MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. The Subcommittee on Supply will now be called to order. Before the subcommittee this morning, we will be debating the estimates of the Minister of the Environment.
I will invite the Acting Minister of the Environment to introduce his staff to the members of this committee and I will invite him to make some opening remarks, if he so wishes. The time is now 10:22 a.m.
The honourable Acting Minister of the Environment.
Resolution E8 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $13,132,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of the Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.
HON. MICHAEL BAKER: Mr. Chairman, it is my great pleasure to be here today as Acting Minister of the Environment, with respect to the departmental estimates. With me, on my right, is Mr. George Fox, Deputy Minister of the Environment; on my left is Mr. Chuck Allen, Manager of Financial Services. In the gallery we have with us Mr. Steve Warburton, Director of Communications; Mr. Clive Oldreive, Director of Regional Services; Ms. Murrin Leim, Director of Environmental Corporate Services; Mr. Creighton Brisco, Director of Resource Management and Environmental Protection; Mr. Bob Langdon, Director of Environmental Industries and Technologies; Mr. Scott Nicholson, Director of Environmental Support Services; Mr. Dale Smith, Director of Protected Areas; Mr. Frank Dunn, Director of Financial Services; and Mr. Gerard MacLellan, Solid Waste Chairman.
Obviously this is a very significant department and I have some brief remarks that I would like to make at the beginning. I would also say that I feel somewhat humbled by the fact that there is a former minister here who was in the department certainly longer than I have been, Mr. Samson. I understand it was indicated earlier that this department has had nine ministers in four years, and so one shouldn't try to get used to this chair apparently, because it doesn't seem to stay warm very long. I may very well be the last Minister of the Environment, in fact, as a result of the merger of the Departments of Labour, Environment and Regulatory Affairs.
It is my distinct honour to present to you, your colleagues and the people of Nova Scotia the details of this year's budget for the Department of the Environment. As the first department to sit in the Subcommittee on Supply, it is a special honour. This year's budget has been eagerly awaited. This presentation will start to give shape to redefining what government will do and, just as significantly, what government will not do. The frankness of my presentation may be a surprise to those present. The fulfilling of a mission of providing environmental services essential to Nova Scotia, is the goal of the Government of Nova Scotia and the department. It goes without saying that a clean and healthy environment is and remains the priority of this government.
Some of the details are as follows. Contaminated site management - contaminated sites are a constant reminder of the level of human impact on the environment. The department will develop a comprehensive strategy for managing contaminated sites in the coming year, and is committed to remediating these sites through the following measures:
1. Developing a comprehensive strategy for managing contaminated sites, compiling an inventory of sites and determining priority areas for remediation; and
2. Ensuring that site remediation occurs in an environmentally sound manner and that provincial environmental interests are properly protected.
Waste water treatment. Thirty per cent of all sewage generated in Nova Scotia is released untreated into the environment; 45 per cent of the sewage is treated by household sewage disposal systems; and inadequacies have been identified with existing infrastructure, which treats the remaining 25 per cent.
Specific priorities for dealing with waste water treatment in 2000-01 include:
1. Reducing the level of discharge of raw sewage into coastal waters, and ensuring that household sewage disposal systems are properly used and maintained; and
2. Developing a provincial waste water treatment strategy, following public consultation which will identify and outline key issues, examining new technologies, defining potential roles and identifying potential partnerships.
Water resource management. It is now widely recognized that water resources play a vital role in the social and economic fabric of the province. Recreation, tourism, manufacturing, agriculture and many other sectors rely heavily on the accessibility of clean water. The department's water resource management strategy is under development. Approval and implementation of this strategy will be a focus during this year. Specific priorities include improving water supply management by working cooperatively with municipalities to access a clean water supply and with farmers to secure a water supply for present and future irrigation requirements.
Protected area management. The protected area program plays a significant role in the maintenance of biodiversity, contributes significantly to sustainable management and use of air, water and land resources, and supports nature tourism and community development, particularly in rural settings. Currently designated wildlife areas and nature reserves contribute to the protection at approximately 20 per cent of Nova Scotia's Crown land and approximately 8 per cent of the province. These percentages include all protected areas, including federal migratory bird sanctuaries and nature conservancy sites.
Resource inventories developed for protected areas, planning and management are important resources for land use planning, environmental assessment, outdoor education, nature tourism, community development and voluntary private land conservation.
Specific priorities for 2000-01 include:
1. Planning and managing designated wilderness areas, nature reserves and heritage rivers;
2. Encouraging and facilitating the protection of significant natural sites and features on private lands by partnering with organizations and private landowners;
3. Inventorying and evaluating natural sites and features to guide protected area planning, and establishment and support of conservation of areas of natural significance and nature tourism potential of both Crown and private lands;
4. Supporting community initiatives that rely on protected areas as essential components of the infrastructure base for nature tourism; and
5. Initiating an up-to-date Nova Scotia protected areas strategy and action plan to guide initiatives beyond 2000.
[10:30 a.m.]
Legislative review. I might mention that a number of members might have seen the notice, in their particular communities, of this process. In accordance with the requirement
of the Environment Act, the department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the legislative framework. An external advisory committee has been established to oversee the legislative review process and submit recommendations to the Minister of the Environment by July 1, 2000. Through implementation of the review, the department will work with government, the public and client groups to review and redefine the legislation, refocus the mandate and allocation of resources, and improve the department's ability to serve the public and protect the environment. The department will support the work of the committee including coordination of seven regional meetings in the spring of 2000, and will encourage greater public input into the review process.
Service review. The department will initiate a review of its current programs, services and activities. The primary focus of this review will ensure that the department's limited resources are distributed appropriately, and that the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment meets its regulatory obligations with respect to enforcement and monitoring. Specific action includes reviewing current departmental programs, services and activities, and in conjunction with legislative review, reassessing strategic direction, effectiveness and efficiency of programs, activities, and the appropriateness of resource allocation.
Risk-based auditing. The department wishes to implement a risk-based approach to auditing, to provide staff with tools to more accurately assess the level of environmental risk associated with approved activities, and allocate monitoring and inspection resources accordingly.
On-site sewage management. The department will continue to encourage the private sector to play a greater role in the design and installation of household on-site disposal systems. Specific action includes implementing a regulatory framework allowing for greater involvement by qualified private sector individuals in the selection and design of household sewage disposal systems. This initiative will increase job creation opportunities while allowing departmental resources to be reallocated to other critical monitoring and inspection functions.
The promotion of environmental industries and innovative environmental technologies has helped to secure access to clean drinking water supplies and new waste water treatment systems. By using cost-effective, locally-built technologies, municipalities and industries have realized cost savings of up to 65 per cent.
Key priorities include addressing environmental challenges and increasing job creation by working with staff, local businesses, municipalities and other governmental departments to promote cost-effective and innovative environmental solutions and technologies, and assisting in the development, demonstration and export growth of environmental technologies by researching trends, evaluating technologies and providing business advice to entrepreneurs.
Solid waste resource management strategy. By the end of 2000, the province will divert the amount of solid waste going into disposal by 50 per cent from 1989 levels. As of
October 1999, 44 per cent solid waste diversion has been achieved with approximately 95 per cent of all Nova Scotians having access to curb-side recycling programs, and over 70 per cent having access to curb-side organic collection. Other municipal composting programs coming onstream in 2000 will further support the diversion levels. I might digress by saying that in my home county of Lunenburg, we have one of the most successful diversion programs in the Province of Nova Scotia. It has had a very successful program for many years, which includes the green machine, organic diversion, as well as the ordinary streams.
Specific solid waste management included, for 2000-01, are:
1. Achieving the province's goal of 50 per cent diversion through support and monitoring of municipal recycling and composting programs;
2. Facilitating industry stewardship agreements to increase the level of responsibility assumed by industry for the post-industrial, post-consumer fate of goods and materials, such as waste paint and newsprint; and
3. Investigating and initiating programs to address littering and illegal dumping in collaboration with municipalities and industries.
The green plan. The department will build on the information gained through the legislative review and service review, and in collaboration with other departments, agencies and organizations, design and implement a public consultation process culminating in the development of a green plan for the province in the year 2003.
Environmental education. The environmental education program raises public awareness of environmental issues, trends in environmental quality, environmental legislation and programs, and supports environmental stewardship efforts. Priorities for 2000-01 include developing, delivering and evaluating environmental education materials in support of departmental priorities, including increasing awareness of options for water management and for maintenance and installation of household sewage disposal systems.
My Cabinet colleague, the Honourable Neil LeBlanc, Minister of Finance, said in his Budget Address that this budget is about finding the right balance; the right balance between what the government is best equipped to do and what the private sector, non-profit sector or individuals can do better.
Mr. Chairman, the public expects high standards, and this year the Department of the Environment will continue to meet those standards with the Budget Estimates you see before you today. The department will be smaller, but it will also be better organized and more focused on providing the services that most matter to Nova Scotians. In making the tough decisions, we looked at what was most important to our core services. Those core programs, the ones that best protect our environment, have been maintained, but equally important is
the increased role each and every Nova Scotian must play in protecting the environment. In our personal lives and our business lives, we must all consider how we can best protect our land, water and air.
The changes mean staff will concentrate on key department functions, such as inspection and monitoring. Inspectors located province wide will focus on those high-priority areas, like contaminated sites, sewage management and solid waste management. The department has identified staff dealing with low-risk areas and will redeploy them to higher-risk situations. It is also worth noting that the amalgamation of the Department of the Environment with the Department of Labour and other regulatory groups from across the government is a positive move. It is positive because it offers the chance for one department to build on the strengths of the others. At the same time, this new department will focus on the cornerstones of our government: quality service, fairness to all people and regions, value for money, and accountability to all Nova Scotians.
The 2000-01 budget target is $13.132 million. This is reduced from $15.678 million for 1999-2000. Currently the department employs 236 staff in a decentralized office structure. We provide direct service delivery from offices in four regions across the province. This budget estimate includes a decrease of 17.8 positions for the department, a reduction of 8 per cent. Despite this reduction, core programs have been protected. Those programs have been deemed essential, including the following: contaminated site management, an essential program that ensures identified sites are managed or remediated to minimize adverse effects on the environment; environment assessment, a program that provides for environmental assessment of projects early in the planning stages to identify, to correct and to prevent adverse environmental impacts. As well as the following programs: dangerous goods management, industrial waste management, municipal water supply, radiation surveillance, sewage management, solid waste resource management, technical training, water course alteration, environmental education and water use allocation.
Mr. Chairman, this budget estimate will also outline the following program changes for the Department of the Environment. First, consolidation of the department's regional offices that will be considered are as follows: closing the Liverpool office and moving that operation to Bridgewater; closing the Windsor and Shubenacadie offices and moving those to Bedford; consolidation of the Port Hawkesbury and Antigonish offices; closing the Digby and Shelburne offices and moving those to Yarmouth; and closing the Middleton office and moving it to Kentville. All of the offices being considered for closures are small. We will also aid to enhance services that will be available. This is a different way of delivering services. This initiative will also push us to develop alternate means of service delivery including e-mail and the Internet.
Further analysis of the regional office consolidation will be carried out during the restructuring of the department before a final analysis is determined. I want to emphasize for members of the committee that there will be advantages coming to government as a result of
the merger of Labour and Environment which may allow us to retain offices in some areas in government which will have a combined function of labour and environment. So the list provided earlier is only a preliminary list, and is not based on the comprehensive analysis of the two departments as a single entity. As well, staff will be reduced in the Protected Areas Division office now housed in Debert as part of a DNR facility there. That office will focus on the highest priority work.
The program will now be redirected and limited to the 31 areas currently designated under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act. The staff will strive to ensure an equitable balance between the environment and the economy. We intend to keep the Youth Conservation Corps Summer Employment Program this year. The department is unable to fund its traditional $175,000 contribution, however, it will continue to administer the program operation. Federal funds, as well as funding from the Provincial Employment Program have been maintained. This year, the Youth Conservation Corps will partner with 20 community groups. The project will concentrate on quality more than quantity. Last year 175 students participated, this year 60 will. We will, however, also continue to track and report on the state of the environment by focusing on special projects where attention is needed. The State of the Environment Program will also be eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, up to this point, I have spoken about redefining what the department will do. Now I will outline what the government no longer needs to do. For years, approximately 4,000 homeowners annually have taken advantage of our on-site or home sewage disposal program. Anyone building a new home would call the department, an inspector would come out and assess their lot, recommend a design or design a septic system, and do the installation. This was a service for a few that the taxpayers of Nova Scotia can no longer afford. I might add as a way of a digression that I found, from the personal practice of law that oftentimes there were many complaints from the public because no matter when the inspector came it appeared not to be soon enough.
The Department of the Environment is getting out of this business and turning it over to the private sector. It will create jobs in the private sector in rural Nova Scotia where the services are located. This will enable the Department of the Environment inspectors to focus on inspection and enforcement. There is a second benefit now that the department is out of the home sewage disposal business. Inspectors can now fully and solely focus on high priority areas such as contaminated sites, sewage management and solid waste management. It is a good time to ask questions. It is a good time to use common sense. Should we be installing home sewage systems, or should we be tracking polluters to ensure that our water is pristine and that our land and air are clear?
Freeing up inspectors allows us to be more proactive in regulating and monitoring industry. We can refocus our resources on doing what is essential. Our fiscal circumstances mean we cannot hire more people. Instead, we must get out of the businesses that we shouldn't be doing. Our solution is to redeploy those people in critical areas. It is the same
philosophy that will guide our amalgamation with the Department of Labour: focus your resources on the key tasks and do them well. For example, the department will turn the investigation of complaints respecting domestic well water quality and quantity over to the private sector. The department will, however, be maintaining the role as regulator of domestic wells.
The department has also proposed other ways to generate contributions to the budget. We are following the example of most other Canadian provinces in adopting these measures. In revamping home sewage disposal, a $50 application fee will be introduced to assist the department in regulating the systems. Those fees will only be targeted at users of the service. For the vast majority of taxpayers, a service like industrial waste management is one you would never use. Who should pay for it? It makes sense to pay for what you use. As well, fees will also be introduced for petroleum tank tagging, industrial and water course alteration. The cost of those fees is yet to be determined. However, it is estimated that they will bring in more than $200,000 a year in revenue. Under our system of government, there are checks and balances.
I sit here today reviewing my government's proposal for this year's budget. Decisions have been made. Priorities have been determined. The budget will go forward, but as we build a new department, we are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating our direction. We do look for input and ways to fine-tune those decisions and make them better. That is the basis of good government and democracy.
Mr. Chairman, to help us, a comprehensive public review of the Environment Act is currently under way. Three outstanding members of the community are travelling across the province asking people what can be done to improve the Environment Act. This is another opportunity to examine what is and what is not working, and perhaps what we need to do differently in the future. This review will ensure that priorities and appropriate standards are met for Nova Scotians. They will deliver a report to me on or before July 1st of this year. I look forward to receiving that report.
The final few comments focus on the impacts of these changes. Regrettably, in any restructure, people are affected, but our government is committed to doing this fairly. Earlier I mentioned that 18 positions will be lost. Ten employees will be affected, and 7.8 positions are vacant and will not involve the loss of a position by a civil servant. Those losses cut across management, professions and administration. In Halifax region, three employees will be lost; in Colchester three employees; in Cape Breton two employees; in Hants one employee; and in Yarmouth one employee. Half of the losses are term or probationary employees, 14 are bargaining unit positions, 3 are management and 1 is casual. We will be working diligently in consultation with the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union to minimize the impact of staff reductions affecting bargaining unit employees.
I might also add for the benefit of members that it is impossible at this stage to necessarily identify which employee may actually be affected because, as the government - particularly the merger of the Departments of Labour and the Environment - goes forward, there may be other opportunities created for employees in the system who may now work for the Department of the Environment to work for the combined Department of the Environment and Labour.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and thank everyone interested. We are doing business in a new way. Nova Scotia must move forward. The Department of the Environment must move forward. I will now take questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I think the questioning actually starts with the Liberal Party today. Mine was a procedural matter. The minister has given us quite a comprehensive statement, and I wondered if it is possible to obtain copies of the statement for members of the committee to help us as we proceed through the process of looking at his estimates?
