HANSARD
Resource Recovery Fund Board
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr. Chuck Porter (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Patrick Dunn
Mr. Keith Bain
Mr. Graham Steele
Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)
Mr. Keith Colwell
Mr. Leo Glavine
Ms. Diana Whalen
In Attendance:
Ms. Charlene Rice
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Jacques Lapointe
Auditor General
Mr. Terry Spicer
Assistant Auditor General
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
9:00 A.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. Chuck Porter
MADAM CHAIR: Order. I'd like to call the committee to order, please. Good morning. Today we have with us witnesses from the Resource Recovery Fund Board - Mr. William Ring and Mr. Richard Ramsay. I'd like to extend a welcome to you here this morning.
We will proceed in the usual manner, which is introductions by the members of the committee, the Auditor General's staff and then our witnesses. This gives everybody an opportunity to know who's in the room, but also gives Legislative TV an opportunity for a sound check.
I just want to tell the members that after our last meeting I had a chance to speak with Mr. MacInnes from Legislative TV with respect to the to and fro, the back and forth and identifying speakers. What we have agreed is that when a member is asking a question, they will be able to go back and forth without the Chair intervening and identifying who's speaking, unless the member is going to direct a question to a different respondent. That needs to be notified so that it gives Legislative TV an opportunity to then turn on the appropriate microphone. So it's more or less the practice that we were using in the past and we'll go back to that format.
So without anything further, Mr. Steele.
[Page 2]
[The committee members and witnesses introduced themselves.]
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. I now extend an opportunity to you to make some opening comments. I presume, Mr. Ring, you will kick us off.
MR. WILLIAM RING: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take the opportunity this morning to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee for their interest in the Resource Recovery Fund Board. Our mission is to work with Nova Scotians to improve our environment, economy and quality of life by reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering resources.
Section 4(1) of the Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations sets out the five mandates of the Resource Recovery Fund Board:
- "to develop and implement industry stewardship programs;
- to fund municipal or regional diversion programs;
- to develop and operate a deposit-refund system for beverage containers;
- to develop education and awareness of source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting; and
- to promote the development of value-added manufacturing in the Province."
We've made solid progress in each of these areas in the past year. Under Mandate No. 1, for instance, we have worked with Electronics Product Stewardship Canada in developing an industry-run program to recycle end-of-life electronic products. This program has received the approval of the Minister of Environment and will be implemented on February 1, 2008.
For the year ended March 31, 2007, we provided funding of some $8.3 million to municipalities to assist in the costs of solid waste diversion. Since its inception, the RRFB has provided over $70 million to municipalities. The support includes funding for municipal- approved programs such as improved recycling and composting facilities, education and awareness outreach and delivery, derelict vehicle removal, and household hazardous waste disposal.
Our deposit refund system continues to grow and last year processed over 0.25 billion beverage containers - 268 million, in fact. Of those containers, about 129 million were aluminum cans. Looking at it another way, The CAT ferry that operates out of Yarmouth is made from aluminum; 129 million cans would provide four of them and you would still have 1 million cans left over.
[Page 3]
Education and awareness are a key RRFB mandate. We start in the schools with visits from Moby S. Loop, our recycling robot, who delivered 172 presentations throughout the province last year. Our Nova Scotia Recycles Contest attracted 9,400 entries from students from Primary through Grade 12. The number of participants in this contest has grown by over 60 per cent in the past two years. We provide seven scholarships of $1,500 to each of the top essay participants in the seven regional waste districts and the best one of those gets a $5,000 scholarship.
Value-added manufacturing is accomplished by taking material previously thought of as trash and using it as a resource or raw material in making a new product. Construction and demolition debris is a recycling challenge and an area where we have been seeing more opportunity for value-added manufacturing. Two examples: one, incorporating used asphalt shingles into asphalt pavement; and the second one is the use of discarded gyproc in the manufacture of compost. Both are promising technologies and we look forward to other exciting developments in the future.
Madam Chair, we understand that the committee is interested in the process followed by the RRFB and the request for proposals for the collection and processing of used tires. We would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The first round of questions will be 20 minutes per caucus and I recognize Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Ring, for coming today. The committee is obviously interested in what the board does because we invited you a little less than two years ago. You were the subject of an audit by the Auditor General's Office in December 2004, and it is my understanding that the follow-up to that audit will be reported on in the next semiannual report from the Auditor General, which will be coming out within a couple of months. So we look forward to seeing what progress the board has made since the last audit.
Now let me say right from the beginning that there are a lot of good things that the RRFB is doing. On this committee, though, we tend to focus on the problems, on the exceptions, on the unusual situations. So I am going to focus on that, I am going to spend all my time today talking about this proposal to burn tires, but the fact that I focus on that should not in any way detract from the fact that the RRFB generally is doing very good work.
The tire burning proposal is a problem. When I first heard about it, it seemed to me to be environmental madness to burn tires, to burn hundreds of thousands of tires every year just seemed to me to be madness. Now I've had a chance to look into it more, to become better informed about it. I can say that this is not some guy in his backyard firing up the barbeque pit and throwing on the tire for additional fuel, this is a sophisticated company with
[Page 4]
a very sophisticated bit of industrial machinery using very sophisticated controls. So I do understand that.
However, having studied it in some detail, I am still left with many questions and it is those questions that I am going to put to you today. The first one is simply this, I've looked at the RRFB's mandate and in fact, you were kind enough to read it off for us this morning. The RRFB is authorized by law to do five things and I am at a loss to look at that list and see where the burning of tires fits. I wonder if you could tell me where, in those five items that you listed off, this proposal fits within your mandate?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ring.
MR. RING: Thank you. By the way, I don't disagree with your initial reaction. I think many of us, when we hear the phrase "burning of tires", the immediate thing that comes to mind is that graphic picture from Hagersville some 15 years ago in Ontario and it has been used in hundreds of situations. It is a picture of a pile of burning tires with orange flames and black smoke. I think the average person, that's what their initial reaction is when they hear that. As you noted, that is not, indeed, what has been proposed.
In terms of the mandate, I would say that this falls squarely under Mandate No. 1, to develop and implement industry stewardship programs.
MR. STEELE: It's difficult for me to see how it does fit. To me, an industry stewardship program is something like the e-waste program, or any of the deposit programs where the industry that is producing a product is made to face the reality of what happens to that product at the end of its life cycle. But that's not at all what is happening here, it is not the tire industry that is promoting the stewardship program, it's an existing industrial process which has existed in Nova Scotia for 40 years and, with or without these tires, will continue to produce that product at their plant in Brookfield. I am at a loss to see how the burning of tires in an existing industrial process counts as industry stewardship.
[9:15 a.m.]
So I'll leave that with you because I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that, but it is not within the power of the RRFB to expand its mandate or to make up new things that it wants to do. The board is required to follow the law and the law allows you to do five things and it is very, very difficult for me to see how this program fits within your legal mandate.
One of the other difficulties we have when dealing with this whole issue is it is difficult, more difficult than it should be, to get information from the Resource Recovery Fund Board. Now am I correct that it is the board's position that it is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?
[Page 5]
MR. RING: My understanding is that we are not, but I don't know that there has ever been a legal ruling on that.
MR. STEELE: But the first responsibility of deciding whether you do or do not fit within the Act belongs to you, the board, and when I say you I don't mean you, Bill Ring, I mean the board itself. I know that you are an employee of the board, but what is the board's position on whether it does or does not fit within the Freedom of Information? Let me say right off the top, you have received requests for information which you have refused, so do I take it that the board's official position is that you are not subject to Freedom of Information?
MR. RING: Madam Chair, I am not aware of receiving a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding the tire issue that we have refused.
MR. STEELE: Well, my understanding is that a researcher from the NDP caucus office has requested specific documents and has been specifically refused on the basis that the board does not believe it is subject to FOI. Let's not dance around whether that actually happened or not, because I believe it did, let me go back to what is the board's position, are you or are you not subject to Freedom of Information?
MR. RING: The request that we received from the researcher was for a copy of the contract between ourselves and Lafarge. I explained to the researcher that that contract had not been signed, there was no contract actually written and signed in place at this time.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Ring, I want to interrupt you because like I said, our researcher has a different recollection of that conversation. I don't want to spend our time today doing a he said/he said thing. What I'm asking you is what is the board's position on whether it is subject to Freedom of Information?
