those that are more related to the

infrastructure, is there a goal for reducing the boil water advisories? It seems

to me it is always over 200. Is there a goal for those especially that are

related to infrastructure, to reducing those?

MR. WISEMAN: One of the challenges - and I appreciate your question

because it is a significant issue. As you pointed out, some of these boil orders

have been in place for some time. One of the challenges we have - because right

now we have some 594 communities in the Province, and there are some 540 public

water systems in the Province. One of the challenges that we have, obviously, is

these municipalities are - whether you are an incorporated community, who are

elected in their own council. They are governed by a piece of legislation, they

have their own autonomy, we provide financial support for their infrastructure,

but they manage it. Then there a large number of local service districts that

are also created through a piece of legislation that allows them to provide a

range of services and charge fees for them. They too have a constitutional

requirement to have elections. These are official, formally and legitimately

elected bodies to manage the affairs of their communities.

We provide financial support through the Department of Municipal Affairs to

put in water systems, and they run them. Unfortunately, some of them have chosen

not to maintain them as well as we would like to have them maintained. Some of

them have chosen to not install chlorination systems and some of them have

chosen to install them but then changed their mind and stopped using them. So,

therein lies the dilemma. It puts us in a position where the Department of

Government Services, in concert with the Department of Health and Community

Services, have issued boil water advisories because the chlorination system is

not either functioning as it should or it has been disconnected altogether.

There were 160-odd communities that were affected by these boil water

advisories. A large chunk of them fall in that category where either the council

or the local service district made a conscious decision to turn off the system,

or they made a conscious decision not to maintain it properly.

To help them with that process, through our division, our department rather

or by the Water Resources Division - in fact, this year was the tenth

anniversary of having an annual education event. Through Municipal Affairs, we

have facilitated and they provided funding to communities large and small to

have their people attend, free of cost, a couple of days seminar on issues

around water management, the management of the water systems. That is an annual

event for the last ten years. In addition to that, we have got three or four

units

OFFICIAL: Three mobile units.

MR. WISEMAN: - Three mobile units that we have established in the

Eastern, Central and Western part of the Province that we have staffed and these

are vans that travel throughout the Province and conduct training sessions. We

develop a certification program for operators. This has been a great service

that we provide, free of cost, to the municipalities. Because some

municipalities are quite small, local service districts sometimes are even

smaller. Some of these systems are being maintained by volunteers. We just want

to make sure that we provide the opportunity for the training that is necessary

to maintain these systems.

In addition to the annual workshop we do, we have these training units that

are travelling the Province. We have resourced them with the human resources

that they need, the tools and the equipment that they need, to be able to visit

communities, go into regions, conduct these seminars, training seminars, and

then have a certification process. Whether you are a paid employee of a

municipality or a volunteer, we have this certification process. We will give

you the technical knowledge and ability to maintain your systems. Within those

communities, though, it is their choice whether they want to maintain them; we

can support them in any fashion. Most of these smaller communities,

particularly, now are getting their funding at a 90-10 cost-shared arrangement

so their infrastructure that they are putting in, the Province is picking up the

tab for 90 per cent of that. Layer on that then the intensive training that we

would provide for them and these mobile units, it is not just a one-off; it is a

circuit that we are doing. So you will not just get one crack at the training,

you can have access to that at any time. The resources that are in that

department are available with a phone call to assist municipalities that want to

troubleshoot their system.

We can do all of that but, at the end of the day, that municipality still, as

an autonomous body, will make that conscious decision. Inasmuch as we would like

to eliminate them, we are grappling with how we actually manage that piece. If

you take the number of systems that have been turned off and the systems that

are not being properly maintained, if you take them out of the boil order

advisory, you have a very small number left.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: It is a manageable number. Dealing with the one-off kind of

problem, it will get fixed and it will come off, but the chronic ones fall into

those two categories. To a large extent, it is beyond our control. We can work

with, encourage, and make all the resources available as we possible can, both

human and financial but, still, at the end of the day, we are struggling with

how we deal with that.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Actually, we did ask for information around this too

at the Estimates with Government Services. I know all these figures sort of move

around, but it was startling because the information we got there was 198 of

what they said was the current number to 115 boil water orders, 198 are

non-microbiological in nature.

MR. WISEMAN: That is right.

MS MICHAEL: You had twenty-three with the system not working, forty with

the system turned off, seventeen operator problems, and then there were

forty-two with no disinfectant and seventy-three with chlorine issues. So that

backs up exactly what you are saying.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, and that is the struggle we are having. Take, for

example, the residual chlorination problem is seventy-three. That might be an

issue of system design, the contact time may need to be improved, and we are

working with those municipalities, just to illustrate an example. Changing the

infrastructure, with the investment that we will provide to help with the

infrastructure improvements, that could be an engineering solution to that

problem, they could be eliminated.

If you go back to the number you talked about, if you have forty-three

systems that are turned off, the Province has come to the table, provided the

money to do it, provided the training for the people to operate it and the

municipality said no, they do not like the taste of the chlorine and there are a

bunch of other reasons, and they just click the thing off. As soon as they turn

it off, automatically the boil order goes in place, just as a precautionary

piece.

MS MICHAEL: Right, you have no choice.

MR. WISEMAN: We have no choice in terms of the public interest to issue

that order, so that is the dilemma. So, for example, if we fixed all of the

other things, there are still forty-three communities that have decided to turn

it off.

The boil orders that are in place, you have 500-and-some-odd thousand people

in the Province and the boil order is affecting about 40,000.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

Minister, I like the stuff that you have outlined there, especially with

regard to the mobile units going around doing training, et cetera. I have not

done, obviously, analysis of the past five years what the boil water orders were

like when I first came in, in 2006, and what they are now. Have you seen an

improvement in the numbers because of the work that is going on?

MR. WISEMAN: I will ask Martin to comment on the numbers for a moment.

Just to give you some comfort level, I had an opportunity this past year out in

Gander at the tenth anniversary of these annual meetings that we put together. I

had a chance to sit at a lunch with one of the resource people brought in from

Alberta; I think the gentleman was from. He was a national expert in this field

and has done some tremendous work throughout the country and written extensively

on this subject. I had a chance to chat with him about what is happening around

the country and some of his observations about what we are doing here. I tell

you, I found it refreshing to hear him and I was quite pleased, actually, for

someone like him to recognize that what we are doing in this Province is unique

in many ways, in that there is no other jurisdiction in the country that

provides the kind of level of testing support to municipalities that we do, and

that information is public and it is up on the Web site so anybody can check any

time at all. This training that we provide to the smaller municipalities and the

larger municipalities throughout the Province, free of cost to these

municipalities, is unique for the country.

So, some of the things that we are doing here, listening to him talk about

what is happening in the rest of the country, was really reassuring knowing that

we are on the right track. What we are doing here in this Province is over and

above what many other jurisdictions are doing. We are taking this serious, and

we are trying to work with municipalities to make sure that we can reverse that

number.

As you asked the question: Is there a target? We would like to eliminate them

all, and we are working diligently with the municipalities to be able to do

that. It was nice to hear somebody from outside the Province who does this work

around the country and is a renowned expert in this field to complement us on

what we are doing and talk about us in a very unique way, and that we are

uniquely different and much better than many other parts of the country.

I will ask Bill to speak to the trend that may have evolved over the last

five years, and where we are today relative to where we would have been five

years ago. Or Martin, I am sorry, Martin Goebel.

MR. GOEBEL: Thank you, Minister.

Yes, Ms Michael, the trend is a downward trend. Initially when we started

tracking this about ten years ago, when we had the big Walkerton crisis, we had

a lot of boil advisories and we got rid of a lot of them at that point in time.

We have gotten to a point where, about five years ago I would say, we probably

had about twenty or so more, not a large number more than we have now. We have

been achieving some declines year over year, but it is only a few. As the

minister pointed out, there is a lot of variability. While we might have a

decline on average of maybe, say, twenty over five years, the boil advisories go

up and down probably twenty, thirty, or forty over the course of the year.

For instance, just as an example, if a water line breaks, there is a pressure

loss, that is a red flag and an advisory goes in place. That is a perfectly good

reason to have a boil advisory because you know that the system has been

compromised. Until that is fixed, the system has been re-pressurized, and tests

have been taken to make sure no contamination got in the system, that boil

advisory ought to be in place.