MR. BAKER: I don't see a difficulty with that, Mr. Chairman, because arguably we could go through the process of having a transcript typed up, and that would seem to be a waste of everyone's effort, so we will attempt to provide you with a copy, knowing, of course, that the famous caveat of check against delivery is to be used, but I certainly have no problem with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: I thank the minister for that. However, the media has copies of what the minister just said. There doesn't seem to be a problem with delivering them to the media. So it would seem to me that we should have copies of this address in our hands immediately.
MR. BAKER: Agreed.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is now the opportunity for the Opposition. We will start off with questions from the Liberal Party. The time is now 10:50 a.m. You have one hour.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, certainly I want to welcome the Acting Minister of the Environment joining us here today. It is a pleasure to see many familiar faces
around the room today. I recall when I first did this process back in early 1999, I brought a whole whack of people from the department with me. One of my colleagues asked, are you bringing the cavalry with you, so, I notice the acting minister has employed the same very wise and safe tactics, so I commend him for doing that. It was with interest that the minister indicated that there have been nine ministers in four or five years. I recall that in political circles in the last few years they have said that being appointed Minister of Finance was the kiss of death. But I am starting to believe that being appointed Minister of the Environment is a more appropriate department to be termed as the kiss of death. (Interruption) Yes, when one thinks of the number of ministers who have gone through which is unfortunate, but a reality of the times we live in.
Mr. Minister, I thought last night about how to start off today, and looking at the comments made by the Premier as to what was buried in the estimates and that it was our job to get it out, I figured the best way to start was to indicate that with your cooperation we can make this a relatively painless and relatively short process, or we can make it a very long painful process. But based on your opening statement, it appeared to have quite a bit of information in it which I am pleased to see. I commend the minister and his staff for providing that information upfront, and look forward to getting a copy of that statement. I am sure it will save us quite some time on some of the questioning.
One of the first things I want to start off with, as we know last year the Department of the Environment took probably percentage wise the biggest cut of all government departments in the last budget. It appears that in this budget, that seems to ring true once again with I believe close to a 15 per cent to 18 per cent cut in the budget again this year. (Interruption) 16 per cent. Between the last two years, it appears this department has taken in the range of a 30 per cent cut in its overall budget. I guess it is kind of hard to justify an 18 per cent cut when one looks at The Course Ahead business plan and what this government has indicated as priorities for this department. What I want to do before getting into all these great theory questions and everything else that the department plans on doing, I want to get right down to the number crunch. I recall when I did this with Chuck Allen that it ended up there were only two questions on numbers and Chuck got away with not having to do very much. So this year, we will employ those tactics or efforts a bit more.
I note on Page 9.3 of the estimates under Net Program Expenses, Administration, in the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister there has been an increase in that budget. I am curious, what does that increase represent?
MR. BAKER: I don't think that is correct. Our estimate from last year was $750,000 for administration. Our estimate for 2000-01 is $587,000 for administration. The forecast in fact is $729,000, our estimate last year was $750,000 and our estimate for this year is $587,000. I can perhaps provide details as to why it has gone down.
MR. SAMSON: No. I think we are in the right church, wrong pew here. I am on the Supplementary Detail, Page 9.3 under Administration, Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister. Last year the estimate was $366,600, but the forecast was actually $337,600. This year the estimate is $347,100 which appears to be up from the forecast of last year.
MR. BAKER: I think the $6,000 difference between the forecast and the estimate this year is, I haven't got the exact detail for that but I believe it has to do with minor salary changes.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. Right under that, under Environmental Response Projects, there is nothing under Estimate. What has happened to that program?
MR. BAKER: The department has ceased paying grants to the Centre for Water Resource Management, that is what accounts for that.
MR. SAMSON: Am I to understand it was a one-time grant, because I see in the estimate last year, it was $23,100, but the actual forecast was $60,800 and now there is nothing. How much would that figure have normally been I guess is the question?
MR. BAKER: In the previous year, it was $23,100 and then just to go through that again, the 1999-2000 estimate was $23,100. It had been forecast for the year for $60,800, and there was an overage of $37,700. We have eliminated the program effectively.
MR. SAMSON: What group was that paid to, again?
MR. BAKER: The Centre for Water Resource Management.
MR. SAMSON: I notice that the estimate was $23,100, but the forecast ended up being $60,800. What occurred that raised the total to that amount? Was there any event or something that would have caused that increase?
MR. BAKER: My understanding was that there was a request for a number of grants within that category that were approved by the minister. It hasn't happened since I was minister, so I can't provide the particular detail.
MR. SAMSON: So that program has been eliminated. Is that my understanding?
MR. BAKER: That is correct.
MR. SAMSON: I notice the Media and Public Relations has gone from $147,000 last year to $101,700 this year. Has there been a staff reduction or something in that division?
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. BAKER: Yes, it is the elimination of one position, I believe.
MR. SAMSON: What position was that?
MR. BAKER: That is a general restructuring of sports services in the department.
MR. SAMSON: Well, would it be research, secretarial?
MR. BAKER: It would be the clerical-secretarial type of service.
MR. SAMSON: So that is one position that has been eliminated?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: I notice on Page 9.4 under Net Program Expenses, under Utilities, under Utility Operations there has been a decrease, the forecast was actually $425 million, it is now down to $333.5 million. What happened there?
MR. BAKER: It is a salary reduction of $75,000. That is an offset which increases the amount as a result of the amortization of the tangible capital assets, so there is a reduction of $75,000, offset by an increase of $14,000.
MR. SAMSON: Would I be correct in saying that the position this $75,000 represents was from the Lockeport utility?
MR. BAKER: No, it is not.
MR. SAMSON: Could you indicate what utility that is from?
MR. BAKER: It is not relative to a particular utility. It is from the administration of the program.
MR. SAMSON: So that would be a head office position?
MR. BAKER: Yes, a head office position.
MR. SAMSON: That has been eliminated?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: So, that is one position?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: Under Environmental Management Support Services, there appears to be a reduction there also from $340 million in the estimates to $301 million this year.
MR. BAKER: I am sorry, I didn't catch that.
MR. SAMSON: Page 9.4, under Resource Management and Environmental Protection, under Environmental Management Support Services, from $340 million to $301 million.
MR. BAKER: To provide the details, there are salary reductions of $49,000 involved in that, there are operational reductions of $141,000 and there is an offsetting credit of $200,000, to the whole division and not to that particular section.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, but just for Environmental Management Support Services, there has been a reduction of $49,000?
MR. BAKER: And an additional $141,000.
MR. SAMSON: Well, no, it can't be an additional.
MR. BAKER: Yes, $49,000 for that.
MR. SAMSON: That would represent, what? That is a position that has been cut?
MR. BAKER: This is where the detail gets complicated. This is a reduction of a position from this program, but not a loss of the person. That person's position has been transferred to Environmental Corporate Services.
MR. SAMSON: Pollution Prevention, under Resource Management and Environmental Protection, Page 9.4, has gone from $266 million to $179 million. I am just curious as to what that reduction is, what is the purpose of that reduction, what does it represent?
MR. BAKER: The short answer to that is that the vast bulk of that saving comes from external consultants that no longer are being hired. That work is being done in-house because it was the least expensive way to conduct those services.
MR. SAMSON: So those are all external people. There are no positions within the Department of the Environment that have been cut as a result of that?
MR. BAKER: That is correct. It is basically a reallocation of resources to make more efficient use of them.
MR. SAMSON: So, it will be in-house staff now that will deal with pollution prevention, there will be no more studies or reports being done by outside.
MR. BAKER: It is a reduction, there may be some, but a significant reduction.
MR. SAMSON: What was the total reduction again?
MR. BAKER: The variance is $86,200.
MR. SAMSON: Under Ecosystems and Risk Management, it has gone from $701 million to $492 million.
MR. BAKER: This is a situation where the introduction of the water credit fee of $200,000 - I mentioned earlier - nets out the reduction at $209,000.
MR. SAMSON: So the water credit fee is what is making up for the reduction here. There is no staff reduction?
MR. BAKER: It reduced the expense, but not the staff.
MR. SAMSON: So, there is no reduction in staff?
MR. BAKER: That is right. That program is completely eliminated.
MR. SAMSON: Did you mention that in your opening statement? I heard you mention the report, but I understood there would be another report that was going to be put out.
MR. BAKER: I am sorry?
MR. SAMSON: I thought in your statement, obviously I must have misunderstood because I notice here there is no money allocated for it, but I thought you indicated that there was a report that would be put out. So, I take it that there was one report done, there are no other reports coming and that program has been eliminated.
MR. BAKER: That program has been eliminated and there are no staff reductions involved in that because the person had already left the department prior to the introduction of the budget.
Just by way of information, what I was referring to in my earlier notes was that there will still continue to be focused reports on particular areas of programs which will continue to be done, but this was a comprehensive report as opposed to the focused reports on various environmental areas.
MR. SAMSON: You say there was only one staff member employed on this report?
MR. BAKER: One staff, one casual.
MR. SAMSON: You said that the staff member has left. What is the status with the casual?
MR. BAKER: The casual had been released before Christmas because the person had done their work.
MR. SAMSON: You indicated that the staff member working on that report had left earlier?
MR. BAKER: Earlier.
MR. SAMSON: Under Information Management, under Environmental Support Services, there is a reduction from $799,000 . . .
MR. BAKER: What page?
MR. SAMSON: Page 9.5.
MR. BAKER: That is a reduction of one staff person and the result of the closure of the library.
MR. SAMSON: I can't really hear him.
MR. BAKER: That is a reduction of one staff person and the closure of the library.
MR. SAMSON: Did you say the closure of the library?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: Where has it gone?
MR. BAKER: The short answer is, the library - the books haven't been burned or anything. The situation is that there may be some ability for a library function to exist as a
result of the merger of the two new departments, but this is an anticipated cut with respect to the existing Department of the Environment library.
MR. SAMSON: So that staff person is now cut regardless of the merger, that position is gone.
MR. BAKER: Well, because there would be a Labour Department library as well. This is a good opportunity and I guess it points out the difficulty of saying to this particular person that your job is redundant because there may be opportunities created for the actual person today at the Department of the Environment in that function to fill a function with a merged department. That may affect someone else in another department, so the flow out is very hard. You can talk about the position, but as soon as you try to target it to that individual, it may not have that - I am not trying to be obtuse, but you just can't point out to a particular individual and say, your job is affected, because it may be a result of someone else in some other department ultimately being affected.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect to the minister, I am sure he is sincere in those comments, but I don't think any of us around this table believe that merging the two departments as to what has been set out in The Course Ahead is going to create any significant amount of new opportunities for people in the Civil Service. It is quite clear this is being done to reduce the level of Civil Service, not to create new positions. With all due respect, I really don't think any of these people are going to take much comfort in the merger creating new opportunities for them.
Youth Conservation Corps, you have cut out your portion of the funding. My understanding, from what you said, is that you still have funding coming from the Provincial Employment Program and from the feds. Is that correct?
MR. BAKER: I am sorry, the Page just gave me a Department of Justice folder. I think it is not really a good time for me to fill it out right now.
MR. SAMSON: Youth Conservation Corps, you have cut the provincial portion from your department. Well, I should say, DOE's funding in that program. My understanding is that the Provincial Employment Program is still in and the feds are still in, which is what is allowing you to keep a portion of the programs still alive.
MR. BAKER: There is $75,000 of that funding that comes from the provincial Department of Economic Development, $75,000 from Human Resources Development Canada.
MR. SAMSON: Am I correct in your statement, not having gone through it yet, but you said there were 175 students last year? There will only be 60 this year?
MR. BAKER: Correct.
MR. SAMSON: Do you have the number of projects from last year?
MR. BAKER: There were 40, so there has been a 50 per cent reduction in projects.
MR. SAMSON: Investigations and Enforcement, Page 9.5 under Environmental Support Services, that appears to have disappeared.
MR. BAKER: That is one staff person whose job has been eliminated and those services will continue to be provided through the regional staff offices.
MR. SAMSON: So, that would have been one staff member in the Halifax office?
MR. BAKER: Yes, that is correct.
MR. SAMSON: So, basically it was like a director or manager of investigations and enforcement?
MR. BAKER: It was an MCP classification, so it was management.
MR. SAMSON: Regional Offices, I see under Administration you have in brackets 177. I am not quite sure what that represents. You had 735 for your estimate and now you have 177 in brackets for administration. What does that mean?
MR. BAKER: I believe that is the result of an offsetting situation where you have a fee change which is added to other numbers. There is a fee going in there which has an offsetting effect on reductions so there is an offsetting number. The fees to be generated from regional offices are $993,000.
MR. SAMSON: Is it safe to say that is the $50 fee?
MR. BAKER: That is the $50 fee.
MR. SAMSON: That is for applications for septic systems?
MR. BAKER: Yes, that is correct.
MR. SAMSON: What was the fee previous to this?
MR. BAKER: There was no fee.
MR. SAMSON: Yet, according to the restructuring which I admit took place under our administration, in fact, your department is doing in essence 50 per cent less of the work it was doing, yet there has been a $50 increase on that. Is that correct?
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry?
MR. SAMSON: Basically, under restructuring that has taken place, which we started, I admit, staff now, rather than having to make two visits to the homes will only have to make one which would be in the essence of a spot audit. Yet now, whereby there was no fee for those two visits, now there is a $50 fee for a possible one visit.
MR. BAKER: That is correct. I should also indicate that obviously, if you do the math, not all of that $993,000 could possibly come from the $50 fee. There are other fees involved in that and there are other sources of revenue that are involved in that. We have 4,000 - rough numbers - applications a year times $50 per fee. My math isn't very good, but I think that is $200,000. We are only talking about a part year for this year as well, but in rough terms, it is $200,000. Then, additionally, you have a transfer from the Resource Recovery Fund Board of $500,000.
MR. SAMSON: So am I to understand correctly that you are taking from the Resource Recovery Fund Board, which is a non-governmental agency, the Department of the Environment is now taking $500,000 from that independent board?
MR. BAKER: Yes. It is proposed that the funding for the Solid Waste Management Program be provided through a transfer of funds from the Resource Recovery Fund Board of $500,000. It is cost recovery from the department of an expenditure relative to solid waste management.
MR. SAMSON: Well, you know, Mr. Minister, I certainly understand that, but we got into this last year with the previous minister, Mr. Russell, and the whole idea of the RRFB was to make sure the government didn't get its hands on the revenues raised, and that the revenue went back to who it rightly should go back to, the municipalities, because they helped to bring it up to where it is. So I take it that now your department has decided that the RRFB monies from there are open for your department to reach in and grab and use the revenues from that department, when clearly the mandate and the reason the RRFB was set up was to make sure government did not take any of that revenue for the purposes of the Department of the Environment. It was to go back. I just want to understand clearly that there has been a fundamental change in this budget of the purpose of the RRFB and that it is now open for government to stick its hand in and take money from that fund.
MR. BAKER: With all due respect, the municipalities will continue to receive the 50 per cent funding out of the RRFB that they always received. This will not change that formula which is included in the regulations. What it will mean is that some of the money that the
RRFB used to spend on other programs will be going to pay for the cost of solid waste management.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have half an hour left.
MR. SAMSON: So $500,000. Will the minister say this much: this will be the first time since the creation of the RRFB that the Department of the Environment has taken money from that fund and put it towards its general budgetary numbers?
MR. BAKER: That is correct.
MR. SAMSON: That is correct. So this is the first time this has been done?
MR. BAKER: That is what I am advised. Yes.
MR. SAMSON: Well, I don't know if this is an appropriate question in estimates, but I will put it anyway. I know you are the acting minister, and I know it might not be the fairest question but, unfortunately being acting, you are the one in the seat. Does the minister believe that this is the appropriate way to go with this fund? Will the minister agree this is setting a very dangerous precedent in allowing the government, which is obviously cash strapped, which everyone admits, to now be able to access money from this fund which was specifically set up to avoid this?
MR. BAKER: What I will indicate is that I believe the money that the Resource Recovery Fund Board receives is fundamentally public money. Public money should be spent for the benefit of the public. One has to ask whether or not this program which is what we are taking about, the Solid Waste Management Program, is a program of merit to the public, and I feel it is. Is it connected to RRFB, which I feel it is. Obviously there is a question of contributions from RRFB or other sources to services that the government is providing to the public.