MR. RING: My understanding is that we are not.
MR. STEELE: Okay, so I, today, am asking you to produce for this committee a copy of Lafarge's successful bid for the tire contract. May I have a copy of that bid?
MR. RING: I've been advised beforehand in a statement to witnesses that was provided that we're bound to answer all questions, I assume that also extends to documentation. I can provide that to you.
MR. STEELE: Okay, but I'm asking just really, ultimately, I want to put myself in the same position as any other citizen. If any citizen, including me, asked for this document in the board's opinion, am I entitled to have it?
[Page 6]
MR. RING: That's an area, I'm sorry, I'm just not up to date on. I really would like to get legal advice on it, it's not an issue that has arisen.
MR. STEELE: Let me move on, but I would like to have you make note, Madam Chair, that I am putting in that request that that document be requested from the RRFB. I would also like to get a copy of the contract that you have with Lafarge for the trucking of tires to Quebec. May I have that contract?
MR. RING: We have no such contract.
MR. STEELE: But the tires are trucked to Quebec and burned in Quebec currently, so you must have a deal or contract with somebody.
MR. RING: We actually use two trucking firms, Day and Ross and Armour and depending on where the tires are being picked up and where they're going, they do not all go to Lafarge. About 60 per cent go to Lafarge and about 40 per cent go to other processors.
MR. STEELE: And may I have a copy of those trucking contracts?
MR. RING: Yes.
MR. STEELE: Those trucking companies, they're not the ones making the deal in Quebec about where the tires go. The RRFB must have a deal by which those tires are sent to cement plants and burned. You must have a deal with somebody?
MR. RING: Yes, we do.
MR. STEELE: Who do have a deal with and may I have a copy of those contracts?
MR. RING: We have arrangements with Systech, Dynamat, Royal Mat and Recycor.
MR. STEELE: And may we receive copies of those contracts, please?
MR. RING: Yes, you may.
MR. STEELE: How many of those contracts involve the burning of tires?
MR. RING: One.
MR. STEELE: So the tires that are exported from Nova Scotia today - some of them are burned in Quebec. At what percentage roughly would that be?
MR. RING: Roughly 60 per cent.
[Page 7]
MR. STEELE: Let me go back to this issue about burning and the RRFB's mandate. Is there anything else that falls within the board's mandate that is burned?
MR. RING: Not that I am aware of.
MR. STEELE: The only rationale that I've seen for disposing of tires in this way is that it represents a recovery of the energy that is inherent in a used tire. However, if you take that rationale to its logical conclusion, you would just assess the energy content of just about any waste product and say, well, if we burn it, it will produce a certain amount of energy. You could make the same argument for paint, for plastic, for most solid waste, almost everything has some residual energy value. Yet, it is not the RRFB's position, apparently, that it would be appropriate to burn anything else. Why is it appropriate to burn tires?
MR. RING: When we recycle an aluminum can, that takes about 4 per cent of the energy of creating a new aluminum can, when it is truly recyclable. When a plastic pop bottle is recycled, it takes less energy than it does to make a new one. First of all, a tire cannot be recycled; a tire cannot be used to make another tire. It's akin to making a cake - once that cake is made it cannot be then taken and broken down into its constituent parts of an egg, milk, flour and so on - likewise with a tire. To process it in the way, for instance, that we were processing it, it takes vast additional amounts of energy. The former tire plant in Kemptown was generating 22,000 tons of greenhouse gas each and every year, which is a tremendous amount of emissions into the environment. Using tires as TDF in a cement plant, it means that all of the tire gets used, the steel gets incorporated into the cement, it replaces iron that would otherwise be mined to go in there and it does provide an energy recovery. From a life cycle analysis it is one of the more environmentally friendly ways of dealing with a tire.
MR STEELE: To a certain extent I agree with you. I think Nova Scotians - really everybody, all Canadians - have to face up to the fact that we generate every year a monstrous mountain of tires and we have to do something with them. We can't avoid that or evade it - we have to face up to this enormous pile. There is one used tire for every man, woman and child in Nova Scotia produced every single year and we have to do something with them.
Right now it is a case of out of sight, out of mind because we just truck them out of province so that we don't see any stockpiles, we don't see any burning or any other use, they're just trucked out and they disappear. So I do agree that we need to face up to that, but here's the problem that I see. It seems to me that the board made its decision to award the contract to Lafarge - it said that Lafarge was the successful bidder and then and only then turned around to decide whether it was truly safe or not. It was left to the minister, in fact, to find out whether it was safe. In fact, it was after the award of the contract to Lafarge that the minister commissioned a study from Dalhousie University, which I have read and it is very good and very thorough and is much more cautious, I think, than the report produced
[Page 8]
for the RRFB by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. The conclusion of the Dalhousie report was, it may be safe but we need extensive testing.
Now Lafarge's problem is that they can't do testing without investing millions of dollars to set up the test. Essentially, they have to set up the process simply in order to have the test and they can't afford to spend $3 million to set up the test only to be told that they can't do it. So now they're waiting for the minister's Used Tire Advisory Committee report which is supposed to be looking into the social and economic and scientific implications of this, but all of this is happening after you at the board have already awarded the contract. Doesn't it seem to you a little backward that you awarded the contract and now we're trying to figure out whether it is safe?
MR. RING: I'd like to go back to the sequence of events. The responses were evaluated and the points were determined. Subsequent to that, we did quite a little bit of our own work on researching the safety of using tires in this fashion. As we did that, it became apparent that it was going to be a controversial issue. We did have in the RFP, and it is still a part of it, that the successful proponent has to have all of the necessary approvals and permits from all of the regulatory authorities. We are not the regulator - we were the person issuing the contract.
So what we did was two things. First of all, to satisfy ourselves that it wasn't an outrageous proposal from a health point of view, we engaged Conestoga-Rovers and GlobalTox - a toxicology consulting firm - to tell us what the effects would be. They told us that the effects on human health would not be discernable. Based on that, our board approved the contract, still subject to the regulatory approval. We are not scientists, we are in the business of looking after solid waste and diverting that from landfills. We did what we felt was prudent and appropriate to determine if there was, indeed, a health risk. The report that we got back by very well qualified professionals is that there is not, but at the end of the day, it will be the scientists in the Department of Environment that will make that decision. That contract is of no force if Lafarge's proposal is turned down.
MR. STEELE: This leads to, it's actually a good point about what the next step is. So the RRFB makes its decision and then the minister and his people make their decision, but one of the difficulties that I see with all this, frankly, is the tight connection between the RRFB and the minister. They are not two independent entities looking at it separately.
[9:30 a.m.]
For example, the Resource Recovery Fund Board is set up by regulation which the minister and the Cabinet can change at any time. Three members of your board are appointed directly by the minister and the Chair is picked by the minister. The funds of the board belong to the province, not to anybody else. One of the people sitting on the board is one of the minister's key advisors on resource recovery issues, so if the minister is going to make
[Page 9]
a different decision, effectively he has to overrule one of his senior managers who has already been on the decision to go ahead with the contract. It just seems too close, it seems too tidy. It seems that there is not enough arm's-length overview of what is going on.
For example, on your board, if I understand things right - now, the Resource Recovery Fund Board, I have to tell you, is set up in a very strange way. It is difficult to understand why it was set up the way it was. Do I understand rightly that - apart from the members appointed by the minister and the one appointed by the municipalities - essentially the other people on the board pick the other members of the board? Is that the way it works?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ramsay.
MR. RICHARD RAMSAY: Yes, that's correct.
MADAM CHAIR: Order. The time has now expired for the NDP caucus. I recognize Mr. Colwell and you have 20 minutes until 9:52 a.m.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you very much. First of all I want to thank the Chair of the board and the chief executive officer for coming in today. It's wonderful to see you here and it was at my request that you were brought here today so all the trouble that was caused by our committee, you can blame it on me but I don't think it will cause you any trouble.
Again, I want to thank you for coming and the information you've offered to supply to the committee that was just requested, I appreciate because that was one of the things on my list to get as well, so I appreciate the openness with that, providing that information.