During the summer, there are a lot of repairs that takes place, a lot of

maintenance work takes place, and flushing takes place. So the numbers will go

up and then they will go down again. Usually around March or so they are at

their lowest, then construction starts and people break lines. So it is up and

down quite a bit more than the overall trend. The overall trend is a decline.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

CHAIR: I guess we will maybe go back to Mr. Butler for a few more

questions.

MS MICHAEL: Could I just ask one more question in this area?

CHAIR: Yes, go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: It is again related to this discussion. I remember last year

and the year before in having these discussions receiving the answer you have

given, which is quite a legitimate answer. Municipalities do have to make

choices and some of them choose, for different reasons, to not have their

systems running as they should be running. Now, it is one thing to say they do

not like the taste of chlorine; it is another thing to say we do not have the

money.

In one of the Estimates - it may not have been Environment; it may have been

Government Services or Municipal Affairs where this discussion happened - last

year it was if the municipalities do not think it is important enough to take

care of the water, we cannot do anything about it. They set their priorities. It

could be that it is very difficult maybe for some communities. They need two or

three things. They have limited money, we all know that. Even with the 90-10

split in cost-sharing infrastructure and stuff, some are still in a tough

situation.

If it turned out that a municipality really could not afford to do it, I mean

they really could not afford to do it because something else essential would

also have to go - and I know it is not your responsibility in this department to

come up with money, that is elsewhere - do you think, though, that if they could

prove that it really is a money issue, that there is a responsibility to help

them with that money issue?

MR. WISEMAN: You are right in your first observation: That is not our

department that would find the money for them. I think the piece, if you look at

it as a government - I will make a couple of generic comments now on behalf of

government and any one of my colleagues - in this year's budget, for example, we

announced significant changes in operating grants for municipalities -

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. WISEMAN: - because we recognize that some municipalities are having

some difficulty. In fact, all municipalities have seen some changes in their

financial status in recent years. The most recent announcement in this year's

Budget with MOGs is the reflection of our wanting to support municipalities in a

different way than we have in the past. The change that we made to the

cost-sharing arrangement a couple of years ago

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: - the generous cost-sharing arrangements, particularly the

90-10 for the smaller communities, is extremely generous.

One of the things and again it is a qualifier, some municipalities may say

that I cannot afford water and garbage collection at the same time and we are

making a choice here: Garbage piles up and we can get water some other way.

It would be difficult to answer your question with a black and white answer

because I may live in a municipality that has decided here is a range of

services that we need to provide, water is one of them and it costs this much

money to provide that clean, safe water. Therefore, the fee structure in my

community and the tax base is a mill rate of eight or nine and my fees are X

number of dollars. My neighbouring community says I cannot afford to provide

water in the community in which we support here, but then you say what is your

mill rate and they say our mill rate is three or four. When someone says I

cannot afford it and the neighbouring community can, if you look around

Municipal Affairs - my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, can

probably share this with you - if you were to profile the tax structures of

municipalities around the Province, you will find great variances in what people

charge for water, what they charge for sewer, what they charge as a mill rate,

what they charge for fire protection services, what they charge for waste

collection. There are a range of fees and a range of rates that are charged, so

sometimes it is a little more expensive to live in one municipality than the

next; the ranges of services are the same.

When someone says our municipality cannot afford to maintain our chlorination

system, the question becomes: Will government rush in and provide the money? You

need to sit back and do that broader analysis about what might be happening that

could help do that. Are they living in a municipality where there is cluster of

municipalities together and they are still maintaining their own independent

administrative structures, maintaining their own fire department services? A

real good example is not in my district but in a district that neighbours mine.

In Port Union Catalina area a couple of years ago, I think there was four

communities that decided the cost of maintaining their infrastructure, the cost

of administrative support, is putting us in a spot where we cannot maintain all

the range of services we would like to our communities, so we are coming

together and we are sharing services. Another community just joined them several

months back to do that same thing.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: There is a whole range of analysis that you need to do

before you come down to that final question that you posed. If you walk around

Newfoundland and Labrador today and start looking at communities that have said

maybe we are not going to have our system turned on, that exploration is

probably necessary in lots of cases. You might reach a point where having a

system in place may be affordable.

The other thing that we have done too, just to add to the other investments

we have made. I recall a couple of years ago - Bill, was it probably four years

ago in the Budget that the new potable water systems were introduced, three or

four years ago? The communities have water systems today that are used for

drinking water and washing clothes and anything else that they need water for,

but drinking water was the most critical consideration for them, so we

introduced a new program to be able to put in potable drinking water systems in

these communities to provide at least safe drinking water.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: If their system was such that it was fine for other

purposes, bathing and washing clothes and things but drinking water was a

problem, this gave them now a system that was much cheaper to operate for their

drinking water and let their other system provide the water for other reasons,

other purposes. We have done some things like that to also aid municipalities.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am aware of that.

MR. WISEMAN: It is a difficult challenge, no question.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, we will go to Mr. Butler for some questions, please.

MR. BUTLER: Just a comment with regard to the same thing: the water

quality and boil orders. I want to make it very clear, I would not say this is

probably the standard of policy of the party that I represent; this is my

personal view.

MR. WISEMAN: You can say that. You are not going to run in the fall, are

you?

MR. BUTLER: Affordability is one thing and Mr. Goebel mentioned there

that when equipment is broke down, I can see a boil order. Outside of that, I do

not understand it at all. I have to buy insurance; I do not want to. I have to

wear a seatbelt; I do not want to. When it comes to the taste of water, I think

everyone should you take a boil order; how many people in that community

actually boil that water? The children getting up in the morning, the first

thing that is on their mind now is a boil order. I do not know how it can be

done.

I know how it can be done: a law or a regulation come in. You must do this. I

do not like the taste of it either, but I have a filter on my fridge and I think

it is pretty good after that. To know that there are people out there with a

system and just have it shut down because they do not like the taste of it and

the concerns for the safety of the people, I think is a bit ridiculous.

MR. WISEMAN: We are trying to work through it; it is a challenge. As I

said they are autonomous bodies, duly elected.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

Under waste management, I am just wondering: What is the status - and I used

the phrase last year: New Harbour dump. I will stand by that; I know it is a

landfill but it is a dump, that particular one. I know there was a liner

purchased approximately two or three years ago and I am wondering: Has that been

installed? If not, when will that take place?

MR. WISEMAN: Maybe I will ask Bill to answer that question, I am not

sure. The New Harbour dump - we can both call it a dump for the purpose of this

discussion, how is that?

MR. BUTLER: No problem.

MR. WISEMAN: That has been closed for a while, but I will just

(inaudible) -

MR. PARROTT: The New Harbour liner has been purchased; it is in storage.

It has not been used yet because the capping has not gone on, on the waste site.

The garbage has to be compacted, capped, settled and then the liner can be put

on it and then a cap can be put over that. The piece of work in terms of

covering it and compacting has to be done. We have been doing testing in the

area, we have some monitoring wells put around it and things like that, so that

has delayed - and the site just closed last year. We usually leave it for a

while to settle on its own and then we will go in and hopefully do a piece of

work on that and get that done.

MR. BUTLER: Whatever became of the issue I know the federal government

got involved there, a committee through the federal government was involved with

that site as well. Was there anything ever came out of that through you people

that you are aware of? They were saying that it was not handled properly and

there were more issues in there that had to be dealt with before it could be

capped or actually cleaned up, or more cleaning up had to be done or more

removed. I think it was some group through the federal government. I cannot

remember the name of them now.

MR. PARROTT: No, the federal government has not been involved with the

capping of it or anything. The federal government has been involved in the

monitoring of PCB removal. Last year and the year before, we removed some PCB

materials and it was sent away for processing. That might be what you are

referring to.

MR. BUTLER: So that has been resolved now? All the PCBs are out of the

area is what I am trying to

MR. PARROTT: I do not know if all the PCBs are out of the area yet, but

the materials that we removed were removed to the satisfaction of the federal

government. They have gone to a designated PCB site that removes the PCB

materials.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

My next question is: Is there any burning of garbage in the Province today?

If so, where would that be?

MR. WISEMAN: We still have a couple of sites out in Central, smaller

sites, that still have permits to burn. In the East Coast, there is none. I will

ask Martin to speak to the piece because out in Central there is a Central Waste

Management, that landfill will be ready sometime in the latter part of this

year, as I understand it. What they are doing is they have six or seven transfer

stations developed and ready to be operationalized as soon as the main site is

finished later this fall, but there are still a few locations that still have

permits to burn. Martin, I think there are not that many though, is there?