MR. SAMSON: I don't disagree with that principle in any way, but the whole purpose of the RRFB, when setting it up, was to make it independent of government, to work with the Department of the Environment, but in essence to be independent, to not have any of its monies going into the general revenue of the Department of the Environment. The whole idea was that the fund was to invest back into communities to encourage further participation in programs such as composting, solid waste and other initiatives. Last year, when we sat here, your predecessor, Ronald Russell, indicated that he was prepared or he was exploring the idea of using money from the RRFB to fund municipalities, sewage treatment and water treatment. I objected at that point and said that clearly that is not what the fund was meant to do. If you allow that to happen there will be no end, and the purpose of the fund will quickly start to be lost on what it was set up for.
This is no different, and it is my firm belief that if you allow this $500,000 to be taken out of the RRFB and put into the Department of the Environment, it is just a matter of time before the municipalities say if that is the case, start taking some of that money to give us new sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants. We all realize that is a big concern, but it is not why the RRFB was set up, and what is being done today is saying, well, it is okay to put it in solid waste. It would be the same argument being used to say, well, it is okay, it is public money, it is raised by public money, it is okay to use it for sewage treatment and water treatment. That is not okay, because what is going to happen is the success we have achieved - and you have indicated the 49 per cent, which is excellent, but we still have a long way to go - that 49 per cent in many ways is because of the efforts of HRM. Being from Cape Breton, being a rural member, we are still way behind in getting to where HRM is.
To start taking money out of the RRFB and not putting it towards the programs it was meant to do, you are setting a terribly dangerous precedent. I warned your predecessor. He didn't do it for waste water, at least not that I have seen, or for sewage, but it is now being done to put into the Department of the Environment's general revenues.
MR. BAKER: Just by way of information to the member, and I understand the point he is making, but the RRFB has indicated that they believe the solid waste management program provides a service to them which is enhancing their program objective which, of course, is waste diversion and so forth. Clearly I understand what the honourable member is saying about precedents and so forth. All I can indicate to you is that I am advised that the board feels this program they are assisting in the funding of, assists in the core mandate of the RRFB, which is with respect to diversion. I think to be on a more optimistic note, as I indicated in my own early remarks, the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, the Town of Mahone Bay, the Town of Bridgewater in Lunenburg County have one of the more successful diversion stream programs in the province. I think it is possible in rural Nova Scotia to be as successful in diversion as you are in metro. In fact, I don't doubt that the numbers are as high if not higher in rural Nova Scotia, in my community, as they are in any part of the province.
MR. SAMSON: I don't disagree and certainly when I was minister, I was singing the praises of Lunenburg County also. Kings County is another area that has achieved great success. There is no doubt about that, but there are a lot of other areas in this province, way too many other areas in this province that have not achieved that same level of success unfortunately, not because the will is not there, but we all know there are other issues.
Is the minister prepared to make available to the members of this committee the minutes of the meetings of the RRFB where this issue would have been dealt with, to show, as you have said, Mr. Minister, that it was actually the RRFB that made the suggestion that they should contribute $500,000 to the Department of the Environment because they realize that your solid waste program was assisting their efforts? Will you commit to tabling those minutes which show that that actually did take place, that it was not a request from the
Department of the Environment or a directive from the Department of the Environment or its members who sit on that board to say that $500,000 should go into the budget of Environment?
MR. BAKER: First of all, the minutes of the meeting are public, and any honourable member is entitled to them so that goes beyond saying. I don't believe I said that it didn't come as a result of a suggestion from the department. What I said, I believe, was that the RRFB agreed that the solid waste management program was within their core mandate. That is what I indicated just to clarify my remarks.
MR. SAMSON: I realize that the minutes are public, but I still would appreciate if the minister could bring them to this House to expedite the process?
MR. BAKER: Agreed.
[11:30 a.m.]
MR. SAMSON: Will the minister also see to it that it is disclosed that all correspondence between the Department of the Environment and the RRFB dealing with this issue be disclosed to members of this committee so that we have a better appreciation of how this matter came forward? You said they have agreed. My question is - or what I would like to know - is who make the suggestion or who said around the RRFB that it would be a great idea for us to take $500,000 this year and send it over to the boys down on Terminal Road? That is what I would like to know, who this recommendation came from and whether or not this came forward from the Department of the Environment or if it was an initiative that came forward by the RRFB on their own, which is possible, but I would certainly like to see the minutes and correspondence from the Department of the Environment to indicate to us really what the basis is for this grant.
MR. BAKER: I can indicate first of all, as I indicated before, we will provide the member or any member of the committee who wants the information, copies of it. I take it the honourable member is looking for copies of the minutes. They will be provided. With respect to correspondence, I am advised by staff that there is no correspondence.
MR. SAMSON: There is no correspondence on this issue between the Department of the Environment and the RRFB?
MR. BAKER: That is what I am advised.
MR. SAMSON: Who currently from your department sits on the Resource Recovery Fund Board?
MR. BAKER: Gerard MacLellan is the only person presently from the department who sits on the board.
MR. SAMSON: Can you indicate either yourself or through the deputy, who has survived many of these changes in ministers, whether Mr. MacLellan was instructed by your office or through the deputy minister's office to recommend to the RRFB as its representative on that board that $500,000 be the amount contributed to the Department of the Environment from funds in the RRFB?
MR. BAKER: My clear understanding is that it was the department who suggested this to the RRFB.
MR. SAMSON: Could you indicate where the suggestion came from. Did it come from the minister's office?
MR. BAKER: It was a staff recommendation. That is as far as I am prepared to go, but there was a staff recommendation.
MR. SAMSON: Is there any correspondence or memos between the staff and the minister's office which would indicate this? I know the minister is rolling his eyes, but . . .
MR. BAKER: I don't mean to roll my eyes, but I don't recall any correspondence that I would have seen.
MR. SAMSON: I appreciate that you have only been acting minister for a couple of months here. In the real world, we all know that the RRFB, while there is only one representative from the Department of the Environment, works closely with the department and takes the advice and directions of the department very seriously. My question is, the impression has been left here that this was something that was agreed to by the RRFB and that somehow they were the ones who thought this was a good suggestion. My question is, you have now indicated that this recommendation came from staff, was given to the representative by the Department of the Environment on the RRFB board, he brought this forward, and it was brought to the RRFB board. So it is now clear that it was the Department of the Environment that went to the RRFB requesting that they give $500,000 or that they give money to the Department of the Environment. I am wondering, with that staff recommendation, was the $500,000 figure used, or was it left to the RRFB? What I am meaning is, was it recommended by staff or was it the RRFB who made that decision?
MR. BAKER: My understanding is that number was a number provided by the department to the RRFB.
MR. SAMSON: Let me just get this straight from one lawyer to another. I want to make sure we are on the same path here. It was a staff recommendation that came to the minister's office.
MR. BAKER: I am not even sure it came to the minister's office, but I will take that supposition as correct.
MR. SAMSON: Well, one would assume at least that the minister's office was aware that this was taking place.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: The recommendation went from the Department of the Environment to RRFB number one, to put into the Department of the Environment under the solid waste management program. Number two, the recommendation also came with a price tag of $500,000?
MR. BAKER: My understanding is that the suggestion did come with the suggestion of $500,000, yes. Perhaps I should elaborate further with respect to this. I want to be clear. Departmental staff and the department as a whole are very sincere in wanting to be able to carry out the core mandate of the Department of the Environment. Staff have been encouraged to come forward with suggestions, both with respect to revenue sources and cost-cutting measures that would enhance the revenue sources of the department and also cut the expenses of the department in a way that would not impair the fundamental job of the Department of the Environment to protect the environment as a whole. Frankly, I encourage that because when one is in a very difficult fiscal environment, one has to encourage creativity and open thinking among one's staff. I think perhaps - and this is not a political stripe, it is just a commentary - that governments of all types in the past have not encouraged staff to be as creative - and I say that in no negative or pejorative tones - as they need to be. We have to think of new ways to do things.
I think this is an example of a suggestion that was advanced through the department in a way that could create - and I understand your point earlier about how you feel this is a dangerous precedent. All I can indicate to you is that the department felt there was a very close connection between the goals of the RRFB in this area and the goals of the department. That is as much information I can provide.
MR. SAMSON: You have given me a great opportunity here, Mr. Minister, to clarify my line of questioning. This in no way is an attack against the staff of the Department of the Environment. In fact, having been there, I can say that it is probably the one department with the most dedicated staff that there is. This came about not because the staff thought it was a good idea, this clearly came about because staff were told they had to find money and raise
revenues and find cuts in here which was a decision made by the Party in power, not by anyone in the department.
I am confident in saying there is probably no one more bothered by the idea that funds are being taken from the RRFB and put into the Department of the Environment than the staff. I fully believe that. In no way do I think that it is something they did without serious consideration or without feeling that this was their last option and it was the only thing they had left to do based on the instructions given by this new government. So I want to make that clear. In no way do I believe that staff were the ones on their own who thought to go forward with this.
What I am trying to show here is the fact that this was something staff had no choice but to move forward with and to go against the whole principle of why the board was put in place. You did indicate that from this $500,000, because of it, certain programs by the RRFB would no longer be offered. Could you indicate to the members of this committee what programs in the RRFB will no longer be offered because of this $500,000 cut in their revenue?
MR. BAKER: I am sorry I think you misunderstood my comments earlier. I don't believe I indicated that some programs that the RRFB had in the past would no longer be offered. Obviously the level of funding available to the programs previously in the RRFB would have to be reduced as a result of the $500,000 going to the department. There is no question that if you take $500,000 out of the RRFB, there is $500,000 less to spend on programs they previously would have supported. That does not necessarily mean a particular program has been cut.
MR. SAMSON: Is this is a one-shot investment of $500,000 by the RRFB or is this going to be a continual year-after-year investment or forced investment, I would say, by the RRFB into the Department of the Environment, or is this a one-shot thing?
MR. BAKER: That is yet to be determined.
MR. SAMSON: As I am sure the minister knows, if he reflects upon last year's estimates, he should know that when it comes to Environment, we are in no rush to go anywhere. One minute or two minutes doesn't really mean very much to us.
MR. BAKER: I have been advised that being the Minister of the Environment is equivalent to the Chinese water torture test.
MR. SAMSON: Hopefully, as I said in my opening statements, it will not be as long and painful this year.
MR. BAKER: I hope.
MR. SAMSON: That all depends on the minister. Mr. Minister, you said you are not sure if it is going to be a one-time payment, I think you have relatively agreed that the idea of the RRFB having to give funding to the Department of the Environment goes against what the RRFB was set up to do. I think it is acceptable that this was an extraordinary circumstance and not something, hopefully, that the department wants to continue doing on a regular basis. Will the minister commit today, to this committee, as the Acting Minister of the Environment that the idea of taking money from the RRFB to the Department of the Environment will not happen again? It is my hope that this decision will be reversed, if not, will he commit that this will not occur again in the future, that money from the RRFB is put into the general revenue of the Department of the Environment?
MR. BAKER: I am unable to give that commitment today. Obviously that would depend on governmental decisions in the future. I am certainly not able to commit governments in the future, let alone departments of which I may or may not be the minister. Clearly, the RRFB has a role to play in determining whether or not any assistance is valuable to their overall objective and functions.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, could I get a commitment from you, we requested the minutes of the RRFB meetings, the sooner you can get them to us the better. Secondly, you have indicated there is no correspondence between the RRFB and DOE on this issue; could you have your staff check to see if there are memos between staff and your office, with this recommendation, and with the staff recommendation dealing with this issue, and whether you can make that available? As I said, through cooperation, things can move quicker. We can either do it this way or we can go through a FOIPOP request. My hope is that it would be much easier receiving them from you than going through FOIPOP, but in the end that is completely up to the minister.
MR. BAKER: I think I indicated that I had already given the undertaking to provide the RRFB minutes. With respect to other information in the department, I can undertake that we will take a look at that. Obviously some documents, as the honourable member knows, being a former minister, our advice to ministers is not subject, as I understand it, to FOIPOP. I take the point, and we will take a look at the documents. I think the department feels fairly safe that there isn't any, so we may be engaged in a fairly high-level discussion about the non-existent document. The first thing I am going to do is undertake that we will look to see what is there, and advise whether there is further information that can be disclosed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for the information of the audience, a FOIPOP is a Freedom of Information request for documentation.
MR. SAMSON: Moving on to another item in the budget, it was with interest that I saw the commitment made to continue to work with Environmental Technologies and recognizing what efforts it has in growing that industry and creating employment in our province. I was so pleased to hear all of that, and then I looked at the budget and noticed that
you have cut that department from $842,000 to $710,000. I am really pleased that you like that department; if you take a dislike to it, Lord only knows what would have happened to it.
MR. BAKER: Think of the State of the Environment Report. (Laughter)
MR. SAMSON: Yes, you really liked that report too, that one disappeared. I am wondering what happened to Environmental Industries and Technologies.
MR. BAKER: Perhaps to provide some detail to that, again this is one of those issues where there are travel reductions involved, and I have provided even more detail, which is that the export focus is going to be on markets closer to home: Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, New England and Ontario. That of course reduces the travel cost. With respect to other areas, it is going to move more towards E-commerce. They have ACOA funding to develop the environmental sectors in Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Australia, and this is with respect to an E-commerce model. They are also going to try to focus, in a way of reducing budgets to incoming trade opportunities, people who are looking for trade opportunities in Nova Scotia. Those are some of the ways those reductions were accomplished.
MR. SAMSON: Were there any staff reductions in that?
MR. BAKER: No, there are no staff reductions in that.
MR. SAMSON: I am sure the minister, if he has looked into this department at all, there are way more success stories in this particular division than probably other government divisions, in fact it probably rivals any accomplishments that staff in Economic Development have been able to achieve with what these guys have been able to do. I had the pleasure as minister to witness some of that. This is an age where we are opening up our borders. We are looking, not to New Brunswick, not to Prince Edward Island, not to Newfoundland, we are looking to Europe, we are looking to China, we are looking to Russia. In fact, we had a Russian delegation in here while I was minister, I recall.
The idea that you are cutting this department and saying no more travel for you, you can't go to that trade show up in Montreal, you can't go down to the Caribbean anymore, where you have made great contacts, you have opened up markets. Really, it is unbelievable that this one sector, with the success it has achieved, that you are now - well, how much are you saving, $130,000? You are going to save that just in travel?
MR. BAKER: No. Just to give you an example, travel has been reduced by $82,900; professional services by $36,000; general operations by $5,000; and meeting expenses by $18,000. Because of ordinary increments for public servants, there is actually a $10,000 offsetting increase, just as the result of the salary increases over time. I wish to advise the
member, too, that there is approximately $35,000 in travel still in that budget for that operation.
MR. SAMSON: Maybe I missed something, but from the numbers you have just listed, that doesn't come anywhere near $130,000. I am not sure what I missed here. The figures you have used . . .
MR. BAKER: I will repeat them again, let's use round numbers here, $83,000 for operational cuts in the division.
MR. SAMSON: What does that mean? What operation cuts have you made in this division that add up to $83,000?
MR. BAKER: That is the travel cut, $82,900.
MR. SAMSON: So, $83,000, that is travel.
MR. BAKER: That is right. Professional services, that is outside professional services, $36,000.
MR. SAMSON: That is basically services being used - PR firms, different things like that - to work with some of these emerging companies, to try to get them developed, some marketing stuff. That has been cut.
MR. BAKER: That is the reduction, yes.
MR. SAMSON: What term did you use to describe that?
MR. BAKER: Professional services.
MR. SAMSON: Professional, that is how you say it. Okay.
MR. BAKER: I don't think I just dreamt that up.
MR. SAMSON: No, no. It is really PR and business stuff, but that is fine. Professional services is a nice, politically correct word.
MR. BAKER: General operations is $5,000, and that is what we would call running a leaner ship. Finally, meeting expenses are reduced by $18,000.