I, too, have some very interesting questions to ask on burning tires. As you know, I've been quite outspoken about burning tires and I don't believe it's good for the health of Nova Scotia or the environment or the people or anything else and there should be another way to get rid of these tires.
My first question is going to be, how seriously did the RRFB look at alternatives to burning tires? Was there a possibility of chipping them for road construction or any other thing looked at seriously or did you get proposals to that effect?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ring.
MR. RING: We did quite an extensive canvass of possible respondents. I personally spoke to several road construction companies about the possibility of using this, referred to as tire-derived aggregate, for road construction, for backfill on retaining walls where lightweight fill is needed - that sort of thing. None of them saw fit to submit a proposal. At the end of the day, we had five proposals for processing. All of them were - well, it came
[Page 10]
down to a short list of three, the other two were both disqualified. One didn't have a bond and I forget what the other one was but in any case, we did score them, even though we indicated that we wouldn't, we decided to score them anyway just to see what would happen and they ended up having the two lowest scores as well.
The other two high scores both were proposing - ambient crumbing in Quebec and the Dalhousie report noted that - in fact, they noted that what had been the process here, cryogenic crumbing was the most environmentally harmful way of dealing with the tires and that ambient crumbing was the second most harmful. We weren't aware of that, of course, at the time and it was just a question of scoring the responses.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, on chipping the tires and using them for backfill, and I know they can be used in septic fields, they've tried them there instead of gravel and in other locations, how seriously did the board look at that?
MR. RING: Well, we could only deal with the cards that were dealt. We had the respondents, we had to deal with the people who had responded to the requests for proposals.
MR. COLWELL: Wouldn't it have been wise to go out to the construction industry? I appreciate that you went and talked to them and that was something that I think was very proactive and positive but wouldn't it have been better to go out to them and say, what do you need to do, what do we need to set up here so we can utilize these, how many can we use a year, instead of trying to burn these tires? It seems to make a lot more sense.
MR. RING: At the time that we issued the request for proposals, we had no idea who was going to be submitting the proposal for what. So we didn't know that the industry wasn't going to submit, we had no indications one way or the other. We weren't advised that they weren't submitting and I think to have gone and picked one particular possible processor or type of processor and said, what do you need to make this happen, would have been subverting the RFP process.
MR. COLWELL: Wouldn't it have made more sense to look at the cost of purchasing equipment to do this, through the RRFB, and then make it available to the people in the construction industry who maybe, in some cases, wouldn't have the resources to buy it and move it around the province, like they do the car crusher, and use it that way and have the aggregate used in that approach and definitely not burn it?
MR. RING: Traditionally, the way the RRFB has operated is to subcontract everything out, it runs with a very small staff. That has been the method of operation for years. What you suggest is an interesting concept but at the time, we were dealing with what we had.
[Page 11]
MR. COLWELL: Well times have changed and you've realized the opposition that you've run into with burning tires and it is still not too late to make those changes because your contract isn't signed.
MR. RING: It isn't signed but I would suggest to you that Lafarge and the other bidders entered into this process on a good faith basis and if we were to at this point say we've changed our minds, unless it was impossible for them to perform the contract, for us to just arbitrarily say that we've changed our minds, I think it would open us up to substantial legal liability.
MR. COLWELL: So what you're telling me is Lafarge - if the Department of Environment comes forward and indicates that they have some objections - but if they follow these rules they can burn tires in Nova Scotia, then it's a done deal?
MR. RING: If Lafarge puts in a request, the appropriate request for an amendment to their existing operating permit, and it is approved by the department and they meet the conditions, then it's a done deal.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, in other words, RRFB has no way out of this unless Environment says that for environmental reasons - and that's the only reason that I understand they can refuse it - for environmental reasons, if they can't meet the environmental concerns that are identified, then we're going to burn tires in Nova Scotia.
MR. RING: That's correct.
MR. COLWELL: That's what I was afraid of. How long is this contract for?
MR. RING: Five years.
MR. COLWELL: Five years - starting from the day the contract is signed or the day that the minister gives approval? Starting from when to when?
MR. RING: Starting from the date the contract is signed.
MR. COLWELL: Okay, and that would be signed when?
MR. RING: I would say that that would be signed as soon as the approval was given.
MR. COLWELL: Okay, this is very upsetting because I just don't believe in burning tires. I've gone through all the reports and everything else and it just doesn't seem to make sense. At one time smoking was safe and we've seen what happened to so many people in this province with cancer and all the other side effects and the people who didn't even smoke
[Page 12]
are affected. So I can't imagine burning tires, even though it is a very high temperature and all those things are there that make any sense.
So this is a done deal, the Department of Environment is our last hope to stop it, and the only way they can stop it - and I know you're not from the Department of Environment but you'd be up on this file very, very well - is if they deem that there's some negative health effect or if Lafarge can't meet the criteria they set forward to do this, either it is too expensive or they don't have the technology or they just simply don't want to do it. Is that correct?
MR. RING: I don't know all of the reasons - I'm not an expert on the department's permit granting process. What you are saying sounds reasonable - I just don't know what all the reasons are, though.
MR. COLWELL: Then if the government came out and said, we're not going to allow burning tires in Nova Scotia, in theory - and no one would know until this happened, of course - in theory and legally, Lafarge can sue the province and RRFB. Is that correct?
MR. RING: Again, I'm not a lawyer, I'd defer on that. I'd suspect that we - if the department says no, that you can't, then they haven't gotten the approval, so . . .
MR. COLWELL: I'm talking about if they just say no because it's not a good thing to do. If government comes along and Cabinet decided well, we're not going to burn tires in Nova Scotia, which hopefully they will do. I'd be surprised if they do, but I think that would be a very good approach, if they were to go that way, and then we'll look at other, more innovative ways to get rid of these tires.
MR. RING: Again, I think you'd have to talk to a lawyer to find out who is liable, but in terms of our agreement with Lafarge, the RFP spelled it out very clearly and they had to sign and accept that as part of the proposal process that they have to have all of the required permits and approvals and maintain them.
MR. COLWELL: Okay. That doesn't really answer my question, but I understand where you're coming from because you can't answer the question for government, for sure. On the other proposals that are put in, is there any chance that we can get copies of those?
MR. RING: The winning bid, I think, is fair. I could ask the other two bidders if they would have any problems with it. Obviously when they bid, they had no idea that their bid, if they were unsuccessful, might end up being the subject of a discussion in the Legislature. I would like to have their consent, if that would be acceptable?
[Page 13]
MR. COLWELL: That would be acceptable - I can understand that from a business standpoint. If we can't get that, which hopefully we can, can you at least give us the company names that would have applied and in general terms what they proposed?
MR. RING: I can tell you that they have both been identified in the press, I believe, so on that basis I would say that the two companies were Royal Mat and the other one, the processing part of it was Animat. They were part of a group with Ontario Tire Recovery and they both proposed collecting the tires, shipping them to Quebec and using an ambient crumbing process to turn it into tire crumb and then use it to make cow mats and items such as that.
MR. COLWELL: Okay, but I would still like copies of the proposals if possible to get them.
MR. RING: Yes, I will request that.
MR. COLWELL: And the other ones that weren't accepted as well, you said there were five total?
MR. RING: Yes.
MR. COLWELL: Can we have those ones as well?
MR. RING: I can only ask.
MR. COLWELL: I would appreciate that. Any requests we make here have to go through the committee not directly to an individual, by the way, just so you're aware of that. So we all get copies of it. On another issue, a while ago the enviro-depots used to take cardboard and the Resource Recovery Fund Board decided they weren't going to take cardboard anymore. Could you tell me why that was?
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. RING: Yes. In late 2004, our board was briefed on the level of collection of cardboard. It was at that time the decision was made to be phased in so that it was fully phased in by April 2006. At the time that the RRFB was established, there was very little curbside pickup of recyclables. At the time this decision was made, over 90 per cent of the residents of the province had curbside pickup and it is now in the neighbourhood of 99 per cent and the 1 per cent that do not have curbside pickup of recyclables are ones who are paying for a private hauler to pick things up and the private hauler will take that away at the same time.