MR. GOEBEL: I cannot name them all offhand; I think Rencontre is one.

These are areas where there is really not enough fill or you cannot cover the

garbage properly - very, very small communities. It is kind of a devilish choice

but you have to allow them to maintain their existing burning facilities until

the regional site is completed, as the minister indicated.

MR. BUTLER: Very good.

MR. WISEMAN: We can get the number for you. We can get the names of the

communities that are there.

MR. BUTLER: No, that is okay.

MR. WISEMAN: Like I said, they are very small communities. There is only

a handful, if I am not mistaken, left.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

Minister, what were the results of the greenhouse gas study related to the

trucking waste from the West Coast to Norris Arm?

MR. WISEMAN: I am not certain, actually. That may have been commissioned

by the western regional authority that was established, they may have

commissioned that kind of an analysis. It is not something that we as a

department would have commissioned. That is something that they may have

commissioned. If they did, to my knowledge - and Martin you can comment, I am

not aware that they have sent it to us - if they commissioned a piece of work,

they would have done that independently to help inform their decision.

Obviously, the western group have engaged a consultant to help them with their

decision process and there are a number of factors that they want to give

thought to. Whatever information they needed to help inform them, they would

have gotten their consultant to put together for them. That would not have been

commissioned by us.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, we know waste management is very important. I am

just wondering: How is it unfolding for Labrador? What will it look like, waste

management, for the Labrador area?

MR. WISEMAN: I guess if you look at the Province, the Eastern Region has

made a significant progress in closing a number of sites in consolidation with

Robin Hood Bay. Central has advanced. As I said earlier, there were seven or

eight transfer stations that they now have in a state of readiness for when the

main site is done later this fall. Western has been working with a consultant to

help them form their eventual decision that I just commented on a second ago. In

Labrador, the geography obviously is pretty different. You have transportation

issues, especially on the North Coast of Labrador. There has been some work done

in Labrador City and a consolidation of Labrador City and Wabush in a new

location.

If you look at the original strategy and you might recall when the strategy

was rolled out, I think your party was in government at the time, so you might

recall the scheduling and sequencing that the Labrador piece was a fourth part

of that, the fourth in order, they would have been the latter part to be done.

In terms of the pace in which it has been implemented, I am just kind of giving

you an overall ranking of progress to date. There has been very little

consolidation occurred on the North Coast, but in Western Labrador it has

probably been the most significant investment I think, Martin, since the

strategy has been rolled out.

MR. GOEBEL: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: Yes. The incinerator is now closed up in Labrador City and

they are now using a ground cover for their waste.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with regard to gravel pit camping - I know that was

a major issue, I think it was in 2009 - I was wondering: What is the status of

gravel pit camping now and what steps has the department taken in regard to this

issue?

MR. WISEMAN: You are right. This was a huge issue that there was a lot of

public commentary about. I think over the last few years there have been two or

three more notable areas that have seen some significant change. I am thinking

about Salmonier Line which was one that there was a lot of public discussion

around. Over around Howley, there was a lot of public discussion around that

area as well. That has been cleaned up and moved on. Some of the environmental

improvements have taken place.

Down around Princeton Pond, down towards Trinity in my district, is another

area where there were some significant changes made. Those that were, I guess,

the larger collection of permanent cabins and trailers in pits, they got dealt

with over a couple of years period. We said at the time, our intent was not to

forbid individuals to camp in a pit over the weekend and take their trailer back

home with them. That was not the intent. The challenge we had was, we had people

who had set up pretty well permanent structures in pits around the Province and

it became environmental issues. We had sewage seeping into the ground, throwing

straight pipes out into ponds and lakes and streams. It became very much a major

environmental issue. Those major collections of trailers and temporary

accommodations that we seen, or supposedly temporary accommodations became

permanent over a long period of time. Many of these have now been orders have

been given and they have removed them.

I think the major problem areas, Bill, have been pretty much taken care of.

MR. BUTLER: You said there were many. How many are on the go now, do you

think, that would still have to be dealt with, just approximately?

MR. WISEMAN: I could not tell you. I would not want to pick a figure

because I might be outside the chunk. I would rather put that together for you

and give it to you rather than try to speculate.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, on May 3, I think it was, you stated that Justice

was checking on the possibility of legal challenges with regard to a pesticide

ban. I am wondering what legal advice you had received from the department, or

have you received it to this point in time?

MR. WISEMAN: My comment about pesticide bans, I have indicated as a

government we or as a new minister, let me rephrase it that way, as a new

minister coming into the department I needed to understand personally,

forgetting what may have happened in the past and what others may have

information they may have garnered. I needed to personally, before I was in a

position to and comfortable with advancing a discussion paper to my colleagues,

I wanted to personally understand the issue. I needed to review the research and

look at the implications from a legal perspective, understand what was happening

in other jurisdictions and understanding what the science was saying. I needed

to have that personal comfort level before I wanted to bring it forward, or in a

position to bring it forward to my colleagues.

I am nearing the end of that piece and would see myself in the very near

future being able to bring forth a discussion paper to my colleagues in Cabinet.

From there then, government will make a statement about what it plans to do as

we move forward with the because the big issue that surfaced is the use of

pesticides for cosmetic purposes, and the common public commentary is

referenced. I am not sure if cosmetic is a scientific word but I think we all

generally understand and appreciate what it means in that we are talking about

using pesticides to maintain lawns on personal properties and whether or not

that has any benefit other than the look and the cosmetic value that it might

have. That is the question at hand, and that is what I will be addressing when I

bring forward a discussion paper to my colleagues. I hope to do that in the very

near future.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Under Environmental Assessment, apparently, recently a senior environmental

consultant here in St. John's criticized the Environmental Assessment Division

for delayed decisions and updates and so on. I was just wondering, minister, has

anything been done to remedy that situation? Was it correct even to, I guess to

repeat the first part of my question, was he correct in saying that?

MR. WISEMAN: One of the things that happens with the environmental

assessment process frequently, is a project will get registered, and the

legislation is pretty prescriptive in terms of the timelines you have in which

to respond, but frequently those timelines - well, thirty days is not a long

process. Lots of times we will have situations where if you went in today and

looked at when a project was registered you might be registering a project

today, on May 16, and you find yourself in six months time going in and checking

the registry and find out that the project was actually released sixty days

after. So, on the surface in auditing, you might say: Well, that was thirty days

late in being released. The reality would be that within that thirty-day window,

as the minister, the legislation says pretty prescriptive what it dictates I

need to do. The thirty-day time period may start to draw near, and I realize

there is some information here but there is a gap, we need some additional

information. We need to go back to the proponent and suggest to them that we do

not have enough information to help make an informed decision and ask them to do

some additional work, provide us with some additional information, or suggest

that we need a little more time to do some additional research, and it results

in a delay.

The whole principle, and I think what is really important here, is the

rationale for having this assessment process is to allow an opportunity for

public commentary, public input and due diligence on the part of our officials

and our department in assessing the impacts on the environment of any project

that may be registered. The timelines were established in the legislation to

protect everybody, so that the proponent does not get tied up too long, and that

is understandable. At the same time, as a minister I have a responsibility

before signing off on a project and releasing it, that I am comfortable we made

the decision in an informed fashion. If the issue requires more than thirty

days, we will do it in consultation with the proponent. The proponent may not be

happy but it is one of these circumstances, if you are saying that you are not

prepared to work with us and you want a decision on the thirtieth day, then the

answer is going to be no. If you want to give us some time and do some

additional research and you want to comply with our request to provide some

additional insights, then it will give us a better chance to make a more

enriched and a more informed decision, but based on what we have here today, we

cannot give you a yes. It is one of these circumstances when you just want to do

it right.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

My next question is on a topic we hear a lot about in our Province today is

Muskrat Falls. I am wondering: Why isn't the Muskrat Falls project an example of

project splitting?

MR. WISEMAN: You think it is? You framed your question and I will frame

my answer in that you inappropriately described the project so I cannot comment

on it.

MR. BUTLER: Well, my understanding is the assessment is being done in a

full package. Maybe I am incorrect in saying that. Is that right?

OFFICIAL: That is being done in three.

MR. BUTLER: Oh, it is being done in three areas. I have it in reverse. I

am wondering like any other assessment, why is it being done in the full package

deal?

MR. WISEMAN: As I have said, there are elements of the project. The week

before last, I guess, we released the guidelines for the transmission piece.