MR. SAMSON: That is where they get to go travel, meet with people here in the province, hold meetings. The question is, you say you are focusing on New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, if they come over here, do we only have water to offer
them, or is there a budget to give them cheese and crackers? Is there anything left here? When one considers that staff in this department have been to Russia, I believe one of the staff here, in fact, has been to Russia, I understand they wanted to keep him there with all the information he had.
MR. BAKER: Does the minister get to go to Russia?
MR. SAMSON: The minister was supposed to go to the Caribbean when I was there, and that never happened.
MR. BAKER: I was not to the Caribbean.
MR. SAMSON: We will get more into this at a later date. Just a quick one to wrap up, the Nova Scotia Youth Conservation Corps, the funding is gone this year. Are you bringing it back next year, or has a decision been made . . .
MR. BAKER: I would anticipate that it is very unlikely that departmental funding for that program would be restored.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now turn the floor over to the New Democratic Party.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, I have to tell you this was all very amusing, but I don't think it was very enlightening. In fact, I am left wondering whether there is a lot of point in asking you very many questions at all. I am going to start off by telling you what I am hearing here.
What I am hearing is that the department, as a priority in your government, is so low on the list that a message is being sent to the private sector or anyone else out there who might be engaged in polluting activities that they might as well go right ahead, because the department could care less. There is going to be virtually no activity that is going to, in any kind of serious way, monitor, administer, take care of, enforce strict rules. It is gone.
What we are seeing here is an attack on an important department. It is being reduced so far down the priority list that this is just incredible. I have to remind you that the core function of your department is to protect the environment. That is what it is that Nova Scotians expect of that department. They expect that it should do it through a well-recognized range of tools and activities, and that is starting with education and monitoring and rule-setting and investigation and inspection and enforcement and environmental assessment.
Every one of those things is cut back or eliminated. Think about what you are doing with the library or with the State of the Environment Report or the number of staff or the
regional offices. This is a department where the 200 people who work in it are already run off their feet, and if they were, in fact, able to have the resources to do a serious job, you would need a lot more people in that department working a lot more hours to get out and deal with the serious sources of pollution that we have here. This just isn't happening.
What we are seeing is you are cutting the department by $2.5 million, 16 per cent total cuts in the spending in that department, staff reductions, reduction of offices in different parts of the province. I don't know how you can seriously expect that the people who are left over, with that reduced number of offices, are going to be able to seriously do their job. What they are going to be left doing is paper shuffling, that is what they are going to be doing. They are not going to be doing serious rule setting or investigation or inspection or enforcement. It is going to be a pretend Department of the Environment. Let's pretend that we are taking seriously protecting the environment; let's pretend that everyone is going to be guaranteed some kind of healthy life and that all of the ecosystems, all of the life-support systems on which we ultimately rely are going to be protected.
That doesn't emerge here. This is just a travesty. I find this amazing, that in setting the priorities, the government has chosen to beat up on this department so extensively. This is just wrong. Just out and out wrong.
AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us how you really feel.
MR. EPSTEIN: Let's look at some of the particulars. Let me start with one of the statements from your introductory statement, ". . . the department will turn the investigation of complaints respecting domestic well water quality and quantity over to the private sector. Maybe you will tell me how that works, and why it is that you have picked well water as something that ought to be turned over to the private sector."
Someone has a problem, they suspect, with the quality of their well water. They think it is being polluted. They call the department, the departments says, don't call us, get hold of a private lab and get them to come and do your investigation. Is that basically what you are saying here?
MR. BAKER: The capacity exists in the system to allow, whether for example it is a bacteriological test to be done at a hospital site, there are companies out there that will test for water discoloration. For example, iron in the water is a typical situation. Those kinds of things exist in the private sector. Just for the member's information, because I heard his initial comment, I want to highlight for his benefit those programs in which there is no reduction in funding. They are as follows: contaminated sites management, dangerous goods management, environmental assessment, environmental education - because I know the member mentioned education - industrial waste management, information technology, municipal water supply, radiation surveillance, sewage management and so forth. I can provide the list to the honourable member, to indicate that not all programs have been reduced.
The education issue, for example, I just want to talk briefly about that. I don't want to take the member's time up, but that is a program that was identified as theoretically discretionary. The department felt education was so important, notwithstanding the fact that it was a discretionary program, the program was maintained at the core funding level.
MR. EPSTEIN: Was that an answer about the well water?
MR. BAKER: What I was trying to indicate is that it was felt the private sector would be able to provide the opportunity to do that testing.
MR. EPSTEIN: It is not that there aren't private labs out there, we know there are private labs out there that can do bacteriological testing. What I am wondering is why in particular you picked out wells, which are the drinking water source for about 50 per cent of our population, as being something that should be turned over to the private sector, and can you give us other examples? What is the message that is being sent to people out there? At what point, when they have complaints about contaminants, are they going to be told by the department when they call up, sorry, don't call us, hire a private lab, and then send us the results, and maybe we will do something about it?
MR. BAKER: First of all, with respect to private wells, and there are obviously some exceptions to that, but with respect to private wells, the responsibility for private well water rests with the individual.
MR. EPSTEIN: You could say that about any contaminated site, any contaminated site is going to belong to some private individual. What I am saying is, why do you draw the line there? Tell us about everyone else and how they are going to relate to contamination on their sites. Are you going to say the same thing to them when they call up? You are a private landowner, it is pollution that is on your land, sorry, don't call us, we are just the Department of the Environment. First, you go to the lab and get the tests, and then come talk to us, maybe we will do something for you.
MR. BAKER: To provide further detail, the reason that the private sector and private individuals are allowed to arrange the testing themselves is because the capacity exists out there, readily, across Nova Scotia to do that. If as a result of the well being tested, there is found to be a deficiency, for example, in the well drilling regulations, something wasn't done properly, the department still retains its duty to get involved and enforce the regulations that are there. The reason this was chosen as an area where the private sector could be involved is because the capacity exists out there today, and it is something where individuals have historically had a great deal of responsibility for the well that is sited on their property in rural Nova Scotia.
[12:00 p.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: But the well drilling regulations, I think, are not the point. It may be that the well wasn't drilled or dug properly, but more likely it is a problem of contaminants coming from some other source. Let's just follow this example through, someone suspects they have problems with the quality of their well water, they call the Department of the Environment, the response is going to be, go to your local lab, talk to them, they will tell you how to take a sample or they will come do it for you, they will test it, and then get back to us with the results. Is that it?
MR. BAKER: That is basically it.
MR. EPSTEIN: Where are these labs located?
MR. BAKER: For example, and I can give you an illustration with respect to bacteriological tests, I know the hospitals in Nova Scotia do those kinds of tests readily.
MR. EPSTEIN: All the hospitals?
MR. BAKER: Certainly the ones that I am familiar with do them routinely. Just as a practising lawyer, I have dealt with a requirement of many mortgage companies that you have a water test that passes at the time you get your mortgage. People are used to going out and getting water tests conducted for financing reasons, to make sure that the water is satisfactory for security reasons. That is an example of the testing that is available, as far as I know, all across Nova Scotia.
MR. EPSTEIN: I could perhaps take this up with the Minister of Health in the other room. Are you saying that all of those lab testing facilities are going to be maintained? No chance any of those could be cut?
MR. BAKER: I don't know, but I think that has been a fee for service base.
MR. EPSTEIN: Sure, and I am familiar with it, too. Any lawyer is familiar with that service.
MR. BAKER: I think $12 was the going rate at the South Shore Regional Hospital for having a water test on your well. Frankly, I have paid that fee myself in the past to get my private well water tested, both for mortgage reasons and also, quite frankly, because I am concerned about the quality of my well water and wanted to have it tested.
MR. EPSTEIN: Generally that has been a bacteriological test, there is a whole range of other possible pollutants. They could come from a whole range of other sources. Let's just get over this one and look at the problem. Suppose someone finds that there is a problem,
they can either smell it in the water or the lab test confirms it. Then they get back to your department, and they say, okay, perhaps there are some petroleum traces in this, perhaps there is some other kind of contaminant. Then what is the department going to do?
MR. BAKER: We would become involved at that point.
MR. EPSTEIN: If you become involved, tell me what are you going to do? Then what? Are you going to say to them, no problem, leave it with us, we will investigate the possible sources of contaminants in your neighbourhood and stop it, or are you going to say, yes, you are right, that is petroleum, gee I have no idea where it is coming from. What happens next?
MR. BAKER: At that point, the department will become involved, as they always have, and will become involved in investigating the issue to determine where the source of the contamination is. The problem with generalized questions is you have to give generalized answers. Petroleum is a very good example because you may have the potential of a leaking storage tank, or what has historically been a leaking storage tank.
MR. EPSTEIN: What we call in the trade, LUST, leaking underground storage tank.
MR. BAKER: On the other hand, it may be the result of having iron in your water supply, where the simple solution is to simply tell that person, as many areas in rural Nova Scotia have iron in their water supply, to get a water conditioner. It may vary depending on what kind of contamination we are talking about.
MR. EPSTEIN: The possible sources of contamination in the case of something that has been identified as petroleum, it could be a leaking underground storage tank, it could be that there has been some kind of spill in the area recently, will the department still track that down? Will the department come out, view the site, and say, because of the lay of the land, because of what we know about the hydrogeology here, we think it is coming from over here, and then will they go over there and investigate? Is that going to happen?
MR. BAKER: The answer is yes, as they always have.
MR. EPSTEIN: Under the Environmental Support Services, you have cut the so-called Investigations and Enforcement. I take it the cut that has happened there is the person and support that was located in the main office here in the city. Is that right?
MR. BAKER: Just a moment, I have to check on the details. Are you talking about the general category of Environmental Support Services?
MR. EPSTEIN: Page 9.5, Environmental Support Services.
MR. BAKER: The breakdown and where the cost reductions are, there is a 3.3 per cent reduction, decrease in administration.
MR. EPSTEIN: I am talking about the line item, Investigations and Enforcement, which goes from $69,200 down to $0.
MR. BAKER: The short answer is that that cut is largely attributed to the elimination of a position at head office.
MR. EPSTEIN: It has been a while since I have checked on this, was that a fellow named Mike White? There was a person whose job title, I think, was an investigator who worked in the main office. Maybe I am misremembering his name.
MR. BAKER: I am not prepared to name him today, here in public. It is an elimination of a position at head office. It is not that I am trying to be obtuse, as the honourable member can appreciate, I just don't want to, on the public record, name a particular public servant.
MR. EPSTEIN: Have they been told?
MR. BAKER: There are a number of NSGEU issues involved in that, with all due respect. I am not trying to be obtuse here, to be honest with you.
MR. EPSTEIN: It is pretty explicit when it is investigations and enforcement and it is one person. Presumably there is one person there working, and the question is very straight-forward. Have they been told? If not, it is right here. Has this person been told?
MR. BAKER: The person knows the funding is gone from the position.
MR. EPSTEIN: I can well understand there may be questions of bumping and qualification, and that is not our business here.
MR. BAKER: That is right, that is why I am reluctant to name a name.
MR. EPSTEIN: Could you just tell me what it is that person was doing?
MR. BAKER: I guess coordination would be the best description of the job. Apparently he also did some special investigation work as well as coordination.
MR. EPSTEIN: My recollection of dealing with that person is that he was either an ex-RCMP officer or someone who had some special training in investigation that qualified that person to get out and do this kind of investigation. They worked with the department's lawyers and the Department of Justice lawyers on prosecutions and stop orders or ministerial orders when they came up from time to time.
MR. BAKER: My understanding is that regional department staff had received training to allow them to fulfil that function.
MR. EPSTEIN: This is regional staff in the offices that are being reduced and dispersed and where people are being cut as well.
MR. BAKER: I don't want to get argumentative, but, for example, with respect to regional staff, there has been a significant refocusing of the amount of time of regional staff as a result of the fact that they are no longer going to be doing the design work for on-site sewage disposal systems, which was taking a very large proportion of the time of regional staff. That is why the refocusing, because you have to look at the kind of time commitment that that particular function meant to regional staff.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can you tell me about what additional training, then, the regional staff have had in doing investigations? Is this something new?
MR. BAKER: Apparently the department has, over the last while, sent a number of people in each region out to an RCMP school in Edmonton for extensive training in that area.
MR. EPSTEIN: Are you now expecting that they are not going to be doing the sewage work, or just charging for it, or are you expecting that if you charge for it . . .
MR. BAKER: They will not be doing design work. The environmental inspectors will not be doing design work, if this is the area where the QP1s and QP2s will be taking over the design work. So the inspectors will, in fact, be inspecting and auditing the program to make sure that the private sector designers are designing the systems according to the regulations.
MR. EPSTEIN: I am having a little trouble following this. Maybe you could just explain about an on-site sewage system and tell me what someone has to do.
MR. BAKER: I will give you a very tangible example. Up to April 15, 2000, there were two systems in place. An individual could choose to go to a Department of the Environment office and make an application for a permit for an on-site sewage disposal system. When they made that application for the permit, they had a choice, up to April 15th of this year. Their choice was, they could have a Department of the Environment inspector design that system and supervise the installation of that system or they could hire a person who was a QP1 - a QP1 is an engineer - or a QP2. QP2s are basically surveyors or installers with a specialized course in design. Those people would design a system, according to the regulations, that would fit on that lot. They would then supervise the installation of the lot, do the testing of the soil and all those kinds of things. There was a dual system.
The decision that has been taken is to terminate the option of having the department do it because a very large amount of the regional inspector's time was being taken up in doing
the design for private systems so that they could refocus their time - and there is going to be some reduction in staff but it will not be at all proportional to the reduction in workload. I can tell you from rural Nova Scotia, in the summertime in particular, a large percentage of the time of inspectors was taken up simply looking at holes in the ground - the initial testing, doing the paper design and those kinds of things. The idea is to allow the inspectors who are left - and there is a reduction in inspector staff - the 70 inspectors who are left, I believe is the correct number, to focus their time on auditing the design and to doing other things that inspectors do. I am not trying to make this difficult but I am just trying to explain the system because it is a fairly elaborate system.
MR. EPSTEIN: What does that mean, auditing the design? Does it mean that before the QP1 or QP2 installs it they send in their diagram of how they intend to put it in?
MR. BAKER: Yes, that is right.
MR. EPSTEIN: Or will the department staff actually visit the sites?
MR. BAKER: There are two components. First of all, with respect to staff, there will still be a determination made by the inspector that the design meets regulations because there are regulations that are under the Act. So they will, first of all, assess to make sure a design meets that. The second part is there will be spot audits conducted on the installation to make sure that the private sector QP1s and QP2s know what they are supposed to be doing. Each system will continue to receive an approval by the department, based on a review of the department of the design submitted.
MR. EPSTEIN: Based on a paper review.
MR. BAKER: A paper review plus there will continue to be an audit program to ensure compliance by the QP1s and QP2s with the regulations. What is going to be avoided is a situation where in every situation, an environmental inspector will be there on-site in every situation.
MR. EPSTEIN: The $50 fee is for the paper review and for the spot audits that may take place.
MR. BAKER: Exactly, that is right.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to tell you that I am not convinced that this is a better system. I am not convinced that this privatizing of this particular function is necessarily going to ensure compliance and I have to tell you that common experience is that in the direct dealings with someone, if you want to build on your lot, unfortunately, it may well be that you are going to get a system that might look okay on paper but may not be to the best on the grounds. That is why we have the inspection systems and why the government was running
it in the first place, I think, to be at arm's length from the building lot owners or the developers of subdivisions. That is the problem that I am worried about.
MR. BAKER: Not to take any more of your time but with respect to the present system - and it has been in place for some time now - with respect to subdivisions, you referred to that in particular. It is my understanding you have to have an engineer, a QP1, now, today. There is no option. The government has not been in the business for some considerable time now of doing those kinds of designs.
MR. EPSTEIN: It is not the doing of the design that I am concerned about, it is the on-site inspection.
MR. BAKER: No, they wouldn't actually have been going out to the site either on subdivisions for I think it is a couple of years now, two years I believe.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, over a year doesn't sound to me like quite some time and I am sorry to hear it.
MR. BAKER: I guess what I am saying is it was a decision made prior to the last election.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, and subdivision is a variable term. It doesn't have to mean 150 or 200 or 1,000 lots. It can mean one, two or three lots.