[Page 14]
MR. COLWELL: The problem with that is that oftentimes, people have quite large cardboard boxes, they buy appliances or wherever they get the cardboard and it is very difficult to chop it up - and especially in the HRM here - into two by two pieces, tie them all up and then if it rains you can't put it out because if you do they won't take it, so it is really inconvenient. Ultimately, a lot of it in my area ends up in the ditches because people get so frustrated, they just throw it in the ditch and in one area we had $140,000 cleanup on one road that the province had to pay for and that was also with a tremendous amount of volunteer work. If we wouldn't have had the volunteers we probably would have been over $0.25 million to a cleanup on one road - a lot of cardboard, a lot of stuff that normally would have gone in the garbage, but for whatever reason it was dumped there. With restrictions that HRM is now putting on garbage bags, you can only put six out, that means if someone moves and they have 12 they can only put six out, so where do the other six go? In the ditch.
I think they are regressive the way they are going at this garbage collection. I understand that they want to divert as much as possible and I'm fully in favour of that. I faithfully recycle and I see that the numbers are improving all the time in recycling, composting - that's excellent. This question you may not be able to answer, but I have heard that HRM takes all this cardboard and puts it in a compost facility anyway. Is that correct?
MR. RING: I have no idea. That would be a question you would have to address to them.
MR. COLWELL: I had heard that through some of the people who work in the garbage business that that indeed is the case which, if it is, it's a crime because the material can be reused and repositioned.
I know part of the RRFB's mandate is to make sure we get solid waste diversion the best we possibly can and if you look at household hazardous waste here in the HRM - when I was on the regional council, I complained about this nonstop. We had one place on Saturdays that this household hazardous waste is picked up - it's two and a half hours drive from one end of the constituency to where this location is. This stuff is just going in the ground, it's being thrown in places it shouldn't be, it's being burned, and there is no effort to really do anything about that. This is an environmental issue besides a recycling issue. What is the RRFB doing about this?
MR. RING: The RRFB has had discussions with the industry group Product Care that is involved with the paint program and they are also involved with the household hazardous waste collection in other parts of the country. We are reviewing that and will be making some recommendations to the Department of Environment regarding the possible broadening of the existing paint program to include more things along the lines of what you are talking about, so that people don't have to make a two hour drive or even a one hour drive. They just have to get to a depot that is equipped to accept hazardous waste.
[Page 15]
MR. COLWELL: The problem with garbage is there is no value to it and people get rid of it the easiest way they possibly can. Oftentimes it is in my riding, in the woods or along the side of a road and it's a major issue. Some day, someone is going to get really ill over this because it hasn't been made convenient for people to do. I'm a big supporter of the enviro-depots, I think they do a great job. They're small businesses, I think a lot of them just barely survive. I know when you moved forward with the paint collection, I think that was an excellent move. I don't see why they can't take a lot of this household hazardous waste because a lot of the stuff on that list is stuff we deal with every day, personally. Also, things like old propane tanks - what is done with those propane tanks? Is there any effort to do anything with those old tanks?
MR. RING: There is a group looking at that right now trying to come up with a solution to that issue. It is my understanding that it is not as straightforward as one might think because of the possibility of small amounts of propane being left in them and explosive possibilities. There is a group looking at that.
MR. COLWELL: I returned a propane bottle - I didn't realize it expired - to a filling station. They took it - and this was quite a large operation - and I said to the guy, we'll take the old tank and of course, they wanted to sell me a new one, too, but that was all right, I had to buy one. I said, what do you do with these? He said simple, we ship them to another country, they use them for 20 years instead of 10, we sell them there. That's a real simple solution, very simple and this was a big chain that does this, a big operation and guaranteed, they don't do anything for free. Why can't we find a market like that for these propane bottles?
MR. RING: There's a UN convention that prevents industrialized countries from exporting their dangerous goods to less industrialized countries and I believe Canada is a signatory to that. I have some problems with exporting our problems offshore. I think we should try to deal with them here.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, the time for the Liberal caucus has expired.
Mr. Bain for the PC caucus, you have 20 minutes.
MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you, Madam Chair and good morning and thank you both for appearing before the committee this morning. I'd like to go back to where we were, where we are today and where we are going, I guess. Atlantic Recycled Rubber won the contract originally for the collection and processing of tires. When did they win that contract?
MR. RING: The history is somewhat complicated and convoluted. I believe the very original contract was to a company called TRACC and they eventually either abandoned or - it was before my time and I'm speaking from what I've been told. In any case, a subsidiary
[Page 16]
of the Cornwallis Park Development Authority, or whatever, took over that very first contract and they operated it for a few years and they had a fire, and they were having a hard time making it work. Atlantic Recycled Rubber came along and made arrangements to, in essence, buy out the contract from them and they built the plant in Kemptown. That was, I believe, in June 2000.
MR. BAIN: How many tires would they have processed each year?
MR. RING: It was all over the map.
MR. BAIN: On average?
MR. RING: On average probably about 800,000. Now when I say processed, how many they actually processed versus how many they partially processed and shipped to another operation . . .
MR. BAIN: Just on that, could you tell me the process they used when they received these tires? You just mentioned that they process some, they ship some.
MR. RING: The way the process was supposed to work was that they received the tires, the tires would be shredded into quite large shred, then fed into a machine that used liquid nitrogen to freeze the shred. Then that frozen shred essentially went into a hammer mill and that reduced the material to almost dirt size, the pieces of material. When it came out of there - you had three things coming out: you had rubber crumb, you had metal from the steel belts and you had what was referred to as tire fluff. Tire fluff is a combination of the nylon and other textiles that are used in a tire and pieces of steel that get caught up in that.
A passenger tire equivalent is deemed to weigh 20 pounds and a processed tire provides about 13.9 pounds of rubber. The other 6.1 pounds is a steel belt and for a very long period of time they didn't even attempt to separate the steel and the fluff and it was shipped to landfill, about 3,000 to 3,500 tons a year. Anyway the remaining crumb - most of the saleable crumb, which was in a certain size range, was used in the making of artificial turf fields to be the ground because when they first put it down, the strands are that long and then they pull it up with a mixture of the rubber and the sand, to hold the field in place and give the athletes something to run on.
The balance of it - it is my understanding - was basically sold at cost, just to get rid of it. I believe some of it was used in Arizona in the manufacture of rubberized asphalt. It is a very, very energy-intensive process.
MR. BAIN: So when did the contract with Atlantic Recycled Rubber expire?
MR. RING: It expired on December 9, 2006.
[Page 17]
MR. BAIN: So up until now there's no contract in place, so what has been happening to the tires?
MR. RING: We started collecting tires on December 11th, on a Monday, and we established a collection network and we have been in established markets for them in Quebec. We have been running that ourselves ever since.
To date, since last December, we have shipped around 1.2 million tires, which is much higher than we would normally expect to collect annually but the former Atlantic Recycled Rubber had not been doing a great job of collection, so we had a lot of catch-up to do.
MR. BAIN: So is there any truth to some of the media reports of stockpiling tires by retailers because there is no contractor to pick them up?
MR. RING: Currently?
MR. BAIN: Was there any truth? Some of the service stations, for instance, were saying they had a lot of tires because there was no one coming to pick them up.
MR. RING: There were a few that had not phoned us. There was one that got quite a bit of publicity, he claimed to have 10,000 tires, said that we had been there but hadn't done anything for him. In fact, the fellow who looks after the tires for us had gone down to see the condition of the place and how many there were and how the truck could get in to get them. It was determined that it would need a tractor trailer - there were that many of them. It didn't make sense to bring them out in a straight van and then repack them onto a tractor trailer.
[10:00 a.m.]
So it turned out that there were about 2,500 or 2,800 tires there. Many of them were still on rims and we do not take them on rims, they have to be off the rim. So we collected what we could and told him to call us as soon as he gets the other ones off the rims. I believe that we were in touch with him just recently.
MR. BAIN: Okay, there were some problems until everything got ironed out but that has been resolved, is that fair to say?
MR. RING: Oh yes, the issues that were there were pretty minor ones, it was just a question of communications. Sometimes people didn't know who they should phone.
MR. BAIN: What prompted the board to seek other companies to collect and process tires?
[Page 18]
MR. RING: It was the lack of service that we were getting from the incumbent. They just were not doing the job and I think the fact that we have collected 1.2 million tires in less than a year would certainly bear out our concerns there.