That is going through a process, or started to go through a process now where

the proponent has been given guidelines that they need to use to guide them

through that next step.

The generation piece, there have been hearings recently held that I am

obviously awaiting the recommendations coming from that panel. As you recall,

that is a joint piece of work between the Province and the federal government.

Recommendations will be made to both ministers and at that time then we will be

in a much better position to provide comment about the future of that generation

piece.

Right now, the transmission piece is the one we just issued the guidelines

for the proponent to help separate that particular piece.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Will the Maritime Link be required to be registered for assessment in this

Province? If so, how will that effect be co-ordinated with the Government of

Nova Scotia?

MR. WISEMAN: Let me ask Bill to comment on the jurisdictional piece.

MR. PARROTT: The Maritime Link, we do not know the exact routing of that

right now, so we do not know if it will be registered or if it falls within the

registration criteria or not. I would have to assume if it is not following

existing transmission lines, then it would have to be registered.

MR. BUTLER: So the possibility is there that it will not go a route where

there are existing lines now, we will say?

MR. PARROTT: I do not know. I am not familiar with the routing. If it

follows the existing lines, it would be one thing. If it took a course that was

not related to existing right-of-ways, then that would require registration. If

we do a registration, in conjunction we would work in co-ordination for anything

on the Straits crossing with the federal government as well as the Government of

Nova Scotia.

MR. BUTLER: What is the status of the habitat compensation work required

at Vale with regard to their Long Harbour site?

MR. PARROTT: That is a project with the federal Department of Fisheries.

I do not know the exact status of that right now.

MR. BUTLER: The next one I am going to go to, Minister, if I have time

now

CHAIR: Yes, you can go right ahead, Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

With regard to tires, did the MMSB approach Corner Brook Pulp and Paper with

the idea of using their tire stockpile for the tire-derived fuels, or did the

company come to the MMSB?

MR. WISEMAN: I really could not comment, actually. You might recall that

whole project where Corner Brook Pulp and Paper had registered the project with

the environmental assessment process. It had already been registered before I

moved into my portfolio in January. Shortly after I got there, Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper withdrew their proposal. So I am not sure who started the discussion

and how that actually started.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Minister, the Chair of the MMSB stated that they will continue this was

when the announcement was made there recently about tires going to Quebec to

look at environmentally friendly alternatives for used tires in the Province. I

was wondering: Would you be able to comment on what options probably you are

presently looking at?

MR. WISEMAN: Since the whole program started, there have been a half a

dozen or so proposals. I think there were three different times it went out for

RFPs looking for proponents to bring forward what was going to be a sustainable

mechanism and environmentally-sound mechanism to dispose of the tires that we

generate annually, plus the stockpile. We were unable to come up with a viable

option. Then we had a number of unsolicited proposals that came in. Again, not

sustainable, or some of them could, if we were to follow through with it, it

would require such a significant subsidy that tire levees would be increased

significantly or the supply was not large enough to make it a viable operation.

We have had any number of proposals, unsolicited and solicited, through the RFP

process that, when accessed, just were not viable.

I did not hear his comment, but the CEO for the MMSB would have been clearly

sending a message that as of today this is the most viable proposition we have,

it is environmentally sound, it is a regulated piece in another jurisdiction,

and we have an ability to get rid of the stockpile we have now. We already had

an arrangement in place with a Quebec firm to take what we generate on an annual

basis. These are contracts that we have signed with these companies that supply

them but if, however, tomorrow or the next day or ten months time someone comes

by with an alternative and a proposal that is viable, makes good economic sense,

makes environmental sense then we are open to exploring it and terminating the

current arrangement.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, I have to say I apologize. I should have said that

is what I was referencing: future tires that would be collected, not what is

there now with regard to the project that is ongoing.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes. One of the challenges we have, relative to other

jurisdictions, we do not generate a lot of tires. Used car and new car sales are

up, and that is nice to see. In the last few years we led the country a couple

of times in percentage increases in car sales and that is a reflection of the

economy that we have, but at the same time we still do not generate enough tires

in and of itself, at least the proposals we have to date, to make them viable.

Because of our geography, it is difficult to bring tires from other

jurisdictions.

One of the examples might be, by comparison, there is a New Brunswick-based

operation that has an ability to look at not only getting tires from their own

Province but in joining jurisdictions which makes them much more viable.

Therefore, we are in a bit of a different spot. It is not viable to start

bringing tires in from some other part of Canada to make an industry viable here

because of transportation costs. We are saddled with about 400,000 tires a year,

and saddled meaning that we have to dispose of the. It is a number that is not

huge enough to make a lot of proposals viable, yet large enough that it is an

issue that we need to manage and we need to find a way to dispose of them.

CHAIR: Okay, with that I think I will take some direction from the

members of the Committee. It is 10:20 a.m. I would be proposing maybe that we

take a ten-minute break, but I would not want to take a ten-minute break if

members feel like they are going to finish soon. What is your suggestion? Maybe

I look particularly to Ms Michael and Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I do not mind a break, but I do not require it. I have quite

a few questions left yet if you want to take one.

CHAIR: Okay, all right.

MS MICHAEL: I mean I do not require one either. We usually do a two-hour

session without a break and I cannot imagine breaking more than that.

CHAIR: Yes, I did not know if the minister or someone might have needed

it. The rest of us can jump up and go to the washroom if we need to, but his

officials are stuck there answering questions. I would suggest we take a

ten-minute break and then come back. We do not want to be any more than ten

minutes. If we resume at 10:30 a.m., is that good with people?

MR. WISEMAN: We can do that, Sir.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Recess

CHAIR: Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I would like to come back to the waste issue, not so much a line item but

just a question. Minister, with regard to e-waste, last year when we brought up

the issue of e-waste during Estimates, the minister said that the department was

investigating work being done in other provinces. Can you give us an update on

what is happening with regard to looking at e-waste, because it is a major

issue?

MR. WISEMAN: As you suggested, we did an analysis of what was happening

in other jurisdictions and looked at some of their experiences. In fact,

probably two months ago, a month-and-a-half ago, I met with officials from MMSB

and met with people from the industry, the industry association, and

representatives from some of the members of that association to start talking

about a process for here. So we have now engaged the industry in preliminary

discussions to map out the way forward. We have indicated, clearly, to them that

it is our intent to bring in an extended producer responsibility for their

waste, the electronic waste that we have in the Province. We are now engaging

with them in helping us map out a framework for the way forward, and then we

will be able to have some further discussions around what that looks like. We

have sent the signal to them that it is our intent to bring it in, and we are

going to work with them to ensure that it is appropriate, given our interests

and our needs in this Province.

MS MICHAEL: When you say the industry, do you mean the recycling

industry?

MR. WISEMAN: No, no, the producers.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, producers of electronics?

MR. WISEMAN: Whether it is computers or TVs or any electronic devices

that would see in the consumer market here.

MS MICHAEL: Right. So, who do you see as the industry here? Do you mean

the retail industry of those items?

MR. WISEMAN: No, the manufacturers.

MS MICHAEL: The manufacturers.

MR. WISEMAN: At the end of the day, the manufacturer has the

responsibility.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. WISEMAN: The retailer happens to be the person who distributes the

product. What role they play in the future is to be defined. At the end of the

day, the producers have to shoulder the responsibility for the disposal of the

products that they are generating and shipment into the market. Who gets it

there, whether it is through mail order or retail store really does not matter

to us. The critical thing is that the producer, whoever manufactures it, has to

assume that responsibility for the eventual disposal of it.

MS MICHAEL: Do we have manufacturers here in the Province or are you

dealing with manufacturers from outside of the Province?

MR. WISEMAN: Outside.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, okay. That is what I was trying to get clear.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, I say that in that I am not aware that we have any

manufacturers of electronic equipment in the Province.

MS MICHAEL: Right. So you are talking about big manufacturers here then

from outside the Province?

MR. WISEMAN: Exactly.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Surely, they have to deal with this in other

jurisdictions?

MR. WISEMAN: That is the whole piece here. We are not forging foreign

territory here. The manufacturers have accepted, really, their responsibility in

many other jurisdictions. The mechanisms and processes in place in these

jurisdictions may vary depending on the uniqueness of that circumstance. Based

on the jurisdictional scan that we did - as you premised your question about

last year's discussion - we learned some things about other jurisdictions and

how they have done it, transfer that here and how that might look here. Now we

are trying to work with the manufacturers themselves in structuring something

that will work for us. You are right; it is not new territory for them at all.