MR. BAKER: I think it was multiple lots before.
MR. EPSTEIN: Multiple being?
MR. BAKER: It was five.
MR. EPSTEIN: Turning to the Environmental Assessment Board, when we look back at the number of dollars that have been spent on the Environmental Assessment Board over the last couple of years, you are projecting $100,000 for this coming year. It was $85,000 this past year and it was $150,000, roughly, the year before. This is on Page 9.3 of the Supplementary Detail. Now I know this is variable, according to the number of cases that are actually sent for public hearing. I take it that is what we are looking at. These are the public hearing, Class II, environmental assessments that are heard by the board. Have you any recollection of what the general costs of those have been over a longer period of time? Have they been roughly in that sort of general range? I don't regard this as a wild fluctuation but is it generally what we are looking at here, about $100,000?
MR. BAKER: I am advised by staff that that $100,000 is a fairly constant number over time.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can you tell me what fees, if any, are paid by an applicant whose project is ultimately referred or perhaps mandatorily heard by the board?
MR. BAKER: There are no fees.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is there a particular reason why you haven't chosen to bring in a fee with respect to this area of activity?
MR. BAKER: I don't think there is a particular reason. I don't think there is any ulterior or other motive to it.
MR. EPSTEIN: The minister will be aware - sorry, was there something else that you want to add?
MR. BAKER: No, just to indicate that there is one management position attached to that function that was cut which has helped to keep the thing flat at the $100,000 number.
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, in any event, the minister will be aware that a long-standing irritant with respect to the environmental assessment process has been the absence of participant funding. This is something that I hope will be looked at in this year's revision of the Environment Act. I have no idea how the panel that is looking at the Act is thinking about this issue. I suppose we will find out around the beginning of July but introducing a fee for the processing of these kinds of Class II undertakings is one way of approaching that, I will remind the minister. So long as he is thinking about fees . . .
MR. BAKER: I am always thinking about fees.
MR. EPSTEIN: Could you tell me a little bit more about - and this is something that shows up in a different department but maybe you can tell me how it relates to your department. When I look at Page 21.9 of the Supplementary Detail, there is an item that shows up under the Department of Transportation and Public Works and it is called Environmental Remediation. I wonder if you can help me understand what this is compared with what it is that your department does?
MR. BAKER: Perhaps ask the question again.
MR. EPSTEIN: All right. When I look at another line item in the Department of Transportation and Public Works I find something called Environmental Remediation which last year was about $5.5 million and this year is going to be about $3.5 million. Part of it is the Sydney tar ponds, I know.
MR. BAKER: The other part of it is Five Island Lake.
MR. EPSTEIN: I am aware of that. Also, when I look at some of the explanation, it says it also provides the project management in direction for the contracts involving water quality and quantity investigations, on-site sewage disposal, remediation of contaminated sites, building demolition, et cetera, part of which sounds to me exactly like what it is that you are talking about in your department. Can you help me understand how these two interact?
MR. BAKER: I know the department sets the standards and so what is going on here is that . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: Your department sets the standards?
MR. BAKER: The Department of the Environment sets the standards. They are responsible for actually doing the work. They are the doers and the Department of the Environment acts as a regulator. I think it provides some obviously positive constructive ideas on how to do those kinds of things.
MR. EPSTEIN: When it says in their list, on-site sewage disposal, they do on-site sewage disposal?
MR. BAKER: Apparently, if it is with respect to the contaminated site itself, they have done some.
MR. EPSTEIN: So does that mean that to the extent you were talking before about compiling an inventory of contaminated sites and setting the priorities for remediation, that that is what your department would be doing? It would be identifying the sites, identifying those that were most in need but your department wouldn't do the work, the Department of Transportation would?
MR. BAKER: That is correct. My understanding is the Department of the Environment does not conduct the work. It is part of trying to separate the function of the regulator from the doer.
MR. EPSTEIN: Fair enough. What I wondered about that was how far along you are with any of this work so far and in particular, where you think you are going to start and how you think the costs are going to be paid for the clean-up work.
MR. BAKER: The answer is I can't give you the answer because it really is the Department of Transportation and Public Works' budget that allows for the conduct of the work.
MR. EPSTEIN: You see I am a little puzzled about this because if the Department of Transportation and Public Works is picking up the tab for it, it is another branch of the provincial government and if the provincial government is picking up the tab for it, then it suggests to me either what we are talking about is sites that belong to the provincial government or orphan sites for which there is no known owner or the owner is bankrupt or something like that. Is that we are talking about?
MR. BAKER: The Five Island Lake site would be an example of the latter category.
MR. EPSTEIN: So is that a correct assumption?
MR. BAKER: That is right. There are two types of sites, there is no question about it.
MR. EPSTEIN: In the United States, of course, there is something called the superfund which has been put together and generated in order to pay for these kinds of circumstances in which there is no identifiable owner or the owner is bankrupt or gone away. I wonder how it is you are thinking that a source of money will be put together in order to pay for these sites?
MR. BAKER: A lot of this question would have to be dealt with by the Department of Transportation and Public Works in their estimates but the Department of the Environment is in the process of creating a framework which would allow for the identification of these sites and obviously part of that framework is to try to identify sources of funding - for lack of a better way of putting it - for conducting the work once the projects are identified.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, paying for it is important and the work won't get done if the money isn't there. Let me point out that there is a model that is already in place in Nova Scotia which has to do with mining. In mines, for example, it has been the rule, I think now for perhaps a decade, that anyone opening a mine has to post a reclamation bond so that there are funds available and guaranteed available upon closure of the industrial activity to reclaim the site. What I wonder is whether this is a model that you have considered and I wonder if there is any potential for that, given that a lot of these sites are already orphan sites?
MR. BAKER: The short answer is staff advise me that yes, they have looked at Saskatchewan and Manitoba where that kind of a process is in place and staff are working on developing a suggestion on how that might be adapted to the Nova Scotia environment.
MR. EPSTEIN: Who is going to do the research on the contaminated sites? Who is going to identify them? Is this going to be a special research project inside the department? Are you going to go out to the regional offices and ask for their advice? What is going to happen here? Who is going to do this and when?
MR. BAKER: The sites have hitherto come to the attention of the department simply through the ordinary functions of the department. For example, and I know you have spoken about it before, when someone has well water tested and they find that they have, for example, traces of gasoline or diesel fuel in their well water, then obviously the department, as I indicated earlier, continues to be in the business of looking for the source of that contamination. As a result of that, they identify an inventory, unfortunately, of sites in Nova Scotia that are contaminated. Really, what they are talking about is the ordinary function of the department as an entity produces a list of contaminated sites.
MR. EPSTEIN: My information, Mr. Minister, is that there are about 6,000 identified sites so far that your department is aware of. If the number is different, I would appreciate hearing of it. What I wonder is, do you have any estimate of how much it would cost to clean up these sites?
MR. BAKER: My understanding from the department staff is that department staff have identified 256 so there is a significant difference between 6,000 and 256.
MR EPSTEIN: Well, we better compare our source of information.
MR. BAKER: I think we better compare lists.
MR. EPSTEIN: So you are prepared to admit to 250 at this point in time.
MR. BAKER: We are 5,000-odd apart.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, let's start with those. What do you think it is going to cost to clean them up?
MR. BAKER: There are a variety of different approaches being considered, depending on the site. Some sites, it is a question of monitoring, other sites, remediation. For example, land use controls, in some areas, one large problem, apparently, is our former landfill sites. In many cases, significant remediation is impossible or it would be so grossly cost prohibitive that it is effectively impossible. In those areas, land use controls in surrounding land is one issue. Monitoring is another issue to determine what kind of areas are affected. The reason the framework, which I indicated earlier, and why the department is working on a framework is so that they could have a systematic way of dealing with sites and classifying those sites and then dealing with the best way of handling those problems.
[12:30 p.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, do you plan to publish a list of such contaminated sites with the nature of the contamination and perhaps an assessment of the level of danger they pose? The question I am really asking is, how will the public get to know about these sites?
As you can readily imagine, people who are thinking of purchasing land or building or engaging in any kind of normal day-to-day activity would probably want to know some of this in advance rather than to find it out after the fact.
MR. BAKER: That is something that we are looking at and we can perhaps even provide the honourable member with the information sooner rather than later.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I wasn't making a private request, let's be clear. What I was asking . . .
MR. BAKER: I know. I am simply saying we are looking at a way of making that information available to the public generally but in the short term, in order to answer your question, and I understand that you are not the personal investigator of 256 sites, but I guess what I am indicating to the member is that the short answer is we can give you an answer to the first question and the second answer is we are looking at a way of making that more generally readily available.
MR. EPSTEIN: In fact, I would have thought the Internet was a fairly easy way of doing this and posting that information to a website with notice to the affected professions I would have thought might be a step in the right direction. Is there any chance that that might happen?
MR. BAKER: There is a very good chance.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is there any chance it might happen in my lifetime? (Laughter)
MR. BAKER: How long are you planning to live?
MR. EPSTEIN: Quite a while.
Can I ask a couple of questions about Halifax Harbour, Mr. Minister?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: I saw a letter just recently from the Premier addressed to the HRM. I think it was a letter dated February or March in which he pointed out that there was not going to be any provincial contribution to the capital costs of building any sewage treatment system in the HRM that was a response to a request for funding in the order of $52.5 million. The Premier, I think, did offer to assist the HRM in trying to beat some money out of the feds. I wonder if that is still the case. I didn't notice any $52.5 million grants to the HRM in the budget. Is that right?
MR. BAKER: You didn't notice that? Gee whiz. No, I don't want to make light of what is a very serious problem. I think that that is correct, that there is no money available. Clearly, any sewage treatment plant that would be designed would require a Department of the Environment approval as to its operational capabilities but the Province of Nova Scotia does not have identified any money to help fund that at the present time.
MR. EPSTEIN: Has there been a joint approach to the federal government with respect to either securing the proposed $52.5 million share from the federal government or upping their share to cover the now non-existent provincial share?
MR. BAKER: I don't have that information. It hasn't been done through this department. That is all I can tell you.
MR. EPSTEIN: Have you any knowledge of whether the project is going to be able to go ahead, absent a provincial contribution?
MR. BAKER: I don't know the answer to that.
MR. EPSTEIN: One of the questions that always arises about any kind of project of this magnitude is whether there is going to be an environmental assessment. You will recall that the predecessor project went through a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment back in 1992-93 but I believe . . .
MR. BAKER: That is correct.
MR. EPSTEIN: . . . your predecessor minister, or perhaps it was Mr. Russell, decided at some point back in the fall that there wouldn't be any provincial environmental assessment for the Halifax Harbour project. Can you tell me why?
MR. BAKER: I guess it is not required to have one. The next question I know you are going to ask me is why.
MR. EPSTEIN: I know why it is not required, it is because we have such a wishy-washy Environment Act and the Class I and Class II definitions of when environmental assessments are required is not very satisfactory. I also know that it is entirely within the discretion of the Minister of the Environment to decide to take any project of which he becomes aware and order a full-scale environmental assessment if he wishes. So my question really was, why is it that no decision was made to require a full-scale environmental assessment?
MR. BAKER: I am advised that the difference between the former project where the assessment was conducted and this one is because of the difference in technologies. The technologies being proposed for the new project, the department understands are existing technologies that do not require assessment.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think the technology that was in the predecessor project was a waste to energy plant so it was certainly a different kind of technology, that is true, but there is quite a significant difference in the configuration of what it is that the system previously was going to look like and what the system now might look at. Previously they were talking about one treatment plant, now they are talking about at least four sites. I am sure the minister is well aware that one of the most contentious issues around many facilities having to do either with solid or liquid waste is where the treatment facilities go. These are generally known as LULUs, locally unwanted land uses, and the problem becomes how do you site them. That is one of the reasons that often many residents hope that there is an environmental assessment of major projects because they get to discuss the appropriateness of the siting. I wonder if the minister knew whether the siting issue was one that was considered by his department when they thought about this?
MR. BAKER: No, the siting issue is for the municipal unit to look at the siting issue. I think it is perhaps, and I can relate a certain personal experience, that some of these - and I have had a personal experience as a solicitor for a municipal unit on a siting of one of these facilities - and there tends to be, I think you are right, a lot of people in the local area who misperceive how these operations work and sometimes object, but that is best handled by the municipal government in their own siting decision. They are oftentimes not really environmental issues in the classic sense. They are issues of this site is better than that site, those kind of issues of local politics.
MR. EPSTEIN: It is not always a question of perception or uneducated reaction. I think, for example, about the possibility of having a treatment plant and effluent coming out of a treatment plant still being only the primary level of treatment. In a community like Herring Cove, where there is an active lobster fishery, and where there are a lot of storage tanks in the water nearby, I would have thought that is a classic example of an environmental problem.
MR. BAKER: Perhaps to focus it a bit more, the department will continue to do testing and require that studies be done on the receiving water, which is what the honourable member is talking about, and that there is clear assessment of what the impact is going to be on the receiving water.
MR. EPSTEIN: Although where the receiving water is salt water, it is federal responsibility and, of course, that involves the question of the possibility of a federal environmental assessment. I wonder, does the minister know whether the federal authorities have decided now whether they are going to call for a federal environmental assessment?
MR. BAKER: I can tell you that the HRM has initiated the federal environmental assessment process. I have no advice as to what the outcome of that will be but I can indicate that regardless of whether it is salt water or not, we are going to require studies on the receiving water.
MR. EPSTEIN: Glad to hear it; very good, thank you.
Mr. Minister, there was passing reference earlier to the tar ponds; you referred to it, although you referred to it as being an actual responsibility of another department. Can you just tell me what involvement, if any, your department has in that project?
MR. BAKER: As I indicated before, the Department of Transportation and Public Works is primarily responsible in the area of doing the work and that kind of stuff. We provide advice on, for example, the tar ponds, on management issues and those kinds of things. Primarily, we have an advice-giving and regulating responsibility.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can you help me understand the current state of play in the eyes of your department with respect to which areas in the vicinity of the tar ponds are fit to live in?
MR. BAKER: Just a moment. I think that requires a very careful answer. My information is that the JAG process has commissioned a study, dealing with the issue of separation distances and uses within certain separation distances. That is part of the JAG process. I am not going to comment any further on the JAG process except to say that there are other powers greater than me on working that.
MR. EPSTEIN: May I fairly conclude that the department has no view or position on this?
MR. BAKER: I think you can fairly conclude that we are waiting for the study. The staff advised me that whenever an assessment is required by the department, that one of the things we are requiring, if it is a use within the general area and it is something that requires an assessment, that we are requiring a health risk management study to determine what the health risk may be as a result of that undertaking.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to say, I don't think I quite understood the answer. Are you saying that if some project came along that would require an environmental assessment in a formal sense under the Act?
MR. BAKER: In a situation where an approval is required for the Department of the Environment for a project - and there are some kinds of projects, as we know, that require department approvals and many that don't - the Department of the Environment requires a health risk study be done before an approval be given by the department.
MR. EPSTEIN: That is if there is a particular project that comes forward for consideration.
MR. BAKER: Exactly.
MR. EPSTEIN: In the meantime, in the case of any individual residents who are in the vicinity of the tar ponds, when they have health concerns, who should they be contacting? Is it your department or the Department of Health?
MR. BAKER: The medical officer at the Department of Health.
MR. EPSTEIN: So it doesn't involve any of your inspectors or officials or do you just keep a watching brief on this? What do you do?
MR. BAKER: This, as we all know, is probably the most serious situation in Canada. The tar ponds is not something where instant solutions, unfortunately, are very possible, or appear to be. We certainly have a watching brief, I guess that is the best way of putting it, but clearly the Department of Health has the primary role when it deals with health issues in that area.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, when do you expect the exclusionary studies to be completed?
MR. BAKER: Staff has just been told that it would be fairly shortly and I know your question would be fairly shortly and I can't give you any more detail on what fairly shortly is. Within your lifetime, again, Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is it within the next fiscal year?
MR. BAKER: Yes, I think that would be fairly shortly.