I might also add that they had come to us looking for a 50 per cent increase in the fee and had not been able to provide very convincing evidence that it was needed. So we told them that we would like them to bid on this and this would give them a chance to have the market determine what the appropriate fee was. In fact, less than a week before the bid closed, we understood that they were going to submit a bid but when we opened them up, there was none there and we never got an explanation as to why they didn't.
MR. BAIN: Some critics say you took too much time to decide on a new company. Can you comment on the length of time it took to decide on Lafarge?
MR. RING: Yes, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure that we were doing the right thing and that this was - obviously the proponent, the material that they put forth all indicated that it was a safe process but you wouldn't expect them to say otherwise. So we wanted to get an independent look at it and we ran into problems then getting those reports completed because of vacations on the part of the consultants and Christmas holidays and it took longer than anticipated.
MR. BAIN: So are you satisfied that the process being proposed by Lafarge is safe for all the surrounding communities?
MR. RING: Yes.
MR. BAIN: If, after the Department of Environment gives its report and Lafarge isn't successful - if that is the case, what is the backup plan that you might have?
MR. RING: There are a couple of things. In the near term, obviously we keep on doing what we're doing but at the same time we would be looking at the alternatives out there and anxious to see the report of the committee that the minister has appointed. As you know, they were going to look at alternatives and we're hopeful that there's something in there. If the department decides not to, we hope there's something in there that will be positive. Even if the department approves it, I think having those alternatives to consider in five years is valuable.
MR. BAIN: Moving from tires to the RRFB in general, how would you characterize RRFB's success in helping Nova Scotians reduce waste since its inception in 1997?
MR. RING: Well, I can say that my predecessors have done a great job. The jury is still out on what kind of job I'm doing but certainly the province, and I refer to my predecessors - really, it is the people of Nova Scotia who have come together on the whole
[Page 19]
environmental issue. I'm proud to be from Nova Scotia, particularly in this field. When you travel both in Canada and the U.S. and elsewhere and you tell people that you're from Nova Scotia, if they're involved in solid reduction, they know about us. They're quite impressed with what Nova Scotians have done.
That has not been the RRFB by itself - it hasn't been anyone by itself. It has been the Department of Environment, it has been all of the municipalities that have gotten on board but it really comes down to the people. I was reading in yesterday's paper that Canadians generally are more willing than most people to sacrifice, to give things up in order to improve the environment and I think that that has been proven.
MR. BAIN: You did mention that other jurisdictions are, can we say, watching or looking at the success of the program here in Nova Scotia. Can you elaborate more on that? What jurisdictions? Some of the other provinces? Some of the states in the U.S.?
MR. RING: For instance, we have people here close by - St. Pierre et Miquelon had been here a number of times and has asked us if we would consider essentially taking over their solid waste management duties on the island. That is beyond our mandate, but we have given them quite a little bit of advice on things that we felt that they should be looking at doing and the names of Nova Scotia companies, engineering firms for instance, that have worked in various areas of solid waste management. We have been approached by a number of the Caribbean countries and the honourable member for Preston was on a trade mission to Trinidad last year and I believe he can tell you how well received we were down there. They were very interested in what we're doing and we have offered to help them.
I have heard the minister relate the story about being approached by, it wouldn't be the governor, but the head person for Puerto Rico at some conference, he was at asking if Nova Scotia could help Puerto Rico with their waste management issues. We get delegations from China, Japan, and Ireland. We've had expressions of interest from the Mideast.
MR. BAIN: So would it be fair to assume that although these jurisdictions are approaching you, that the RRFB is also looking at the ways other people are doing things as well and incorporating it all together?
MR. RING: Absolutely. We are always looking at other jurisdictions and when we designed the electronic waste program, we visited the three province that have one in place to see how they went about attacking certain issues and how they were managing it, with the view that we don't want to reinvent the wheel. As long as the wheel is round . . .
MR. BAIN: On the topic of electronic waste, the RRFB is administering the program and I just wonder if you could explain how it works and where you are in the whole process of collection?
[Page 20]
MR. RING: We received approval to proceed on October 4th and since that time we have prepared and issued requests for proposals for collection sites and for regional consolidation/processing centres or centre - that will be determined when the proposals are evaluated. That's the step right now, we're preparing communications on education material to help the public understand what is going to be accepted come February 1st and more importantly, what is not coming until next year. It is a very tight deadline and the chap that is running or responsible for leading the project on this has been putting in incredible hours to get it done and is doing a great job.
MR. BAIN: So it is definitely progressing and progressing at a speed that you are satisfied with?
MR. RING: Yes. We wish we had another month.
MR. BAIN: It's never fast enough. That's great, Madam Chair, thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. The time has now expired for the PC caucus. The second round of questioning will be 12 minutes per caucus.
Mr. Steele, you have until 12:24.
MR. STEELE: If I have until 12:24, that's two hours and 12 minutes, which is great. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIR: I'm sorry, 10:24 a.m.
MR. STEELE: I do have lots of questions though. Before I pick up where I left off, Mr. Ring, you were at pains to point out earlier there is actually no agreement between the RRFB and Lafarge, and yet when you were talking to Mr. Colwell you kind of slipped into using the phrase, according to the agreement you have with Lafarge. Let me ask a question very precisely, do you or do you not have a written agreement with Lafarge?
MR. RING: We do not have a written agreement with Lafarge. My reference, and I can understand why it was a little confusing, as part of the RFP process, each of the proponents had to sign off on the proposal that they agreed that the following items were to be part of the agreement. The requirement for all of the approvals and permits, that was one of the articles that was included in that.
MR. STEELE: Would it be fair to say when you use the word "agreement" or when all of us do, really what we're talking about is the combination of the request for proposals plus the winning bid, that together that in some sense constitutes an agreement? Let me put it another way, there is no other document besides those two documents, correct?
[Page 21]
MR. RING: At this point, no.
MR. STEELE: Okay, thanks. When I left off I was talking about the way the members of the board are appointed. I have to tell you that some people in the environmental community find the RRFB to be a bit opaque, it's difficult sometimes to understand what's going on. One of the reasons is this very peculiar way that the members of the board are picked: the minister appoints three, the municipalities appoint one and the others are picked by the other members of the board. Now there is only one other organization in Nova Scotia that I'm aware of that appoints their members that way, and that is Nova Scotia Business Incorporated. I have a problem with that and I have a problem with the way that you do it because what it leads to, depending on the process you follow, is people essentially picking other like-minded people that they already know.
When you go out looking for board members do you advertise, do you cast your net widely or do you just sort of tap somebody on the shoulder and say hey, would you like to be on our board?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ramsay.
MR. RAMSAY: Last Fall the board had a retreat and we talked about nominations for the board, how we were going to go about getting members, because we had heard that too. We had heard that your friend is now on the board and so on. What we developed was a needs analysis of what we thought the board would need based on what things we plan on doing over the next five years. We tried to match that need to the people who could be involved as board members in achieving those goals. We formed a nominating committee of board members to bring back to the board some names of people that we believed would fit the bill, fit the vacancies that we had on our board - I think we had five at the time - and could contribute in particular areas, not specific but general areas.
[10:15 a.m.]
We don't want someone on the board who is going to be promoting one sort of hat all the time. We want somebody on the board who can be very interested in environmental issues, has a keen interest in what we do as a board, has some knowledge of what we do as a board, can contribute from an overall point of view, but has something to bring from their own careers - whether it's a manufacturer, whether it's a media person, whether it's a lawyer, any kind of person like that. That's how we came about and in the future, that's how we're going to go about it. We didn't advertise this time, because we ran into some time issues this time. The document says, here's the way that the board should handle that.
MR. STEELE: I'd really like to recommend that you do that, that you do advertise, because you don't know who is out there until you ask. For example, one to me, a yawning gap on your board is there's nobody who is coming from the environmental side of things,
[Page 22]
that it seems to be either government or industry. It seems to me that it would be most appropriate to have a board member representing, for example, the Ecology Action Centre, or another environmental organization with a sterling reputation like the Ecology Action Centre. I think you'll find them very smart, very capable, very interested in what you're doing. I think it would help to increase the transparency of your board and leave aside this idea that it's a bit of a club of people who already in some way know each other.