MS MICHAEL: How far along are you in that process, do you think, in terms

of actually coming to some policies?

MR. WISEMAN: I expect it is early stage but, at the same time, because

you are not charting foreign territory here, it should not be a lengthy process

for implementation. A lot of lessons learned in other jurisdictions, you have an

industry that has embraced it and not coming in kicking and dragging their feet,

it is an acceptance of how this actually works and their role and

responsibility. It is an early stage, but it is not a lengthy, complicated

process.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that sounds good.

I know there was this initiative, the Recycle My Cell School Challenge. I

know Newfoundland and Labrador schools did take

part in that whole national

challenge. Is that still happening do you know?

MR. WISEMAN: Well, let me ask Leigh Leigh has joined us now. Leigh

Puddester who I introduced earlier has been with the MMSB and I will let Leigh

comment on that question for you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. PUDDESTER: No, that was a one-time promotion that was organized by

the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. The challenge ended;

however, we continue to work with the CWTA on the Recycle My Cell program more

broadly than just within schools. That program was very successful. We had the

highest participation rate in the country by far, which I think speaks to the

value of the partnership we have with them.

MS MICHAEL: Right. At the moment, as you said, there are no plans for

anything else. I am just thinking that where we are moving in a direction of

getting a plan in place with regard to e-waste, it would be good even if we had

some kind of a program in school with regard to storage of stuff in preparation

for when we actually have the ability to deal with it. Just like in our homes, a

lot of us have an awful lot of stuff in our basements; I know I do: two or three

computers, printer and things like that. Is there any thought being given to how

we might have some storage even of cellphones in preparation?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) recognize the intent of the program itself,

obviously, is to have it disposed of but recognize as well that the other piece

of the program shifts the responsibility to the producer. So, whatever we put in

place to have an e-waste program, the producer shoulders that responsibility.

For us to move out in front of that and start putting in place mechanisms and

processes, number one, someone has to pick up the tab at this front end and it

will be us as a Province or as a people; second, until we understand what the

program would look like, it might be premature to do something in advance that

may not necessarily be compatible with what we are doing, plus the other piece

is the cost.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. WISEMAN: If it is coming in the short term, then it may be premature

to run out and spend a whole lot of money, energy, and time putting in place

structures and processes that may or may not fit within the program when it is

introduced.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I am going to move now to some line items. A lot of my general questions have

been dealt with, either by myself or by Roland. In the line items, 2.2.01 Water

Resources Management, I have asked my big questions on that but there are some

line item questions.

MR. WISEMAN: Sorry, which one again?

MS MICHAEL:

Section 2.2.01 Water Resources Management.

MR. WISEMAN: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Subhead 05. Professional Services which was $759,000, last

year up to $1.2 million in the revision and up to $1.5 million for this year.

Could I just have an idea of what is being covered under those professional

services?

MR. WISEMAN: That increase you are seeing there, the $440,000-odd,

reflects the increase in the cost of the contract with the federal government

because we have introduced a number of new stations, water monitoring stations.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. WISEMAN: That is an arrangement we have with the federal government.

That is our increased cost portion.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, very good. Although, I notice there is nothing in

federal revenue for this year. All the money must be coming from the provincial,

is it?

MR. WISEMAN: Martin, can I ask you to speak to that?

MS MICHAEL: There was federal money last year but no federal money this

year.

MR. GOEBEL: The federal money you are referring to, the $120,000 is an

agreement under the water agreement with Agriculture Canada. That was put in

there in anticipation of getting some contracts but they did not materialize

because the federal government did not come up with a program.

The funding for the hydrometric program is cost shared. The federal

government pays their part and we actually pay them. They contribute the work;

we pay them for that. That is why there is no money coming to us for that

program. They pay for half the program and spend it in their own shop.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I understand. That is what I wanted to know, where it

was cost shared, why there is no federal line but that explains it. Thank you.

Under subhead 06 Purchased Services has gone down from $1 million to

$411,000. What does this cover, the Purchased Services, or what has it covered?

MR. WISEMAN: The $500,000 decrease you saw from last year results from

delays in the agricultural water use study that was done. Then this year, the

forecast of the $411,000 your question is how we actually are spending the

$411,000?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, what exactly is that about, the Purchased Services under

this year's budget?

MR. WISEMAN: That $411,000 will be used to provide water sample analysis

by lab services as we do field observations, surveys, repairs and maintenance of

various field instruments, equipment and water testing metres.

MS MICHAEL: The regular stuff.

MR. WISEMAN: The regular kind of routine stuff; an analysis of ground

water, printing reports and forms, and that kind of stuff.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

Under 2.2.02 Water Quality Agreement, "Appropriations provide for the Water

Quality Monitoring Agreement which is delivered jointly with the Federal

Government." Really, all I would like here is just a bit of an explanation about

this agreement and how it works.

MR. WISEMAN: Okay.

I will ask Martin if he would; Martin is the resident expert on water.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. GOEBEL: Thank you.

Unlike the hydrometric agreement, this is a work shed; so, in fact, there is

money put on the table. The federal government does provide us with some money.

The water quality agreement is basically one where we have ambient water quality

monitoring stations throughout the Province. We provide the field work to

collect the samples; the federal government analyzes the samples at their

chemical labs.

We have also been working on real time water quality monitoring. We have now

something like thirty-four stations throughout the Province where you can go

on-line and actually observe the chemical quality of the water as it changes

hourly. This is a way to have an eye on water quality throughout the Province by

the public, by officials, by scientists and whoever wants to access that data.

MS MICHAEL: This would be for water on Crown land, for our ponds, our

rivers, et cetera?

MR. GOEBEL: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I think we have a very good situation in this Province with regard to the

quality of our water. Am I right or wrong?

MR. WISEMAN: To go back to the comment I made earlier when I said I was

pleased to hear the comments by the gentleman from Alberta, who is a resource

person, at the conference recently. We talked about that whole piece. What we

are doing with water monitoring here, and the fact that we have it available in

real time and it is on our portal, that makes us unique in the country. The

kinds of things we are doing to better understand and to manage that resource is

significant.

MS MICHAEL: Right. I actually did not know we had these monitoring I

probably should have stations and I could go on-line and see what is happening

with our water.

MR. WISEMAN: You are not unique in that, many people do not actually, but

this is something we have actually, it is interesting the piece of work that

we are doing, just to share this story with you. The piece of work that we do in

this division is something that has gotten international recognition. We are

doing work in Jordan now by invitation from the United Nations. We have done two

other international projects as well. This is the kind of technology and the

kind of program that they were asking us to support their implementation.

MS MICHAEL: Good. Thank you.

I will be moving into another division. I do not know, Mr. Chair, if Roland

may have questions under the area that I am just ending.

CHAIR: Sure. Well, why don't we do that? Go to Mr. Butler for

MR. BUTLER: If I start I will be going back to where we left off.

CHAIR: That is fine; we will make sure everybody gets all their questions

answered.

Go ahead Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Minister, back to the questions I was asking with regard to the tires, the

MMSB and so on. I believe when this Quebec proposal was announced, I think the

figure used was $4.3 million. I was just wondering, what was this money

originally used for if this deal was not struck with Quebec? Then in comparison

to the proposal I understand that was being looked at with New Brunswick, what

would have been the difference in the figures there?

MR. WISEMAN: The $4 million you are talking about was not being used for

anything. Remember, we have been paying a fee for every time you buy a tire.

That has been sitting there accumulating until we had some mechanism to dispose

of them. That money was not being used; it is not being diverted from some other

use.

The second piece, with respect to the New Brunswick one, there is a

significant cost to the New Brunswick piece. It came down to dollars and cents.

It was cheaper for us to send it to Quebec than it was for us to send it to New

Brunswick.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. How much money would they have in the bank now, built

up from the fees from the tires that we collect?

MR. WISEMAN: Leigh, do you know the exact number?

MR. PUDDESTER: We do not separate out money from tires versus the

beverage. All of the revenue from both of those programs is aggregated together.

We do not have the audited statements for the year just ending but it should be

about $6.5 million left in the operating surplus. That is where the money would

come from to deal with the stockpile.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

My next question is off the cuff, more or less. I know some of the tires used

to be stored in the Bull Arm site. I understand the Bull Arm site is owned by

the Province, or as far as I know it is. If the site was not big enough, I

understand there was lots of Crown land adjacent to it. I often wondered: Why

was it moved off a site that we have and would not have to pay anything, and

move them to the Dunville area and pay $600,000 a year? There must a reason for

it, I was just wondering what it is.