MR. EPSTEIN: Then if it is within the next fiscal year, the minister will know, of course, that the Sierra Club of Canada has been calling for some time for a mechanism to allow those who wish to move but who are in a much wider area than merely Frederick Street and Curry's Lane to be enabled to be moved. Should the exclusion area studies show that something like that is warranted, is the money for that in the JAG fund or is it in the Department of Transportation and Public Works or is it in the Department of the Environment or is it nowhere and maybe it will be found?
MR. BAKER: I guess it is hard to anticipate a study that hasn't been completed.
MR. EPSTEIN: It is going to happen this fiscal year and what I am saying is . . .
MR. BAKER: Any funding that would come would have to come from the Department of Transportation and Public Works.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, it is not in your budget.
MR. BAKER: It certainly is not.
MR. EPSTEIN: All right. Have you seen it anywhere else?
MR. BAKER: Not that I have but in all fairness I will leave you with the fine-tooth combs for our department.
MR. EPSTEIN: I haven't seen it anywhere else either, I have to say.
Mr. Minister, can you tell me, are there any special research studies that are being undertaken in your department at the moment? I know in the past the department has published special studies on air quality and on water quality. There have been, essentially the equivalent of White Papers that have come out. You talked earlier about contaminated sites being a project that is going on this year. Are there any others like this that are going on at the moment?
MR. BAKER: Two areas that the department is looking at are to begin publishing or do studies on air quality and the other one is with respect to groundwater, particularly in the Annapolis Valley.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do I take it that the air quality study would be a follow-up to the study that was done in November 1991 or 1992? Is that right?
MR. BAKER: Yes, the study in 1995.
MR. EPSTEIN: Maybe I missed one but the last one I remember was 1991 or 1992.
MR. BAKER: I am sure you will read it, Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: I will check, if I can get to your library.
MR. BAKER: Before it is closed. Hurry.
MR. EPSTEIN: What is the groundwater study?
MR. BAKER: The groundwater study would be a study with Agriculture, the groundwater in the Annapolis Valley.
MR. EPSTEIN: A very good idea. When do you expect these studies to be completed?
MR. BAKER: I am advised the next air quality report should be out within the next three months. The anticipation is it would take a year or more to finish the groundwater study in the Annapolis Valley because that is a very big project.
MR. EPSTEIN: These are intended to be published studies, is that right?
MR. BAKER: I am sure they are.
MR. EPSTEIN: Just a bit more about the groundwater in the Annapolis Valley. Can you tell me, has the contract for this been let or is it being done in-house by the government?
MR. BAKER: My understanding is the funding is coming from Agriculture and the federal government and that the contract has not been let yet.
MR. EPSTEIN: Will this be looking at both quality and quantity of the groundwater?
MR. BAKER: It is a quantity issue primarily, availability of groundwater; the tapping of the water, so to speak.
MR. EPSTEIN: Oh, yes, I know what you mean.
MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute left.
MR. EPSTEIN: Actually, I think it is probably a convenient break for my list at this point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that all, Mr. Epstein?
MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Epstein is finished, I believe, for the moment. I don't think he has given up either.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I go back to the Liberal caucus, are there any members of the government caucus who would like to ask any questions? Hearing none, I will now go back to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I was absent for a few minutes. I don't know if the committee has taken any breaks at all yet. I don't know if the minister and his staff . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not at all.
MR. BAKER: Perhaps we could have a five minute or 10 minute break.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will give you a seven minute break. We will reconvene at 1:00 p.m.
MR. BAKER: That sounds fine with me.
[12:53 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[1:07 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have had a brief break, but since the Liberal member is not here for questions at the present time, I will pass the floor, for a couple of quick freebie snappers, over to the member for Halifax Chebucto.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Well, I have checked, not with your departmental library, but with the Legislative Library, that the 1995 report was actually indoor air quality. It was apparently published by the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council and the indoor air quality working group. It was called, Indoor Air Quality Documents. Am I mistaken in not having read this? Should I have read it because there is an environmental dimension here?
MR. BAKER: I am advised by departmental staff, and on this one I think I am going to rely on them, that we did an outdoor air quality study in 1995.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, I haven't found the reference to it yet, but I will keep looking.
MR. BAKER: I am sure you will.
MR. EPSTEIN: Going through the Supplement to the Public Accounts, could you tell me what the $72,539.95 grant to Clean Nova Scotia is for?
MR. BAKER: That was three separate initiatives. The ICI Organic Program of approximately $32,000, the used oil education program of approximately $23,000 and the reimbursement for employee seconded to Clean Nova Scotia of $16,950.
MR. EPSTEIN: I am not sure about the last one. Could you just run that one by me again? Compensation for an employee seconded? One of your employees? One of their employees?
MR. BAKER: One of their employees.
MR. EPSTEIN: Who was seconded to your department?
MR. BAKER: Exactly. We reimbursed them for that expenditure.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, so those were essentially projects, I guess. Is that right?
MR. BAKER: There is no core funding to Clean Nova Scotia at the present time. They receive project funding.
MR. EPSTEIN: There is also a significant line item to Nova Scotia Power Inc. Could you explain to me what $445,000 went to Nova Scotia Power for? I can hardly wait.
MR. BAKER: My note indicates that is the cost of supplying electrical power at Middle River pumping station, Pictou County; Landrie Lake utility, Port Hawkesbury; and Lockeport utility. It is the payment to run the pumps at the utilities. We have water utilities that unfortunately are owned by the Province of Nova Scotia and the pumping equipment at those utilities and other processing equipment require electrical power, so we have paid $445,000 to operate those utilities.
MR. EPSTEIN: What water utilities? What do they do?
MR. BAKER: We have one at Middle River, Pictou County; Landrie Lake, which is near Port Hawkesbury; and Lockeport. We are unfortunately in the water utility business too. I should indicate that we also obviously sell the water and what you are looking at is the line item where it is one of the costs of operating one of those utilities.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to say this is completely news to me. I had no idea the province was in the water utility business. Who do you sell the water to? Is this to municipalities?
MR. BAKER: Well, for example, Sarah Huskilson is one of our customers because although it is an industrial water utility in the Lockeport area, in fact some of the water is supplied to the Town of Lockeport, including to the municipal building in Lockeport, they are a customer of ours.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Epstein. Now that our Liberal representative has joined us we will resume with questions from their Party.
The honourable member for Richmond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I guess I will go back to where I finished off. It appears that RRFB money has caught the attention of our good colleagues in the media and we will go back to that one a little later on.
Back with Environmental Industries and Technologies, they have taken a reduction of $130,000. You indicated that there was an $83,000 operational cut, which basically is a travel cut; $36,000, professional services; $5,000, general operations; and $18,000, meeting expenses. What is meeting expenses?
MR. BAKER: Perhaps I can provide more details. That item was for - and that was in the past year's estimates - workshops around the province and so that is a reduction in that program.
MR. SAMSON: Out of the $710,000 that you have left in that budget, how much of that goes to salary?
MR. BAKER: That is $567,400, as opposed to $557,400 in the previous fiscal year.
MR. SAMSON: So, that is just incremental increases?
MR. BAKER: Exactly.
MR. SAMSON: What is left as a remainder in that? What is the remainder for?
MR. BAKER: I can go through, for example, every item. There is travel in province, travel outside of province, conferences in province.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, can you give me a projected number for each?
MR. BAKER: Sure. Last year's general travel in province was $9,900.
MR. SAMSON: Do you have a target for this year?
MR. BAKER: Yes, I am going to give you both.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, can you give me last year and this year?
MR. BAKER: Yes, I will. Last year's in-province travel was $9,900; this year it is $2,300. Last year's travel out of province was $26,100; this year's is $7,800. Conference in province, there was nothing last year, and there is nothing this year. Conferences out of province, there was nothing last year, and there is nothing this year. The kilometres travelled, we allocated $22,400 for last year; this year it is $11,700. Air fare in province last year was $13,900; this year, $2,400. Air fare out of province, last year was $46,000; this year, $11,200.
Next item would be professional services and that was the $83,000 last year and this year it is $47,000. Other professional services was nothing last year and is nothing this year. Printing and stationery was $4,000 last year and $4,000 this year. Last year, we spent $30,000 on general operating supplies; this year it is $25,200. Telecommunications was nothing. Basic service charges for telephone would be $5,500 and remains $5,500. Long distance telephone calls was $10,000 and remains $10,000. Meeting expenses was $33,800 and is now $15,500.
MR. SAMSON: That was $33,800 and is now $15,500. That is meeting expenses?
MR. BAKER: That is correct. The total operational costs have been reduced from $284,600 to $142,600.
MR. SAMSON: I am glad we have that breakdown.
MR. BAKER: You should have last year's book. We could have put them in the next . . .
MR. SAMSON: I didn't want to go digging through it. My real interest was not last year's numbers or the year before's numbers, my real interest was these numbers. I don't know where to start. Ironically, I was looking through the speech I gave in 1999 about . . .
MR. BAKER: Was it a good speech?
MR. SAMSON: Well, you know, I got some compliments from some of the socialists that were here then, so I didn't think it was too bad; they said it was informative, so I accepted that as a compliment.
MR. BAKER: It must have been a weak moment on their part.
MR. SAMSON: I recall quite fondly how Environmental Industries and Technologies was one of the divisions that we - if I can use the word - bragged about the most, considering the accomplishments it had made. In essence, it was figured out in 1999 that there were up to 7,300 public sector jobs and private sector jobs in the field of Environmental Industries and Technologies. The thing was that this was the type of thing that was benefiting every region throughout this province. I recall in 1999-2000, that we wanted to continue to assist locally based companies, increase trade with priority export markets in the Caribbean and Europe, so I think it has gone.
MR. BAKER: Pardon?
MR. SAMSON: This was the priority of the department in the EIT sector - Environmental Industries and Technologies - and one of our goals was that we would
continue to assist locally based companies, increase trade with priority export markets in the Caribbean and Europe. Is that, I would assume . . .
MR. BAKER: I think it is fair to say that we are refocusing our efforts more locally than previously.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, so overseas markets is no longer the primary focus of this division?
MR. BAKER: That is correct. I don't want to give the impression to the honourable member that we have given up in those markets, but it is the primary focus.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. I see here you are considering the success of Americana '99, which the department participated in. I take it that the department will no longer be participating in that trade show. That was the one in Montreal.
MR. BAKER: We will be doing either Americana or the Boston Trade Show, one or the other. I think it is an assessment of what is going to give the best bang for the buck.
MR. SAMSON: I am curious, in The Course Ahead, in talking about Environment, your government basically spoke a number of times with regard to the Environmental Industries and Technologies. It said, "Address environmental challenges by working with staff, local businesses, municipalities, and other government departments to provide solutions to environmental issues; initiate job creation opportunities in the environmental sector through the promotion of cost-effective and innovative environmental solutions and technologies. Assist in the development, demonstration, and export growth of environmental technologies by researching trends, evaluating technologies, and providing business advice to entrepreneurs."
As you are probably aware, your government and your Minister of Economic Development, I believe, will shortly be attending a trade show in the United States. Your government has clearly indicated they believe trade shows are an important tool in economic development and export growth, but basically what you have done to the EIT division is you have eliminated the possibility of attending trade shows in any real fashion, with these cuts that have been made to the department; out-of-province travel has been cut more than 50 per cent, it is almost 80 per cent. How do you reconcile the statement you are making to Nova Scotians, in this department, with the reality of the budget figures, where you have basically gutted this department? This one division has probably been the most successful division throughout government in creating employment and new industries for export throughout the world.
MR. BAKER: Certainly there is an element of having to do more with less, but I can assure the honourable member that the departmental staff are in fact meeting with key
companies in this sector to take their suggestions on how the money can best be spent. What we want to do - and I share the former minister's view that this is an important area - is we intend to make sure that there is consultation with the industry community to make sure that that money is targetted in the way that it should be.
I can also tell the member that the decision about whether we go to the Boston Trade Show or the Americana Trade Show is a decision based on assessment of where we are going to do the best. Clearly, if there were unlimited amounts of money, which there aren't, you could probably always find something useful to do with the money. We made a choice, and the choice was to refocus some of the funds on other priorities.
MR. SAMSON: That is the thing, you say you have refocused funds on other priorities, but the message you are giving and what you have done are two different things. Your message is that you are investing in these priorities of spending money to encourage growth, which is what this division does. It not only creates growth, it creates new technology, it benefits the environment with some of the technologies coming out. What you have done in reality is, this one division, which had the greatest potential of encouraging growth and economic development, which in the end benefits your entire government, the one division that could do this, you have taken that away from them because you have basically brought them down to the core here, so even though opportunities arise, Nova Scotia now has to say, sorry, we can't afford to go.
I am not going to bore the minister with all sorts of examples of the opportunities created by these trade shows. I think of Americana '99, the Bulbeater for example, I am sure the deputy recalls that one quite fondly. It was a great success; markets in Japan were developed because of that trade show. For the money we invested, they are now manufacturing that Bulbeater here in metro. It is creating jobs being manufactured, and it is being exported, bringing money back into this province. There are all sorts of examples like that.
What your government has done, through this department, is basically, those success stories are now going to, I wouldn't say become a thing of the past, but be much more limited than what they could be. One could say maybe EIT could look to the Department of Economic Development, should there be opportunities and they don't have the money in their budget; well, that is not an option anymore because your government has cut 45 per cent of the Department of Economic Development budget.
Is it the statement of the minister that with this reduction from $284,000 to $142,000 of this most important division, they have nowhere to go should there be opportunities that arise - if trade shows arise or opportunities arise - if they need more funding, is there anywhere for them to turn within the department or within government?
MR. BAKER: Certainly there exists the possibility, always, in the correct circumstances. First of all, the Department of Economic Development still has significant amounts of money that are available and still capable of being identified for particular projects. Second of all, we have kept the critical staff personnel component intact, so that we can continue to provide the advice to Nova Scotia companies on how to access these markets. We made a very determined effort to do that so that we had the capacity in Nova Scotia to provide the assistance to this group of companies.
As I indicated earlier, we are going to be consulting with companies in this industry sector to make sure that the money we have is spent wisely. We believe that we can accomplish the core objectives of promoting this sector with the funding that is available.
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, I am certainly pleased there have been no staff reductions. In fact, my biggest fear was that your government would eliminate this section of the department in its entirety. I am pleased that did not happen. With all due respect, you have kept them but you have tied their hands. I can only think of how many opportunities the staff in that division are going to see coming up this year that they are not going to have to be able to participate in because of the fact that their budget has been slashed the way it has been slashed. Out-of-province travel went from $26,000 to $7,000 and in-province travel went from $9,200 to $2,300. I know the minister says they want to focus on Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick; well, I just hope they don't go visit them too often or they will have no budget left.
I am not trying to be silly here but, really, they have a budget that limits them to travelling within the Maritime Provinces and, at that, not going too often. It appears that this is just an example of window dressing, saying we have saved it and they can do all these great things, but when you look at how much money they have to spend, well, they can't really do very much because there is no more money left in there. I am not sure what the solution is. I hope the minister will talk to his colleagues and not only try to make a commitment to keep this department, but for the love of God give them some money to spend. The more money they spend, in the end it has been proven the more money and revenue they bring back into this province and more jobs are created.
If this is the road that this government is going down, by cutting this division by that much in their budget, next year, if you are going to do any further cuts, it almost defeats the purpose of keeping that; it will be in name only. I hope the minister will reconsider that.
I want to go back to another item. We spoke earlier on the RRFB. Ironically, this is great timing. The estimates from last year seem to have arrived just recently. In looking through last year's, as I said previously, your predecessor spoke at length of his belief that with the elimination of the Municipal Assistance Fund, which I believe was in the range of
$1.6 million, his feelings were that the money lost from that fund could be recouped from the RRFB. I remember the argument coming up that because the recuperation of bottles and recyclables had moved from the Nova Scotia liquor stores to the RRFB, that that would increase their budget by $1.6 million.
Now, Mr. Russell said, "At the present time we have a recommendation to the RRFB and believe that that fund of $1.6 million will be increasing to an annual amount of approximately $3 million in the future but, however, once municipalities have their solid waste infrastructure in place, they will be free to use this money for whatever purpose they deem necessary, including sewer and water projects." That is what the minister said in last year's estimates. Can you now indicate to the members of this committee whether any money from the RRFB was used by any municipality for sewer or water projects?