MR. RAMSAY: We would like to get over that feeling as well, and that's why one of the people we did nominate this year was Ray Côté from the Eco-Efficiency Centre, with a good background in environment issues. I understand where you're coming from.
MR. STEELE: I want to turn to the question of the fee, that when a Nova Scotian buys a tire they pay a $3 fee per tire. That fee hasn't changed in the over 10 years since the tire recycling program was in place. As I was studying this issue and learning more about the economics of tire recycling, it seemed to me that one of the core issues was precisely this fee. Some people have suggested that if tires are being burned, maybe people shouldn't be charged the fee anymore, because they're not recycling anymore - although it seems to me that may not actually be the real issue. It seems to me the size of the fee and the relatively small amount of money that it generates and the fact that the $3 fee doesn't, in fact, cover the cost of reuse, recycling or recovery of tires is part of the problem, that because of the small amount of money it generates that drastically limits the options that are available.
My understanding is that most other provinces charge $4. What is your view on what options would open up to us here in Nova Scotia if the fee were different than the current level of $3? In a nutshell, how much do we need to charge to get real tire recycling in Nova Scotia?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ring.
MR. RING: To get real tire recycling, like I said, I don't think you can get real tire recycling, you can't make a new tire from an old tire. It's not a question of cash, it's just a question of reality. I know that some tire manufacturers have used anywhere from 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent crumb as filler, but once you get above that level it starts to affect wet weather handling and wear, so they won't go beyond that.
As far as the proposals that we had before us, they would have required an increase in the fee. We were aware that the other provinces were increasing their fees and just felt, well, this is what the market is, this is what we have to do.
MR. STEELE: Could we avoid burning tires if the fee were a little bit higher?
MR. RING: I don't know what else you'd do with them, frankly.
[Page 23]
MR. STEELE: You don't know what else you can do with a tire other than burn it?
MR. RING: Sorry, in an environmentally responsible way. The one possible one I could see is the idea of using it as tire-derived aggregate. Again, that has been done in some places. One of the difficulties in Nova Scotia is that we generate tires 12 months of the year, but our construction season is basically five to six months and storing that material safely would be an issue. There's no question that if you throw enough money at it you could do it.
MR. STEELE: I almost thought I heard you say that in your view the most environmentally responsible way of dealing with used tires is to burn them. Is that your view?
MR. RING: No, I'm sorry. For us to deal with the proposals that we had.
MR. STEELE: But if you had more money to work with, surely it is possible to attract or develop other industrial processes that do not involve burning the tires.
MR. RING: Yes, and I was referring to the tire-derived aggregate as an example.
MR. STEELE: Because, in fact, there is only one other province in Canada where tires are burned, namely the Province of Quebec, and the other eight provinces plus Nova Scotia don't currently burn tires, so other people are doing other things with their tires. What is it that we know that they don't know?
MR. RING: First of all, I do believe that B.C. has a plant that is burning tires. Secondly, the other provinces, many of them are shipping very large quantities to Lafarge, to St. Lawrence Cement, across the border to Buffalo Fuel, and in the West to the State of Montana where they are being burned, and that's where over 50 per cent of the tires go.
MR. STEELE: And you're aware that there's a proposal to burn tires in Ontario that's being vigorously opposed by a whole coalition of environmental groups. Is the RRFB following that?
MR. RING: Not closely, but I'm aware of it.
MR. STEELE: One of the things that has interested me is that if we're going to know what the human health risk is from burning tires, we need to know what has happened elsewhere, but it's remarkably difficult to find reports of incidents in other places where tires have been burned. I was able to find one fleeting reference to an incident at the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Quebec, where because of a breakdown in the kiln process dioxins were released - dioxins, of course, being one of the most deadly chemicals known to humanity. Does the RRFB track incidents? It seems to me that when you get right down to the bottom
[Page 24]
of it, what the scientists are telling us is that when you burn tires in a cement kiln, there's a very small risk of something very bad happening. I guess what we're all trying to figure out is how small really is that risk and how bad is the worst-case scenario? Do you know the answer to those questions?
MR. RING: I would look to the Department of Environment for the answers to those.
MR. STEELE: You don't consider that to be part of your mandate?
MR. RING: Our mandate was to look at a proposal that we felt was safe, whether or not it was safe, with reasonable due diligence. At the end of the day we've taken the position that it has to have the approval of the regulatory authority. The regulatory authority is the one that has the watching brief on what happens elsewhere.
MADAM CHAIR: Order. The time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Glavine for the Liberal caucus. You have until 10:36 a.m.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll also share my time since my colleague is the lead on this. I only get a chance for a few questions, but I thank you both for coming in today.
First of all, in terms of Atlantic Recycled Rubber, were they doing exactly the same work that was going on at Cornwallis Park before the fire and the closing of that operation?
MR. RING: The end product was very similar, but the way of making it was different in that the Cornwallis methodology, in my understanding, was that it was what they call ambient crumbing; in other words, you're grinding them up at room temperature or at the ambient temperature, whatever the surrounding temperature is. Whereas with ARR, they were actually freezing the shreds and then grinding them.
MR. GLAVINE: Was Cornwallis considered a successful operation, both environmentally and also costs, et cetera?
MR. RING: I would say no. I wasn't around, but it couldn't make it financially was my understanding. If the Dalhousie study is to be believed, environmentally it wasn't a very friendly way of dealing with tires.
MR. GLAVINE: In terms of going in this new direction - and I certainly support the concept of Nova Scotia looking after its own tires, but I don't support the concept of burning tires - I'm wondering if this was a unanimous decision by your board or were there board members who spoke up and said, we need to explore every possibility here of dealing with the tires that are no longer usable in the province?
[Page 25]
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ramsay.
MR. RAMSAY: I think it's fair to say that we had a very good debate where members of the board were able to express their own opinions. Initially, there were a variety of opinions, and that is why the board requested that the further studies be done on the health issue and so on. I don't recall, Mr. Glavine, whether or not at the vote time it was unanimous, but I believe it was.
MR. GLAVINE: In your consideration to go in this direction, I know you requested further study to be done, but if a board is doing due diligence, did you look at or look for any longitudinal studies that have been done on potential health risks and the very process itself?
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Ring.
MR. RING: I'll have to ask for clarification of what a longitudinal study is.
MR. GLAVINE: In other words a study, for example, where tires have been burned for 10, 15 or 20 years and they have taken a look at possible impacts on human health and the environment.
MR. RING: I believe that the CRA, in the studies that they looked at, did a review of all of the literature and prepared their report. I'm reasonably certain they looked at that. I do know that there was a study done in Texas - the name of the town escapes me, but I can get it for you - where there were three or four cement plants in a relatively small, concentrated area. Either all, or all but one, used a combination of coal and TDF and they have been operating for a number of years. They did a study for heavy metals in the soil because that was one of the fears, that this would accumulate over the years, and they found that the levels were at the background levels that you would expect to find anywhere. I believe there was also - I'm not sure of my facts, so I'll just leave it at that.
MR. GLAVINE: Just two quick questions. Have you taken a look at the Manitoba pilot where they recycled 39,000 tires into road product just this past summer and how the initial reports are coming? We have a stretch in Digby that was done with tire aggregate, and 10 years later it still shows and demonstrates very clearly that it was a successful initiative. I'm just wondering if you have had any contact with Manitoba.
MR. RING: Not on that specific one. Are you talking about using it as aggregate or as rubberized asphalt?
MR. GLAVINE: As aggregate.
MR. RING: There's also one down in Port Hawkesbury that was done around 2000 and the Public Works director at the time down there apparently was not pleased at all about
[Page 26]
the decision that the council had made to do this. He just thought this was going to be the worst thing going and now this is the best thing that has ever happened.
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: But yet Digby has a very successful road demonstration project.
MR. RING: Yes and, as I say, the same there.
MR. GLAVINE: I think we've been a little bit perhaps short in exploring all of the possibilities here. I hold RRFB in great regard and dealt with many of their initiatives with my students and so on over the years, as we have become a leader in this area. I don't think, Mr. Ring, that you'll be showing people from China and other countries our tire burning facility.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell, you have until 10:36 a.m.