MR. WISEMAN: Obviously, the Dunville site is a parcel of land that has no

economic activity other than the storage that currently exists there. There was

no operation there before. We did not displace an entity that was there.

Bull Arm was an entity that we were trying to market. It had a use; it had an

application. Between now, today, and when the last major project was done out

there with the Hibernia platform that was constructed, there has been a fair bit

of activity, especially in the last seven or eight years, on that site. It is

difficult to market a location for some potential use, either for fabrication

and repairs. There have been a number of retrofits that have been done out there

on offshore rigs. It is difficult to market your site for that when you are

actually using it as a significant storage area.

We always were of the view and dreaming, I guess, that this day would come

when we would be able to dispose of that stockpile sooner than later. So, no one

ever envisaged having the land out in Argentia being leased for a long period of

time. It has gone on much longer now than any of us would have desired. We

always viewed it as a temporary and interim arrangement. If you have a temporary

and interim arrangement, why would you allow it to impede your ability to market

a site like Bull Arm site as a major fabrication facility?

MR. BUTLER: I agree with you to a certain degree and I am not going to

argue with you. I know where you are coming from. With Bull Arm we are trying to

promote the site, but the tires are not stored on a site where there is anything

else, it is in a yard of a contractor and that is why I asked the question: Why

would you put it in such a place as that even? Anyway, that is fine.

With regard to contaminated sites, I know back some time ago the Auditor

General stated that the department is not doing a good job in regard to

identifying and remediating the contaminated sites. I am wondering: Since his

comments, what has been done and how do you feel the department has done since

then?

MR. WISEMAN: I am not sure that the AG said we are not doing a good job

in identifying or remediating. I think the AG's report focused on the fact that

we did not have an accurate record-keeping system and a database that actually

tracked the sites and attract the activity in these sites. I think that was the

criticism of the AG, not that we were not remediating. There is a big

distinction between those two things.

Let me speak to the real focus of the AG's report, which is a database

suggesting that we would have a more robust mechanism to track the sites and the

activity around those sites. He makes a fair observation in that we do need to

have a more robust database to track the sites and to understand activities on

those sites. We are now moving in that direction to respond to his

recommendations because they are valid points he has risen.

MR. BUTLER: By the way, he did say the words that I just recited.

The next question, Mr. Minister, is: What is your long-term plan to remediate

the contaminated sites?

MR. WISEMAN: We recognize that some of these sites are the responsibility

of the polluter, but just to those areas where we have a responsibility, this

year's budget made a significant investment to start doing the work in Hopedale.

We have spent a fair bit of money up in Buchans, and we will continue to do some

work in Buchans for the remediation in Buchans. So these are two significant

sites that we are already engaged in doing some work. Those areas where we have

a responsibility as a Province, like those two, for example, we will continue to

work on and invest to do.

The critical issue for us with these sites, when you talk about sites being

contaminated, the big consideration, obviously, is human health. The extent to

which remediation is done and the extent the work needs to be done will be

driven by human health assessments that will be done, and that will define the

scope of work that is necessary. Clearly, though, the legislation in this

Province puts an onus and responsibility on the person who did the polluting and

the contamination caused by an individual or company, it is their responsibility

to do the cleanup. I think the AG's focus is us understanding and capturing

where those sites might be, and then pursuing the necessary cleanup associated

with whoever is responsible to do that necessary cleanup.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, do you know the cost, what it be, associated with

the Province's contaminated sites, the ones the Province would be liable for?

MR. WISEMAN: The Province?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, there are so many sites

MR. WISEMAN: I would not have that here. I can find out for you, but I do

not know what that would be.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

My next question, Minister: Has the Province considered raising the offshore

oil spill liability limit higher than I think it is $30 million now?

MR. WISEMAN: I think Minister Skinner answered the question in the House

one day last week. I think he indicated that it is one of the recommendations

that they are exploring, and that is a piece of work that has been led by him

and his department. I think he provided a good response in the House of Assembly

the other day. I think your leader agreed with his comment, actually, if I am

not mistaken.

MR. BUTLER: I missed all of that, boy.

MR. WISEMAN: She did in a scrum.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, can you provide us with an update on the legal

proceedings regarding the full remediation of the Abitibi site and roughly what

it would cost, or would your department have anything on that?

MR. WISEMAN: It is a piece of work before the court, and to start getting

into a public discussion about issues around that while it is still before the

court would be inappropriate.

MR. BUTLER: A recent report stated that it was determined that the

decline in the caribou herds is due to overhunting. I know there were studies

being done on the coyote and other predators. I am just going to ask: Do you

agree with that, the decline is basically due to overhunting?

MR. WISEMAN: You asked the question earlier about how much money we have

spent on the Caribou Strategy and in another related question I made a reference

to the scientific approach to doing this piece of work. One of the things we

need to be extremely careful of is that we made a big commitment of $15 million

to do this piece of work, we are three years into it, we have gained some

insights thus far, but we have not concluded our piece. We have looked at the

implication of predators. We obviously need to understand habitat and we need to

understand hunting.

Until we have that piece of work advanced further than it is now, to start

speculating about what might or might not be the major cause of it might be a

bit premature. So we want to make sure that we understand the implications of

it, and let us be guided then by the science as we map out the way forward once

the strategy is done. We have put some restrictions on obviously the hunt now

while we do this piece of work, but to start speculating about what might be is

a bit premature.

MR. BUTLER: What is the current status of the Red Wine and the George

River caribou herds, population wise?

MR. WISEMAN: Obviously, you might recall last year there were significant

changes made policy wise. There was a significant restriction placed on the

hunt. I believe it was October or November we rolled out the new guidelines.

Obviously, it is a herd that is in distress, but it is a herd that we share

in terms of the responsibility for the herd. There is a Quebec interest here and

there is an Aboriginal interest. So we are working very closely with the Quebec

government, together with the Aboriginal community, in mapping out the way

forward. We would not have taken the action we did last fall if we did not

believe the herd was under tremendous pressure. So we need to stabilize that

population and start putting in place a management regime to see it recover.

MR. BUTLER: This is my last question with regard to the caribou issue. I

was just wondering - I know last year it was a big issue and probably the year

before - did any Inuit hunters from Quebec hunt in Labrador this year, and do

you have any stats on how that went? I guess I will tie it all into one. I do

not think there were any charges laid against illegal hunting activity as

previously. I was wondering if you would be able to make a comment on that.

MR. WISEMAN: The issue of the charges being laid, obviously, that is well

beyond our role and responsibility. We have a mandate to manage the resource. We

issue licences and we deal with the management strategy, and developing managing

strategies for the herd. Justice issues would be better directed to the Justice.

The population, as you said earlier, has dwindled significantly down to about

74,000 animals now. One of the things we have been able to do - I said a moment

ago that we are working with Quebec and the Aboriginal community, and as a

result of those efforts and our discussions and a mutual recognition that this

herd is under tremendous pressure, they have, I guess, acknowledged that all of

us need to work together. Going in with the hunt as seen in some past seasons

was not to anybody's advantage and that no one's interest was being served. I

think that is one of the things which resulted in a change this year, that is a

working relationship that we have established where all parties recognize there

is mutual benefit here and in everybody's best interest to work together.

MR. BUTLER: I have to go back to contaminated sites again; I missed one

of my questions there. I am just wondering: Does polluter pays only apply when

the polluter owns the site? I will give you an example. If you take ownership of

a contaminated site, doesn't that make you liable for the cleanup? For instance,

lots of times we hear cases and have calls about homeowners who buy property and

there is probably on that site buried oil tanks. Are they responsible or the

person who did the polluting before they took it over? How is that looked at,

Minister?

MR. WISEMAN: It is a legal question and there is an indemnification that

purchasers should get when they buy property so that if you buy it, you buy it

as it is. The recourse government has is with the current legal owner, unless

there has been some indemnification which the selling party agrees to indemnify

the purchaser for any damage that may have been there before they took

ownership.

MR. BUTLER: With regard to the moose, just a quick question. I know there

has been some dispute about the numbers of moose in our Province, and that is

one of the things I wanted to ask you from your perspective, what are the

numbers? I know this overlaps into different departments. There are other

departments, like highways, that are doing brush cutting and so on. I am just

wondering where the five-year moose management plan would be at this time, and

what other options have you looked at from your perspective? Like I said, there

are two or three departments involved here.