MR. BAKER: A one word answer, no.
MR. SAMSON: That leads to the next question. Can the minister indicate whether any money will be used, from the RRFB, or granted to any municipality for sewer or water projects in this coming fiscal year?
MR. BAKER: That would be up to the RRFB, and it would be subject to future discussions between the government and the RRFB.
MR. SAMSON: This leads me to the old argument from last year. Today we have clearly proven that based on a recommendation from staff in your department, based on the direction of where your government is going in the cost-cutting measures, a recommendation went to the RRFB that they give $500,000 to your department. One could conclude from that if it is your intention or if you allow it to go forward, if there is a recommendation that sewer and water projects be eligible for funding under the RRFB, if that goes again to the RRFB, more than likely there is a chance that that will also take place.
Will the minister commit today that neither his office nor his staff will recommend to the RRFB that any of their money be used for sewer or water projects, which is in contravention of the goals of the RRFB, which it was initially set up to do and which it has certainly not yet fully achieved, to allow it to start opening itself up to all of these other funding items?
MR. BAKER: The short answer would be no.
MR. SAMSON: No, you are not prepared to make that commitment?
MR. BAKER: That is correct.
MR. SAMSON: So, it is still open for your staff to recommend to the RRFB this year that money from that fund be used for sewer and water projects, is what your answer basically is?
MR. BAKER: I am saying that it is possible. You asked me if I could give a commitment, and I said no.
MR. SAMSON: So that possibility remains. You are not prepared to say that you will ensure that will not happen.
MR. BAKER: I cannot ensure that, because it would be to prejudge an initiative before discussing it with either the municipalities or the RRFB, and I am not prepared to do that.
MR. SAMSON: I am going to go one step further. Have there been any discussions with you, through staff or through your office, indicating any sort of intent to request the RRFB grant money for sewer or water projects? Have any discussions taken place with your office or through staff that you are aware of on this very issue?
MR. BAKER: I can tell you it certainly hasn't happened through me - I will check with staff - no.
MR. SAMSON: You are quick to say no, but you are not prepared to commit to say it won't come up this fiscal year, that recommendation.
MR. BAKER: That is correct, I am not prepared to prejudge an issue on a hypothetical basis.
MR. SAMSON: I will go one step further. As minister, in looking at what the RRFB was set up to do, is it your belief that the goals they set out to accomplish have been achieved and therefore it is acceptable to use money from that fund to put into sewer and water projects? As Minister of the Environment, is that basically your statement today, is that your belief, that the RRFB has achieved its mandate?
MR. BAKER: I think it is fair to say that the RRFB has been very successful in achieving a very significant portion of their mandate. I cannot and will not prejudge whether or not, at some point in the future, it is felt to be in the public's interest to have some or all of those monies refocused onto other kinds of projects, whether they are sewer and water or other kinds of projects. Fundamentally, the goal of the RRFB is to promote a better environment. I am not prepared to go into hypotheticals, because I do not think it is constructive to engage in a discussion about what ifs, maybes, could bes. I know the member has strong feelings about making sure that there are no changes to the Resource Recovery Fund Board.
MR. SAMSON: I am not into dealing with hypotheticals either, so I will refer the minister to Page 243, Friday, October 29, 1999, "MR. RUSSELL: At the present time we have a recommendation to the RRFB and believe that that fund of $1.6 million will be increasing to an annual amount of approximately $3 million in the future but, however, once municipalities have their solid waste infrastructure in place, they will be free to use this money for whatever purpose they deem necessary, including sewer and water projects." That is not hypothetical. Your predecessor made that statement here, saying that would take place.
My question to you is, as the Acting Minister of the Environment, once a municipal unit says, look, we have achieved all our goals, we now want to use this money for sewer and water projects, do you still believe that the RRFB will be given full authority or even a directive to support that? Let's say the HRM says, okay, we have the 50 per cent here, we have reached our target, now we want money for the sewage treatment plant here in Halifax Harbour, we want to take it out of the RRFB's money.
MR. BAKER: I can indicate that I believe that it is not inappropriate to prejudge the desirability of that, and it may very well be that it is deemed to be beneficial to do that, in such a case.
MR. SAMSON: I am not going to go on for long. At this point, I certainly fully oppose that notion. I agree certain sectors of this province have achieved a great deal, and the RRFB has probably been more successful than any of its counterparts throughout the country, but if we start getting into the sticky issue of water and sewage treatment, recognizing the problems we have out there, it is only a matter of time before the RRFB starts to completely lose its focus, not because of any intentions of its board members or its staff, but because of the pressures being put on it by government and by the municipalities. I will leave that for the time being.
One question. What efforts has your office or your staff made trying to find funding to assist municipalities with water and sewage problems? What I am talking about is, there used to be a fund of $1.6 million in the department to assist with studies on upgrading, replacing sewage and water treatment plants. That was cut. What efforts are being undertaken to either work with Municipal Affairs - I understand their budget has been cut this year, obviously they don't seem to have any big pile of money - or with other agencies to get money here?
MR. BAKER: I am going to give you a general answer and a specific answer. One of the things that has been announced is that this government is committed to putting more money into IGA. Previous Governments of Nova Scotia have been phenomenallly unsuccessful in obtaining any real federal funding for this province. One of the commitments we have made is to try to improve the dismal record of our predecessors in obtaining funding from Ottawa. One of the reasons we have done that is because there are very many projects in Nova Scotia that require federal assistance.
The general answer, of course, is that we are trying to do a much better job than we have in the past in obtaining federal funding. The specific answer is we are also trying to do a very much more focused strategy with respect to this particular area to identify opportunities that may exist in existing federal funding formulae where municipalities could receive help. Obviously the complete failure of the federal government to fund, as had been floated as a trial balloon, significant environmental infrastructure, has put all provinces and all municipalities at a great disadvantage. I don't know if that answers the question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Just for the purposes of Hansard and others listening, with the use of acronyms, I think we should also have an explanatory note. When you use acronyms in the future, just do a quick abbreviation or description . . .
MR. BAKER: IGA is Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. SAMSON: I thought it was about grocery stores and that the minister was going shopping.
MR. BAKER: We are going shopping for federal monies.
MR. SAMSON: He is going shopping for money.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to make sure, for the public record, that it is known.
MR. SAMSON: It is interesting because the minister said earlier in a question, he didn't want to talk about hypotheticals, but his plan with Intergovernmental Affairs and all the good money they are going to find, I would say that is the biggest hypothetical situation that this government could talk about. Only time will judge how successful they are, compared to our administration, which they are so quick to criticize. One can only hope in all sincerity that they can find lots and lots of money to be able to assist.
MR. BAKER: I think we both could agree on that.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, the initiatives announced by your government in Intergovernmental Affairs are in this budget and very recent. My question is, what have you done since July 27, 1999 to try to find funding for municipal units? It is fine and dandy that you are saying now what you are going to do, my question is, what have you done to try to get money for them because $1.6 million was cut in the budget that was passed by you. What have you done since then?
MR. BAKER: I can tell you that the response hitherto whenever inquiries have been made to the federal government was wait for the budget, wait for the budget, the federal budget I am speaking of here. Well, we waited for the budget and it was a disappointment to say the least. I know of a number of municipalities, one in particular which is near and dear
to my own heart, that are very definitely interested in infrastructure money and were extremely disappointed by the federal government's lack of initiative in this area. But we are not about to be dissuaded and we intend to try to create opportunities through HRDC and other programs which are not as directly connected to see if we can fund those projects.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, you have led me into a perfect question, that many of my municipal units which also, as yours, would very dearly love to have infrastructure money to upgrade their systems. We know the federal government has hinted that they are putting in a new municipal infrastructure program, they have said that. They have dangled that carrot out, we are all hoping it is going to come soon. Under that program, if it is based on the program before, and more than likely it will be, it was a one-third, one-third, one-third formula. Where is your government, based on the budget put here today, going to get its one-third to be a partner in these projects? That is what my municipal unit is saying and that is what other municipal units are saying. They were ready to go to the table, but with this budget, where is this government going to find money to be able to be a partner in here and are we going to be denied the opportunity to access these funds because the province has no money to come to the table or has not allocated any money to come to the table on these projects? So, what department, number one, and number two, where in this entire budget is there a fund that has been put aside to be able to be a partner in whatever infrastructure program comes from the federal government?
MR. BAKER: What I can indicate to you is that there clearly has not been money put aside in a separate fund. Frankly, it wasn't deemed to be prudent to create a fund in case the federal rainmakers decide to make it rain. I can tell you our government is committed to trying to find resources in the event that the federal rains fall to make the water level rise for everybody. It is very hard to know how much money you would put aside, even if you were going to put aside, since one doesn't know the size of the federal promotion that might be available.
We have heard so many things even in the brief time that I have been in government about the federal government. This was going to be the year when the federal government was going to finally put money into environmental infrastructure. Quite bluntly, I listened with great and hopeful anticipation about this and it didn't come. This was the year that the federal government was going to put money into health care and it didn't come. I know the honourable member shares my concerns in these areas and I guess what I am saying is if and when the rain comes, we intend to do everything we can to make sure that we can take advantage of it in Nova Scotia.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect to the minister, considering the concern that has been raised here, knowing the cuts that have taken place, it appears that you can't even tell us today under what department or what fund or what program that your government would even access to be a player here. That is of grave concern to me because if this program does come, God willing it will, right now all we can get is some general assurance from you that
you will do your best to find money, but have no idea where you could possibly go to find this money. That is of serious concern to me in that your government hasn't thought this out because obviously you have indicated to us that you are well aware that this is out there.
Yes, one could be pessimistic and say, well, it may never come, but what I am hearing today which concerns me is that if it is announced tomorrow, your government has absolutely no plan in place on where it would get the funding to be a partner in this program. Is that correct? I hope you prove me wrong or can tell me the answer and that I am wrong, but up to now, that certainly hasn't taken place.
MR. BAKER: I do understand and I am not going to go any further that there may be some money available under the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs with respect to this program. There obviously is the potential that there may be economic development opportunities with respect to such funding. I think that is as far as I am prepared to go with respect to something that is not really directly attributable to my departmental estimates. I can indicate that it traditionally has not been the role of the Department of the Environment to fund infrastructure of any kind - municipal or otherwise - in three utilities that are more an aberration than they are a rule.
MR. SAMSON: Not infrastructure, but the minister will be well aware that the department did have a $1.6 million municipal infrastructure fund which was meant to fund studies on this.
MR. BAKER: That was a study fund, yes.
MR. SAMSON: Exactly, but it was $1.6 million and that has been cut. My understanding was, from your colleague, and I will have a chance over the weekend, I may be able to find the exact references from him, but I believe his indication was that after the budget, there would be immediate negotiations with the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs to try to get a commitment out of them, to fund money to municipalities for such infrastructure for water and sewer. My question is, has any conversation taken place from the Department of the Environment and Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs and has there been any commitments of any money to be put aside by HMA for these municipalities?
MR. BAKER: I don't know what HMA has put aside, I guess that is the answer to the question. You should ask Mr. MacIsaac that question.
MR. SAMSON: Well, no, because your predecessor said that he would initiate talks with the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs to indicate the seriousness of this issue, being the Department of the Environment knowing what it knew about the state of our infrastructure dealing with sewer and water. That is not the Department of Housing and
Municipal Affairs' jurisdiction. Environment has the expertise in judging these utilities and - I found in my notes here - 700 of those utilities are not functioning properly.
While I understand that the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs are the ones with the money, the understanding was that the Department of the Environment would be leading these discussions. Is your answer still that as far as you are aware, there has been no such discussion?
MR. BAKER: I don't know of any such discussions. It may be that the federal budget in February kind of nixed those discussions since there was no money. I guess we are going around the maypole here, but the difficulty is that there is no federal budget likely now until, I assume, February of the year 2001. If the federal track record is good, what they will do is they will announce it two or three times before they actually provide the money, so we will probably have more than a sufficient amount of time to find our money.
They like to start announcing it about six months or a year before they actually even allocate it in the budget. Maybe that is a somewhat cynical suggestion, but I have seen that with other departments, including Justice, where they tend to announce the money a long time before it actually shows up.
MR. SAMSON: Well, minister, I guess if there is one suggestion on this issue I would give you is that the next time you meet with your colleagues at Cabinet, that you raise this issue and at least see to it that your P & P starts some discussions, or starts turning their minds to where would they find money if this program comes along. I certainly don't want to see municipal units, if this program finally comes, to say we would love to participate, we have the money, but the province doesn't even know where it is going to find the funding. I leave you with that recommendation.
One of the other areas here which I wanted to go through, I notice that there has been a significant reduction in your Protected Areas budget - Page 9.6. What was interesting to me, Mr. Minister, the media asked me, did you see in the budget about this $500,000 from the RRFB. I said, did I see it in the budget? I said it had to go under some program, what was it again? The administration of the regional offices. That is how I found out about the $500,000 for the RRFB, so we are going to go line by line of this to see if there is anything else in here that we have missed and I am hoping that to date, what we have gone through, that I haven't missed anything that the minister may want to make us aware of now.
MR. BAKER: I can't imagine that you have missed anything, but I can assure you there was never any intention on my part to keep anything hidden. In point of fact, I tried to go through a number of those items in my initial comments to highlight them for the benefit of members and others. There was never any intention on my part to hide anything. This information is public and I have no problem with that.
MR. SAMSON: But you will admit that the jails and the courthouses weren't in the Budget Speech either.
MR. BAKER: Well, as I have indicated and while we are not exactly in Justice estimates, I suspect we will have a chance to deal with that, but I think it is fair to say that I have answered my point of view that I don't think that it was an attempt to keep that quiet.
MR. SAMSON: But it wasn't in the Budget Address either.
MR. BAKER: It wasn't in the Budget Speech obviously. We agree on that.
MR. SAMSON: So, Protected Areas. What is up with that, $770,000 to $636,000?
MR. BAKER: I can indicate with respect to this area there are three vacant positions and those positions have been eliminated.
MR. SAMSON: Eliminated?
MR. BAKER: Eliminated. The ones that we indicated earlier, those are three of the positions that have been eliminated. I am sorry, I misread the book. I misspoke and I apologize. There are two positions that are filled where there are incumbents and there is one that is vacant.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, let's try that again. You have eliminated two positions.
MR. BAKER: Three positions.
MR. SAMSON: You have eliminated three positions.
MR. BAKER: Two have incumbents in them. Two of those positions have incumbents in them. There are people in those positions.
MR. SAMSON: They have been what?
MR. BAKER: Of the three positions, two have incumbents. In other words, there are people filling the job today, the third is a vacant position.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, so two people have been eliminated? One position which had no one in it is also eliminated.
MR. BAKER: Exactly.
MR. SAMSON: For a total of three.
MR. BAKER: That is correct. We are agreeing.
MR. SAMSON: Could you tell me in the Protected Areas division, how many employees are on the payroll?
MR. BAKER: There are 11 employees today.
MR. SAMSON: Out of the $636,000, how much of that goes towards salary?
MR. BAKER: It is the fine print that they always talk about that lawyers like, well, it is hard for lawyers to read. Last year's salary figure was $611,000, this year it is $479,900.
MR. SAMSON: Percentage wise, what . . .
MR. BAKER: I didn't think I was going to be turning into an accountant. I thought I was a lawyer and I am now turning into an accountant, a little over 11 per cent reduction.
MR. SAMSON: There is an 11 per cent reduction. You say out of the $636,000, $429,000 is in salaries?
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. BAKER: No. Salaries $611,000. Last year's estimate was for $611,000 in that division. This year it is now $479,000.
MR. SAMSON: So you say $479,000 of the $636,000 is for salaries?
MR. BAKER: Yes, that is right, $479,900 is out of the total of $636,000. I had a sheet of paper where I was trying to follow the lines across.
MR. SAMSON: So, Mr. Minister, can you tell us what the status is of the Protected Areas division? I recall when we were there, one of the protected areas we were working on, I believe, was Polletts Cove, Aspey Fault. One of the major problems with getting protected areas was the lack of staff and that the staff were overworked in trying to get these things brought forward. My understanding is that this Polletts Cove has been in the works for quite some time and I don't know if it is going anywhere, but now to see that three more employees have been cut from this division and the budget cut, I am just wondering, what is the status of that division?