MR. COLWELL: Just a couple of quick questions. You said tire fluff is nylon?
MR. RING: That's one of the materials. There are a variety of materials: rayon, nylon, Kevlar - I'm not sure what all is in there.
MR. COLWELL: All products that when you burn them are totally toxic.
MR. RING: Uncontrolled, yes.
MR. COLWELL: Even probably controlled they are very, very toxic.
MR. RING: Well, we've had the results of the surveys of this and they largely are destroyed. The levels do not change remarkably from burning coal.
MR. COLWELL: How much does it cost to ship each tire?
MR. RING: How much does it cost to ship one?
MR. COLWELL: Right now.
MR. RING: To Quebec - collecting and shipping you're talking about?
MR. COLWELL: Yes.
MR. RING: Off the top of my head, I'm guessing somewhere in the $2 area.
[Page 27]
MR. COLWELL: I've heard as high as $2.54, could that be possible?
MR. RING: I suppose if you took one from, say, Sydney or Yarmouth and shipped it to the western end of Quebec, yes.
MR. COLWELL: Could you give us that detailed information?
MR. RING: The cost of shipping?
MR. COLWELL: Yes.
MR. RING: Yes. This varies, by the way, from load to load, because we try to get the best price that we can get.
MR. COLWELL: Average price would be fine. Do you realize we're importing bark mulch replacement in the form of coloured tires, chips?
MR. RING: Yes.
MR. COLWELL: Has there been any interest in possibly using that bark mulch as a product we can make from the tires - as bark mulch replacement, evidently it's a lot better than bark mulch and it's a product that could be manufactured. We're importing it now from the U.S., I understand.
MR. RING: That may be.
MR. COLWELL: Okay. Again, you know, I think we've really got to look at a better way to do this tire job and I know we're in the corner now, because Lafarge has sort of a semi-commitment from the RRFB, unless they can't meet the requirements, as you indicated before. We're sort of stuck with tire burning for four years and that concerns me greatly, as it does 99 per cent of Nova Scotians I've talked to.
Another issue, request for proposals were put out and I've seen it in the paper, in The ChronicleHerald on October 28th and it closes on November 14th, which is only 17 days. Is it possible to put a proposal together that quick for something so complex?
MR. RING: Yes, we went out to - we earlier did a request for expressions of interest and the people who responded to that are well aware that this was coming and what's involved.
MR. COLWELL: Are there local companies involved in that or are they all out-of-province companies?
[Page 28]
MR. RING: I don't know who has downloaded it from the provincial Web site.
MR. COLWELL: Is there any possibility of extending that deadline past November 14th?
MR. RING: Not if we're to reach the February 1st start-up date.
MR. COLWELL: Is there a mandate to use Nova Scotia content in this or is it sort of wide open to anybody?
MR. RING: I'm not sure of the scoring on this. We are calling these proposals on behalf of ACES. It's an industry program, we are just a contractor to the industry, we're running it for them.
MR. COLWELL: Was there any indication where this may be located in Nova Scotia?
MR. RING: No.
MR. COLWELL: That'll be up to the proponent that puts a proposal forward?
MR. RING: That's correct.
MR. COLWELL: Exactly what criteria are you looking for under this, in general terms?
MR. RING: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that we were going to be discussing end-of-life electronics. According to the letter that I got, it was about the tire RFP and about Enviro-Depots and I didn't prepare for a discussion on end-of-life electronics.
MADAM CHAIR: Order, the time has expired. I'd like to recognize Mr. Dunn for the PC caucus. You have 12 minutes, until 10:48 a.m.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here today to answer questions. I believe one thing we can all agree on is that our province certainly is a leader in this particular field. All we have to do is travel throughout the rest of the country and into the United States and it's very easily seen that we are certainly ahead of a lot of areas and doing a commendable job, and I congratulate you for that. I believe that the work of everyone in the province, communities, community groups, individuals, have taken this on and I attribute that to, I believe, education and awareness, which I think is the strength of the board. The message is certainly out there, and I know in my community I can see the youth grabbing on to this and a lot of good things are happening.
[Page 29]
One question I have is concerning future developments. From this particular point now, where are we heading? Are there any future developments on the horizon, as far as what we may be doing in this particular field, as far as improving?
MR. RING: A few things that we are looking at internally: one is the Enviro-Depot system, to help improve them. They have an extremely high proportion of labour in those and we want to help them find ways to make that more productive and help improve the appearance. We have introduced in the past year an infrastructure funding program for the Enviro-Depots to help them make improvements to their facilities, with no-interest financing. The repayment of financing is matched to the life of the asset that's being acquired. We really look to making that process a lot more friendly for the consumer as well.
In terms of future programs, there are a number that are being looked at. The regional waste coordinators have recently been putting together a very extensive list to identify the next items to be banned from landfills, for which some sort of diversion program would have to be developed and that's being prepared. It has a weighting scale, so that considers things such as hazard, volume - gosh, I forget, there are a number of items that go into weighting these - and then the idea is that at the end of the day they will have a prioritized list of items to look at for landfill bans.
In terms of the future of where we're going down the road, I was at a stewardship conference in September and there seems to be an industry feeling now that they're starting to get it and that it makes sense to reduce our waste, that will give us a better bottom line. It makes sense to be environmentally responsible because if we aren't, the government is going to make sure that we are, and let's start doing it ourselves. I think largely because of some of the mandatory programs that have been put in place already, now they're starting to say, well, if it comes to us, how can we deal with it? A case in point is Electronics Product Stewardship Canada, which is comprised of major electronics manufacturers and retailers, and they've recognized that.
So I think you may be seeing more of a trend of industry becoming proactive and working with government. I'm hopeful that's going to happen, to take responsibility for their end-of-life products. Ideally what we'd like to see when the useful life of a product is over is that it then becomes raw material for another product and just continues through the stream.
MR. DUNN: Thank you. You've answered most of another question I had. I'll ask it anyway, it's dealing with present and future challenges. If you were to name one or two that you foresee in the near future, of a real challenge for us in this field in this province.
MR. RING: I think one of the challenges that actually I think we have a reasonably good approach to it, that we're starting in the very near future, we've just been doing the planning for it, is getting more banned material out of the landfill. There's a tremendous
[Page 30]
amount of what goes in the landfill that should not be in there. It's going in because it's easy to put it in the garbage and you get a black bag and it goes in.
It's interesting to note that in the areas of the province where they've switched to clear bags, the volumes at the Enviro-Depots in those areas have gone up by 17 per cent in the past two years, which is well in excess of what it has overall. That's great, when you've got the clear bag, your neighbour is policing you, or you sort of feel that they are.
I know some people are concerned about privacy and the suggestion has been made that you be allowed one opaque bag but if you've got more than one bag of garbage going out, the rest of them all have to be clear. So I think there are a number of ways to address privacy issues.
Getting that material out of the landfill and diverted into the diversion stream will go a long, long way to getting us to that 300-kilogram per year target.
MR. DUNN: Thank you. If Lafarge is successful and the process begins, is there such a thing as a review clause in the contract where, let's say, in two years' time - I assume it will be monitored all through the entire process - where an internal review of the process occurs, that perhaps something could happen at that particular time with regard to the earlier decision?
MR. RING: Both the Conestoga-Rovers report and the Dalhousie report suggested quite strict monitoring - not at two years, but continual - and I think that's appropriate. I don't want anyone to feel that I dismiss concerns about safety and I'll lead the parade to shut things down if they aren't compliant with a permit that's issued to them, if they get there.
[10:45 a.m.]
I think in terms of Mr. Steele's comment, they would have to spend that money to make the improvements before they even knew if they were getting it. When you think about it, if they spent that money now, if they received the approval with monitoring requirements and spent the money now and started up tomorrow and didn't meet the monitoring requirements, they'd be shut down in that case, too. So they've got to be pretty certain before they do it either way. I'd have no difficulty with that and I would support that wholeheartily, that either testing - even with testing we'd still want the monitoring ongoing.
MR. DUNN: Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm going to pass to my colleague for a couple of questions.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Porter, you have until 10:48 a.m.
[Page 31]
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you. I know my time is limited and thank you as well, gentlemen, for being here today. A couple of questions, just picking up where Pat left off on diversion. Any idea what kind of diversion we're doing right now from our landfills in the province, tonnage-wise?