MR. WISEMAN: There are multiple questions in the way you framed that one.

Let me deal with the very basic one at the front end.

The number of moose; there is a number that gets tossed around frequently in

the public domain that has the number of moose pegged at over 200,000. I do not

know where the numbers come from because the only people who are doing any

census of moose in the Province are officials in our department. We are the only

entity doing a moose count. The methodology used is consistent with other

jurisdictions in how they count their animals. When you start comparing one

jurisdiction to the other, there is a commonality in the methodology that is

being used. It is the approved scientific method of doing it. You may challenge

it but it is a proven methodology that is being used elsewhere.

The most recent, as a result of some census work done in the last, I guess

results in the last several weeks, would tell us that the population now is down

to about 110,000. The figure before that, which was last year some time I think

it was or better than a year ago, had it pegged at about 117,000. If you look at

a grid mapping moose population, you would have seen a graph that showed a

significant climb like this and peaked, Ross, probably fifteen, twenty years ago

at about 160,000 and has been in a steady decline since then. If you look at the

graph it looks like a big hump. It grew steadily and it has been declining

steadily. It is down now, the estimated numbers of about 110,000.

The other parts of your question deals with, what are some of the things we

are doing? This year we have increased the number of licences by some 5,000;

4,600 of those were allocated along major highway networks, the Trans-Canada and

our major trunk roads; all the moose management areas that align themselves with

a major highway. As well, they were either sex licences which should increase

the success rate for the hunters along those arteries.

From our department and the role that we play in this piece in managing the

population and issuing the control of licences, issuing licences and controlling

the numbers, this is the fifth year in a row that government has increased the

number of moose licences issued. This past year was the largest, single increase

in the number of licences that we have seen in our history I will not say

history, that goes back a long ways, but in recent times, for certain. We have a

little over 30,000 licences that we now have issued in this year's allocation.

The process is happening now as we speak; 33,000 is in the process of happening

now as we speak.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, like you said it peaked at, just a few years ago,

170,000-something. With this massive decline now and the many increases in

licences again this year - I understand where you are coming from, but there is

no concern within the department that we have gone too high with that? I am not

pushing for (inaudible), I think there should be more gone, but do you have many

concerns or comments from people that you are taking too many out now because of

the decline, or is the decline only from the hunting perspective or are their

other aspects?

MR. WISEMAN: There is a science behind this, the question you are posing,

and there are a number of factors, obviously, given some consideration. I said

it is in a decline from 160,000. Was a 160,000 too many? Should it have been

capped?

If you look at a graph for the last twenty years, it climbs like this, it

comes down on the other side, and it looks like a big bulge. Some time during

that period when it was climbing, the number of questions you have: What can the

habitat support? There are other issues you need to give thought to in terms of

the habitat. This is an animal that can multiply pretty fast. They can have

multiple births. They will give birth in their first year, after they are born.

So they can start to multiply pretty quickly. They are an animal that can have

multiple births. It is a fairly robust animal that can rebound pretty quickly.

Obviously, some of that is driven by habitat. We have had a fairly aggressive

forest industry in the Province where you have a lot of logging operations and

as a result of that you get a lot of new growth, which moose are attracted to.

The habitat has been able to support a fairly robust moose population, but

things change. Their habitat may not be able to support that kind of number

again, so there is no thinking that we will and should be starting to rebuild

our herd back to that 160,000 level, for example. That is not in the cards in

terms of our planning. There are a number of things like that, that you have to

give some thought to, which ties in to your other question around the moose

plan.

That is a piece of work that we are in the front end of, and a fair bit of

research will help inform that process. You do need to give some thought to what

is an optimal number to try to manage for. One of the things that have been

referred to frequently is moose density. There has been a reference to our moose

density in this Province versus other moose densities. We have a fairly large

land mass, so the number of moose per square kilometre of total land mass is

pretty small. If you look at our number of moose per square kilometre of actual

habitat that supports the moose, it is a bit higher than other jurisdictions.

So, what is an optimal size that the habitat can support and creates a balance

in our system, 160,000, no doubt, is extremely high and, no doubt, we will never

return to those levels.

Some people who hunt would know our success rates; you hear people talk about

not having gotten their moose and some more people did. Hunter success rates are

still high - 60 per cent I think, Ross? Our success rates for the resident

hunter are in the high sixties and for the outfitters I think their success

rates are in the seventies, if I am not mistaken. The outfitting industry has

enjoyed high success rates for their clients. That tells us that the effort

being made by hunter population is getting good success. If success rates start

to drop dramatically and we start seeing some changes in the habitat as a result

of a dwindling moose population, these are indicators that maybe there is a

different strategy that needs to be deployed.

Inasmuch as you develop a five-year plan, plans are very fluid as well. Here

is a forecast of what we anticipate doing over the next five years but things

change, our environment changes quickly. If you have mass destruction in the

habitat, then that may change what you do. There are a number of factors that we

want to give some consideration to. Obviously, this past year, from a policy

perspective, we were guided in the decision to allocate either-sex licences.

Some 4,000 or 4,600 or so either-sex licences along our main highways was driven

by a policy consideration around the number of moose-vehicle collisions that

were happening and we wanted to have a positive impact on that. That policy

decision was made and that is what drove that decision. There are a variety of

variables that get thrown into a consideration.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with regard to the coyotes - I know in the media we

hear stories how close they are coming to communities and my area is no

different than anywhere else - I am just wondering: Through the study that is

ongoing, do you have any estimation on how many coyotes are in the Province, and

is there anything being considered to help control this population if it is as

large as what people think it is?

MR. WISEMAN: Let me ask Ross to speak to that piece because there have

been a number of recent public commentaries about the number of coyotes - and

you are right - in that they have been out in communities, closer to communities

than other people have seen. They have appeared in the middle of St. John's very

recently, apparently, and it created a bit of excitement. Let me have Ross speak

to the whole piece around the coyote, if I could.

MR. FIRTH: Just as a bit of a background, coyotes are an incredibly

adaptive species. If you look at the shift in populations in North America over

the last several decades, you will see that they have expanded their range

tremendously and they will continue to do so there. As I said, they are very

adaptive. They are able to fill niches and to not only live in rural areas but

also to inhabit urban areas as well. You see that across North America. You have

coyotes sometimes in Central Park in New York City. They get into the cities;

they set up territories in there. The ability to, I guess, manage populations

within that landscape are very, very difficult and very, very problematic on it.

As I said, they are very adaptive in their ability to inhabit a variety of

landscapes.

CHAIR: Maybe we should

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Oh, sorry, Minister. That is fine, you go ahead. I did not know

you were going to offer a comment.

MR. WISEMAN: It is a fair question that you posed and there has been a

lot of public interest. That is why we have undertaken a significant investment

in public education and awareness so that people better understand the coyote

itself; understand how they should deal with them if they see them in their

community and if they sight them near their homes. We have done a fair bit of

work in trying to create an understanding and a better appreciation and

understanding of the coyote and what you should do if you see them.

CHAIR: I guess we will go to Ms Michael for a few questions at this time.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I have a couple of general questions before some more line items. You do not

need to open this, Minister, but

section 1.2.04 deals with the Sustainable

Development and Strategic Science, and I know we have a lot happening there. I

do not have questions on line items, but I do have a general question with

regard to sustainable development because we have, on the books, a Sustainable

Development Act, which is still not proclaimed. We got some answers last year

around that, but I guess I am just not satisfied I think it has been four

years now since the act was passed but we did not have proclamation.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, 2007.

MS MICHAEL: What is holding things up and what is your hope with regard

to proclamation of that act?

MR. WISEMAN: It is a fair question. It has been on the books - I think in

2007 it was passed.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it is four years old, I think.

MR. WISEMAN: It was a piece of work that the government had completed,

obviously, before it was passed in the House. When we started to look at how we

operationalize it, there were a number of questions that surfaced that prompted

us to hold off on doing anything with it. Based on work that we have done in

recent months, I would suspect that during the year we are currently in you will

see some action on this proclamation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is good to hear. Thank you.

Coming back to a little discussion that you were having with Roland earlier

about the liability for contaminated sites, I think you indicated that you did

not have information right here with you with regard to numbers, around what the

numbers might be for government's liability but you could make them available.

Would you make that information available?

MR. WISEMAN: I can, but I do not think that was my answer. What I had

indicated on the issue of liability was that my colleague, Mr. Skinner,

responded to that question in the House recently and provided an indication that

government had acknowledged the recommendation made with respect to the limits

and that he intended to do some additional research and evaluate the

recommendation before jumping to a decision to do that. If I recall your

question in the House that day, and your comment publicly thereafter, was that

you felt that enough research had been done and government should be ready to

move now. He indicated that he wanted to have an informed discussion around it

and then follow through with an action.

MS MICHAEL: You did indicate in a response to Roland this morning that

you do have some numbers with regard to the sense of government's liability for

some contaminated areas.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, I am sorry. I confused two questions, you are right.

That is my mistake.

MS MICHAEL: You said if we wanted them you could make them available, but

Roland did not say yes, we want them, and I want to say yes we want them.

MR. WISEMAN: Okay. What we have available we will provide to you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MR. WISEMAN: I am sorry; I was confusing your question with another

question.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, no problem.

I think having asked those two I am ready to go now into some more line

items, which are fairly boring sometimes but still needs to be dealt with.

MR. WISEMAN: I will not characterize your questions as boring if you do

not characterize my answers as being boring, how is that?

MS MICHAEL: No, I just mean with regard to going through line items that

can be boring but not always. It is important that we do it.

Section 2.3.01 Environmental Assessment; we have three subheads 03, 05 and

07. It just seems to be standard to put the figure in because in each case the

budgeted item is quite under spent in each case, yet the budget line is kept for

this year. So, just a rationale as to why in those three areas you maintain such

a high amount of money.

MR. WISEMAN: Environmental assessments, obviously that is driven by the

number of proponents and registered projects. Obviously, with the amount of

economic activity that has taken place in the Province - the Province has never

had as much activity in our history as we have experienced in recent years.

Inasmuch as we like to be able to think we are accurately forecasting, we have

varying degrees of activity in any given year, but one of the things that is

certain is that because this is a legislative requirement and because we are in

a time when we are experiencing a lot of economic activity, we want to make sure

that we have made appropriate appropriations to be able to respond when it

happens. This is an area - it is almost like a fire department, you need to

resource it to be able to respond appropriately with the skills that you need to

do the work. Given the very prescriptive nature of the legislation, we have some

tight timelines to adhere to. We want to make sure we have made adequate

appropriations.

MS MICHAEL: I guess that is why I was a little surprised with, under

subhead 03 and subhead 05, Transportation and Communications, and Professional

Services, because of the high activity in recent times, especially over the last

year that those two were so under spent.

MR. WISEMAN: Let's take the transportation piece for example. The

$213,000 that you see there now reflects

MS MICHAEL: I see $288,000.

MR. WISEMAN: No, I am talking about the transportation piece, and just to

illustrate my point in the budget versus the revised

MS MICHAEL: Right, $288,500 down to $75,000.

MR. WISEMAN: - to $75,000, because you commented earlier about the

variations, up and down nature of that.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, right.

MR. WISEMAN: As an example of that one, there is a $213,000 difference

there because the joint panel for the Lower Churchill did not start their

meetings until March, 2011, as an example.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. WISEMAN: We knew the project was coming, so had we not made last year

the appropriate appropriation, we could have gotten caught short.

MS MICHAEL: Understood.

MR. WISEMAN: So we did, and now this year, we only spent $75,000 but that

money will be spent and taken up in this year that we are currently into.

Professional Services, again, is another one that had forecasted last year at

$690,000 and is now down. We only spent $225,000; again, a joint panel on the

Lower Churchill, the same piece. That was later starting than we anticipated but

you will notice now the figures go back up because we know that the work is in

progress and will be paid for out of this year.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. WISEMAN: That is why I am saying that some of these projects, because

we know it is happening, we are able to forecast it but the timing of when it

starts becomes a cash flow issue.

MS MICHAEL: No, but that was what I wanted because that particular

especially the $75,000 and not the $288,000. You have given a clear explanation.

Thank you very much.

Under 2.3.02., which is the Aboriginal Participant Funding, you had

anticipated $500,000 last year. I can see why there is nothing in there now,

because there is nothing on the books right now I think with regard to an

environmental assessment over this coming year that would involve our Aboriginal

Participant Funding, but I was surprised at how low it was in terms of the

amount that you had budgeted. Was it under requested in terms of the requests

that came forward, or were the requests lower than you expected? I was just

surprised, you had budgeted a good amount and only $125,000 actually was spent.

MR. WISEMAN: Obviously, because we have an obligation to fund the

Aboriginal participation. What happened was they were also able to access

funding from the federal government. So it was not all on our dime.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. WISEMAN: Had it turned out that it would have been, then we would

have had to pay for it.

MS MICHAEL: Right, okay. So you did not know that at the time. Well, that

is good. The federal government should be involved in there.

Coming to 3.1.01 Crown Land, subhead 06, $114,000 was budgeted and $351,500

was spent. What came in there that you did not expect? Because I think that must

have been what happened.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, there is $237,000 there. There are two pieces of it,

one was increased cost for leased accommodations that we had. Also, we had some

costs of removing - to go back to Mr. Butler's question earlier - illegal

trailers. We had some costs associated with that exercise.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under subhead 07, there is a big unexpected expenditure there too because it

is $107,000 rather than $18,900.

MR. WISEMAN: The combination of all of that $88,000 reflects purchasing

some survey equipment and also for Ski-Doos for field work, as well as a copier

for an office; a combination of those three items.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under subhead 03 you had budgeted $609,300, then it was revised down to

$150,000, and this year it is just $204,300. Why was last year's budgeted item

so high?

MR. WISEMAN: We had anticipated using more helicopter time than we had

for some projects we were involved with, and we did not use it.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Now you have a more realistic figure based on that.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Let me see, I do not need to ask unnecessary questions.

MR. WISEMAN: I will remember that in Question Period, now.

MS MICHAEL: Every question I ask in Question Period is a necessary

question, I promise you. With my four minutes, every question is absolutely

essential. I do not waste a second.

MR. WISEMAN: A long

preamble is why you get lost on time all the time.

Shorten your

preambles and you will do all right.

MS MICHAEL: You know about long stuff.

3.1.04. Geomatics Agreements; obviously, budgeted for last year and it looks

like nothing happened in the budget again. You can give us an idea of what is

happening there, please.

MR. WISEMAN: I will ask the deputy to comment, please.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. PARROTT: Geomatics Agreements: that is money that is set aside for

joint mapping projects and air photo projects, usually with the federal

government. The money is voted and then if money comes in from the federal

government, it is spent; but, in most cases here, there was no money came in

from the federal government. Another reason for money not being spent was there

was a large photo contract that was scheduled to be done on the Island part of

the Province last year and the weather did not permit the aircraft to fly. Once

you get so late into the season, the shadows in November do not permit

photography, so you lose your scale.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. PARROTT: So that had to be carried forward.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Yes, and I can see in the revision, which is

what I meant, under the revenue the $115, 000 did not come in from the federal

government. Thank you.

Section 4.1.01 Parks and Natural Areas, subhead 06 Purchased Services, the

budget has gone up this year. Why has the budget gone up as much as it has, by

almost $100,000 over last year's budget?

MR. WISEMAN: The lease that we are currently in is expiring, so we have a

new lease arrangement and this reflects current anticipated market changes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, what is that lease about?

MR. WISEMAN: Space, office space.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, just office space?

MR. WISEMAN: Office space, yes. These officers are located in Deer Lake.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you very much.

I just want to ask a question now that is not a line item, but, since we are

in the park area, I would like to bring up an issue that has come to our office

because, of course, we just passed the time where people got to make

reservations for use of the provincial parks this year. Once again, we have had

complaints with regard the system: people unable at the appointed time, on the

day that the reservations came open, unable to get through by phone - or even, I

think, both by phone and by e-mail, isn't it, they can do both? Some people with

more than one computer, trying to get through, or people on the phone line not

able to get through, being very disappointed, not getting a space reservation

after they have had it for a number of years and counted on having a space in

the park. Have you heard of complaints as well? Because we have had a number, in

the office.

MR. WISEMAN: We have had a few, very few though. I know the one you are

referring to, actually, because they have made contact with me as well.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WISEMAN: The number of calls we got were minimal. There were about

forty or so, a combination of e-mails and phone calls that came in. Now, there

may have been others that were directed to individuals who are outside of my

office. That is a relatively small number given there were some 4,000 or so

reservations that were made. These parks are enjoyed by many, sought after by

many.

A gap that we closed this year that there were some complaints about in

previous years is the timing on the launch. I do not understand the technology,

but, appare