MR. RING: No, that would be a question for the department, they track those numbers. In fact, that's who we go to for the numbers when the 50 per cent of our funding is - sorry, of our net revenue is distributed to the seven waste regions based on diversion stats for that region versus the province. The province is the one that collects and provides that information for us.
MR. PORTER: Okay, that's great. We've talked about cardboard, we've heard a little bit about cardboard here today being banned from landfills, and so it should be. Is there anyone out there gathering cardboard up in this province right now taking care of it for us?
MR. RING: I believe Scotia Recycling, which is part of the Minas Basin group, the Jodrey group, I know are very active in collecting paper and cardboard.
MR. PORTER: Any idea what that turnover is, what they're taking in and turning over in a year?
MR. RING: No.
MR. PORTER: Sixty thousand tons, no idea?
MR. RING: No.
MR. PORTER: Nobody is reporting on that specifically then to the board?
MR. RING: No.
MR. PORTER: Only through the regions, I guess, the municipalities, the regional units?
MR. RING: Even then I think the only way you could really get a solid number on that is to ask the company for it.
MR. PORTER: I'm running out of time, I know, and I guess, given that it's 11:48 a.m., I'll thank you again very much.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The time for questions has now expired. I would ask you, Mr. Ring, if you would like to make some closing comments. You have an opportunity to sum up, so the floor is yours.
[Page 32]
MR. RING: Thank you. I said earlier that I appreciated the opportunity to be here and I did, and I'm grateful for your keen interest in what we're doing and why we're doing it. I can tell you that I think the feeling that was in our boardroom the day the decision was made was, I believe everyone felt that what they were doing was the right thing from an environmental standpoint, from a health standpoint and for the economic health as well of Nova Scotians. So it was not a decision, as Mr. Ramsay has indicated, that was arrived at lightly, but it certainly was a decision that had to be made.
At the end of the day, I guess it's going to depend on what comes out of the environmental assessment and whatever that is, we aren't married to this just because we want to do that, we want to do whatever the province finally decides is the right thing.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much for being here today and for your answers to the questions. There were a number of documents that were requested and you indicated that you would provide or look further into providing and the clerk will be in contact with you with regard to securing those documents. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I indicated to you before the meeting that I had two items of business, one related to our witnesses and one not. What I'll do is with the item that is related to this morning's session, I will read a motion and then if I may, very briefly explain why I'm bringing this motion.
The motion is to move that the Public Accounts Committee direct its Chair to write to the Executive Council recommending that an Order in Council be passed including the Resource Recovery Fund Board within the scope of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
MADAM CHAIR: The motion is in order.
MR. STEELE: Madam Chair, as the members of the committee will be aware from the questioning this morning, it causes me a great deal of concern that it appears that the Resource Recovery Fund Board is of the view that they are not subject to freedom of information. I would like to point out to the members of the committee that the RRFB does acknowledge that it is subject to the Auditor General Act and it has been audited under that Act, but so far it has not acknowledged that it is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, even though the definition of the bodies that are covered are identical in the two Acts.
The simplest way to deal with this issue is simply for the board to acknowledge that it is subject to freedom of information. If that is not forthcoming, then the next simplest way is for the Executive Council to pass an order, as they are entitled to do under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, stipulating that the RRFB is indeed covered by the Act; that would remove any doubt.
[Page 33]
The most difficult way and the one that I'm prepared to do, but would prefer not to do, is to go to court to have the court rule on whether, in fact, they are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is the reason why I have brought this motion before the committee today.
MADAM CHAIR: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: Madam Chair, I'm going to support the motion, I think it's a great idea. It's something that should have been in place from day one. I think any organization that's connected to or funded by the Province of Nova Scotia should be subject to the freedom of information process so that all Nova Scotians can know that these operations are being run as they should be, in the best interests of the people of Nova Scotia. We will be supporting that.
MADAM CHAIR: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to now move on to the motion that is unrelated to this morning's proceedings. Again, I'll read the motion, then if I may just briefly explain where it's coming from. I would like to ask the clerk to distribute the document that I provided her with earlier.
The motion reads as follows: move that the Public Accounts Committee direct its Chair to write to the Treasury and Policy Board asking whether a directive has been issued to Crown Corporations to create annual reports which can be used for marketing purposes and if so, when the directive was issued, by whom and what it said.
MADAM CHAIR: The motion is in order. Further discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Last week all members of the Legislature received the annual report of the Trade Centre Limited. With that annual report was a covering letter, it was an identical letter, the only difference in the letter was the name of the member to whom it was directed. I want to bring members' attention in particular to the first line of the second paragraph, which says, "In keeping with our Provincial Government's mandate for crown corporations to create annual reports which can be used to market our organization, . . . ". This caused me a great deal of concern because as far as I'm concerned and I hope this committee is concerned, the first and only purpose of an annual report is to be an accountability document and that the purposes of an accountability document are not at all the same as a marketing document.
[Page 34]
For example, just to show you where this can lead is in the Trade Centre Limited's annual report they no longer include the audited financial statements of the corporation, instead providing a summary that I would say masks some of the real issues that might be of interest to members of this committee. It is a good example of how if something is used for marketing it kind of shades over accountability. This caused me concern and made me think that as a member of this committee, perhaps I should ask if the committee agrees that we should look into this further.
Annual reports are accountability documents, they are not marketing documents and that's the reason why my motion is before you today, simply to ask the Treasury and Policy Board for more information: is this true and if so, who issued the directive and what does it say?
MADAM CHAIR: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Bain.
MR. BAIN: Madam Chair, just one question that I have and it's relating to that quote, and I guess interpretation might be a lot of it. ". . . to create annual reports which can be used . . ." and it's the words "can be used" to market our organization. My interpretation would be that the annual report might be used to do some marketing, but it's not saying that it's going to be used, I guess. So interpretation could leave a lot there too.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: I don't disagree with Mr. Steele's view that a Crown Corporation's annual report should be accountability. I'm not too sure if this is a context we should handle right here in this committee, that's my issue with this. I would like to get some more clarification before we could support this. Again, I really want to see accountability by any Crown Corporation, or anybody who is connected with government, but this is sort of a - I'm not sure, it just doesn't seem to fit with what the mandate of the committee is. If we were discussing this particular topic, I would say yes, but it's sort of outside the realm and I don't even know if this is in order.
MADAM CHAIR: I think, as the Chair of the committee, I would say that the motion is in order simply because any member can bring forward a concern they have that's within a fairly wide mandate for the committee, so the motion is in order. We can vote on the motion or we can refer it to the subcommittee, if that's the wish of the members, for example, for further discussion.
The mandate of the committee is that "The Public Accounts Committee is established for the purpose of reviewing the public accounts, the annual report or other reports of the Auditor General and any other financial matters respecting the public funds of the Province." We've always taken a very broad interpretation of that final element.
[Page 35]
So I guess I would say I understand what you're saying, we could refer the motion for further discussion to the subcommittee and bring it back here. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Thank you, Madam Chair, I think that's a good idea. I thank the members for their observations. I think they're looking for more information, which is fair. So perhaps I would myself, as the mover of the motion, ask that the matter simply be tabled for consideration by the subcommittee for a recommendation to be brought back to the full committee.
However, I would like to ask the Auditor General whether this causes any concern to him.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Lapointe.
MR. JACQUES LAPOINTE: I can't say, given the amount of information I have, whether I have anything to be concerned about. As I say, the wording of the letter is ambiguous, I don't know if there's anything behind it.
I would agree with the concept that an annual report is an accountability document and as to anything beyond that, any other use of it would be outside of my realm. As I say, I can't tell from what I see here, whether I, as the Auditor General, have anything to be concerned about. I don't know if that answers your question.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. So we will refer this matter to the subcommittee for additional discussion as to whether or not we would pursue more information and in what form. Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: Madam Chair, if Mr. Steele would be kind enough to forward any additional information he has to the committee, to make our decision a lot easier or our discussion a lot easier, I would greatly appreciate it.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Is there any other business? Hearing none, we stand adjourned until next Wednesday, when we have in front of us the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. Thank you.
[The committee adjourned at 11:00 a.m.]