MR. BAKER: The division is working on management planning with the communities involved, management planning with respect to protected areas and also working with communities that are involved on trail planning.
MR. SAMSON: So, that is being done for existing areas. What is being done for new protected areas? For bringing new areas under protection? That is the question.
MR. BAKER: Department staff are working with Department of Natural Resources staff in identifying other Crown land areas that would be subject to protection.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, I have mentioned Polletts Cove, Aspey Fault, I remember a few areas, if I go through my book I am sure I will find them. Those have been in the works for quite some time. Where are they? Basically, why are they not moving? These things have been bogged down - the last time we announced new protected areas, I believe it was 1997, if I am not mistaken.
MR. BAKER: I am advised by department staff that staff are continuing to meet, although there was a break off for a period of time, the staff are now meeting with the community in Polletts Cove in an attempt to work out the difficulties.
MR. SAMSON: Have you been involved in that at all?
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. SAMSON: You haven't been involved.
MR. BAKER: To my knowledge, I have never gotten a request since I became minister to meet with anybody about the Polletts Cove area and I certainly know that issue and I know some of the concerns, I won't say I know all of the concerns. Certainly I know that there have been meetings in the past. I am sure you may have had meetings on that issue in the past.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, I guess one could only hope that your government, I don't remember in The Course Ahead if you even talked about protected areas or increasing the level of protected areas, but certainly there has been a decrease in the amount of activity which was taking place by the department. The department received a lot of credit back in the mid-1990's when it did designate a number of areas and I remember even the former minister, Donald Downe, receiving a green award from environmental groups for the efforts in this area. It really seems to be an area that has almost fallen by the wayside. I am very concerned.
This in no way is any sort of a shot at the employees, I know they are hard-working, there are very sensitive issues to be dealing with, but it all comes down to resources and to see that what limited resources they had, has now just been cut by three is a serious concern to me. I only see it as hampering their efforts even more. I certainly hope that the minister will encourage his colleague or whoever does return in the portfolio to make sure that there is a push put on and a priority put on working on the protected areas.
MR. BAKER: I believe that there is some identification going on with respect to other areas - Gully Lake and Eigg Mountain, were two.
MR. SAMSON: I guess a status report - how much time do I have left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Too much (Laughter) You have nine minutes left.
MR. SAMSON: He says the same thing when I am up talking on his Private Member's Bill.
MR. BAKER: I was going to say, it sometimes seems like every minute is being savoured.
MR. SAMSON: You realize that snide comments do not encourage his Private Member's Bill being passed through the Legislature, but anyway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are off the topic and I am going to rule that last comment out of order.
MR. BAKER: I would think the Preston Area Housing Development Act would be a little off topic from the Department of the Environment estimates.
MR. SAMSON: True enough, I guess. Nine minutes, okay. District offices, am I correct in that the department had 15 district offices previously in four regions? Is that correct?
MR. BAKER: Would you repeat that again, please.
MR. SAMSON: Does the department have, today, 15 district offices throughout four regions of the province?
MR. BAKER: I have not counted them, but I think that sounds right; 15 sounds correct.
MR. SAMSON: Fifteen is correct?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: Under your restructuring announced here, how many offices will be remaining should this budget go through?
MR. BAKER: One, two, three, four - regional offices would go from 19 to 12.
MR. SAMSON: So there were 19 regional offices?
MR. BAKER: Regional or district offices. You see, the problem is that there are two categories. There are regional offices and there are district offices.
MR. SAMSON: Yes.
MR. BAKER: So, for example, Middleton is a regional office, if I understand correctly, or a regional district office. They are all in the regions, I guess, is the simplest way to put it.
MR. SAMSON: How many districts are left after this? I take it the four regional offices will remain. How many district ones are left?
MR. BAKER: There is going to be a reduction of seven offices. I think that is the best way of describing it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wish to recall the minister's statements, they were Liverpool, Windsor, Shubenacadie, Port Hawkesbury, Digby, Shelburne and Middleton.
MR. SAMSON: You indicated that there would be a realignment of the Port Hawkesbury and Antigonish offices. Am I to deduct from that that the Port Hawkesbury office will be moved to Antigonish or the Antigonish office will be moved to Port Hawkesbury?
MR. BAKER: That is under discussion and it is under discussion, frankly, because we are trying to coordinate that with the Department of Labour because the Department of Labour is also looking at their roll out and it may be that there will be some reconfiguration depending on what is going on with respect to Port Hawkesbury and Antigonish with respect to the Department of Labour people now. It may be, for example, that neither office may end up being closed because there may be enough people combined in Antigonish and in Port Hawkesbury to justify a separate office in each area.
MR. SAMSON: So basically, today, you are not prepared for those communities, you have nothing to tell them as to whether Port Hawkesbury will keep its office or whether Antigonish will keep its office?
MR. BAKER: I cannot tell people today. I can tell you that we are certainly anxious to move forward with this, but we feel that the planning process that is required, you cannot definitively answer with respect to that whether one or the other will be closed or maybe neither.
MR. SAMSON: I am just curious, quickly on the Melford gypsum mine, we realize that the good people of the Sierra Club have gotten involved in this and they are now launching a legal appeal. What is the status of the project? Is the company still moving forward or is this in any way going to hamper the development of that site?
MR. BAKER: I can indicate that I have heard no indication that they are not moving forward. As far as we understand, they are moving ahead with it and, obviously, the courts will do what the courts will do and I am not going to comment on that.
MR. SAMSON: No, and I am certainly not asking you to comment on that, but is it your understanding that this project is still moving ahead?
MR. BAKER: My understanding is the project is still moving ahead.
MR. SAMSON: In these sorts of cases, is it the staff lawyer who will be dealing with this through the courts?
MR. BAKER: It would be the Department of Justice lawyers. Wearing another hat, the Department of Justice lawyers are, obviously, representing the government in any litigation and it would be the responsibility of the Department of Justice to represent the government in that litigation.
MR. SAMSON: I take it that the plan is to defend the decision of government and that in no way either you or your government has accepted the great claims of the Sierra Club that both our government and your government have seriously erred on this matter?
MR. BAKER: I think it is fair to say that it is the job of any lawyer to represent the interests of their client and in this particular case the client, meaning the Government of Nova Scotia, obviously feels the decision is right. If it wasn't, we would change the decision. We have not changed the decision and so presumably our lawyers will be defending the decision we made.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to terminate today on a very happy, high note and that is all I have for today.
MR. BAKER: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am shocked and surprised, there are about three minutes. So you wish to forfeit your last three minutes? Okay, it is time now to transfer to the next caucus, to the NDP.
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, I know we will finish on a high point on a Friday afternoon. We will be adjourning at what time if I may ask?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The scheduled time, if we don't have any more interruptions or breaks, would be 2:35 p.m.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I would like to question just, first of all, a procedural thing. My learned friend, the member for Halifax Chebucto, was on a roll, I understand, concerning a line item in the Supplement to the Public Accounts on Page 63 concerning the Nova Scotia Power Inc. and whether we were suddenly in the water business.
AN HON. MEMBER: Water utilities.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I am wondering if I could share my time because, although I know there are a number of questions that I can ask, I was wondering if I could allow my learned friend to pursue that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are certainly permitted.
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: So, meanwhile, back at the water utilities, can you give us a little more information about this business enterprise of the government?
MR. BAKER: We are going to go to our utilities operation section. So, Mr. Epstein, your questions are?
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I was offering you a chance to speak generally . . .
MR. BAKER: Volunteer.
MR. EPSTEIN: . . . and volunteer before I have to beat it out of you. Here is the question, what is going on? What utilities do we have here?
MR. BAKER: We have, as I said, three utilities. Just one second. It gets better. We have three major utilities and 10 utilities in total. To provide further information, Middle River supplies Kimberly-Clark and Michelin. Landrie Lake supplies Stora, Nova Scotia Power and the Town of Port Hawkesbury. Of the 11 provincially-owned water utilities and, of course, the Lockeport utility supplies Lockeport, including the fish processing plant in Lockeport, I believe. The history of how we came to get in the utility business is a bit varied depending on the utility we are talking about. Some of them were as a result of industrial development. Others were as a result of Transportation and Public Works historically turning over those water utilities to us, I believe. I am just trying to think . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: They are all run by the Department of the Environment rather than Transportation and Public Works?
MR. BAKER: Yes, these are all run by the Department of the Environment and they were by the way, I think, built in the 1960's and 1970's to provide industrial quality water in support for the fishing and forestry industries. So, for example, these were in remote areas of the province where the capacity of the local community to build the infrastructure to supply a major employer was lacking and the government of the day decided that it was in the public interest to construct the utilities. I think it is fair to say that the philosophy has been to more fully recover the cost of operating these utilities and we are now at the 70 per cent mark. I am advised by staff that the gross cost of operating the utilities is $1.205 million of which we collect from users $870,000, leaving a net operation cost of $335,000.
MR. EPSTEIN: Something like the Halifax Regional Municipality Water Commission was originally set up by separate Statute and then was incorporated into HRM at the time of amalgamation. Do I take it that there is no statutory framework for this, it is a government administrative function?
MR. BAKER: It is a government administrative function that has grown up over time and there is, I think, in many cases agreements with local companies or municipalities that receive water. For example, part of the Town of Lockeport receives supply from our water utility.
MR. EPSTEIN: So, therefore, there is no official name for either the water . . .
MR. BAKER: It is not like Water Nova Scotia or something like that, no. We don't have any official title.
MR. EPSTEIN: They are operated at a loss right now of about $300,000 a year?
MR. BAKER: That is right, collectively they are operated as a loss and the difficulty, of course, as you can appreciate, is that moving up water costs is a slow process because with the utility you have a monopoly and it is not like they can go in the market place and buy water just anywhere. So we are trying to move the cost up slowly over time.
MR. EPSTEIN: On the other hand, these rates are not set by the URB either, are they?
MR. BAKER: No, because we . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: This is a matter for negotiation between the parties.
MR. BAKER: . . . and what the local community can bear because sometimes you have a municipality that is buying water from you and you want to be sensitive to that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Except, as I understood it, some of your customers are industrial enterprises, isn't that right?
MR. BAKER: Yes, yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: All the others are municipalities?
MR. BAKER: That is correct.
MR. EPSTEIN: Have you any breakdown as to the total proportion of the water that is purchased by the industrial facilities rather than the municipalities?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask for a clarification. I thought under the Shelburne situation that it was mainly for the fish plant as far as the municipality is using it for . . .
MR. BAKER: The Lockeport Utility, which is the one in Shelburne County, supplies primarily the fish processing plant, but it also supplies a portion of the Town of Lockeport simply because of where the pipeline is located.
MR. EPSTEIN: This raises . . .
MR. BAKER: The best is for me to indicate that we can undertake to the honourable member to provide that information.
MR. EPSTEIN: That is just fine. I take it that I heard you say that it is industrial quality water, meaning not drinking quality water, is that right?
MR. BAKER: That is correct. The issue in most of these areas has been, and it has been I think an issue in Lockeport, for example, is that our getting into the water business as a province was in order to provide industrial water to companies. What happens, of course, is that the quality of water that is industrial quality water may not meet drinking standards and the difficulty has been, of course, is that some municipal units have wanted to use the water for drinking quality and, of course, there has been some to and fro because of their competing interest to have the province in effect provide drinking quality water out of what is fundamentally an industrial utility and that has created a certain degree of to and fro.
MR. EPSTEIN: I am glad to hear the minister recognize the conflict between the profit motive and the desire to maintain good standards of things as important as drinking water quality, the very point I was making before about inspections. However, do I take it that any of those municipalities further treat the water or don't we know?
MR. BAKER: My understanding with respect, for example, in Lockeport, is that each customer, even if they are a household user of the water, has a contract with the government which indicates that we are providing industrial quality water and they need to provide their own treatment because, of course, if we were to treat the vast majority of the water because, of course, the treatment plant is one, if you locate it at your source, is very expensive. You are going to up your costs tremendously. That is a very sensitive problem.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, no, I understand. Can you tell me where I can find the revenue line.
MR. BAKER: Sure. (Interruption) In the Estimates Book we are looking for the page now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to advise all members, we have 15 minutes left in our time for a four hour allocation today.
MR. BAKER: It is Page 9.4.
MR. EPSTEIN: This is under Utilities, Less: Fees and Other Charges, that is the $870,000 that shows there. Isn't that interesting. Can the minister tell me - I guess the answer might be there. Let me just check.
MR. BAKER: My grandmother has a saying that it is a bad day when you don't learn something.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, this has been a great day.
MR. BAKER: It has been a good day, has it, Mr. Epstein?
MR. EPSTEIN: It has so far. Here is what I think I see when I look at Page 9.4 and I am looking at the fees side. If we look back at the last couple of years, the fees were $769,000, $830,000 and now you are anticipating $870,000. So what I want to know is, when I read that, does that reflect change in volume or does it reflect some kind of progressive change in the percentage recovery and, if so, what is the curve in terms of increase in progressive recovery?
MR. BAKER: I am advised that the fees collected for water gallonage and variances sometimes occur partly as a result of readings being taken just prior to year end and invoices are not submitted before the closing of the year. We are in a utility business so you can get a variance of almost one-eleventh, or one-twelfth, excuse me, of your revenues as a result of billing. That is part of it and then the second part, of course, is that we are trying to, as I indicated earlier, gradually increase fees over time to move to cost recovery in a fairly sensitive way.
MR. EPSTEIN: I approve entirely of moving to cost recovery on this.
MR. BAKER: That is what the departmental goal is, is to sooner rather than later move to cost recovery given that you have to be somewhat sensitive when you are doing cost increases as I am sure the honourable member realizes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Except you are selling an industrial product for the most part to decent sized industrial customers. So my point is, how many years before we move from 70 per cent to 100 per cent?
MR. BAKER: I hope not that many. I think it is fair to say that there are contracts that have been signed in the past with respect to those customers and also, and I don't want to get into all the nitty-gritty, but I understand that there are some trade-offs that have gone on with respect to some industrial water users where we provide water to some of those users and then they provide other services to some of those users. So you get into this. But, yes, I think it is fair to say that I agree with the wholehearted principle of cost recovery in this area, sooner than later.
MR. EPSTEIN: In fact, I think it is also fair to say we have heard virtually little else from many of your colleagues for lo these many months and I guess what I wonder is would an enterprise like this not be a candidate for privatization? Isn't this an essentially private business activity we are looking at?
MR. BAKER: I think it would be easier to privatize something when it was breaking even.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think the way it would go is that any monopoly utility would be regulated by the URB and would be mandated not only to break even, but to have a guaranteed rate of return. Isn't that the way it goes?
MR. BAKER: Anyway, point well taken.
MR. EPSTEIN: I thought so. So is this business going to be privatized this year?
MR. BAKER: That is not on the plans to be privatized this year.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do you know how long the contracts are for the supply of water with the industrial customers?
MR. BAKER: I am sorry.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do you know the length of the term as provided in the contracts with your industrial customers?
MR. BAKER: I can provide that information. I don't have it with me today.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. BAKER: One last comment perhaps on that is that clearly there are always possibilities for privatization in these areas for future years.
MR. EPSTEIN: Heck, if it is for sale, I might buy it myself. I mean . . .
MR. BAKER: I know, Mr. Epstein, you are an advocate of privatization. I have never really visualized the honourable member as being one - how should I put it - of the Margaret Thatcher point of view.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, if I were able to go to the bank and say to them I am going to be the monopoly provider of water to Michelin and whoever else was on the list, Stora, and all I need to do is borrow a little money in order to buy the infrastructure, they would say how much money would you want. That is what would happen, but back to my colleague. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume now we are transferring back to you, Mr. Estabrooks.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: You are paying attention for a late Friday afternoon. You would make an excellent substitute teacher. Mr. Minister, for the few minutes remaining, I would just like to draw your attention to the comments that you made concerning the Youth Conservation Corps. I know how well received over the years this particular project has been. It is with some disappointment I understand with your staff. It must have been a tough decision to make because in various communities, wherever they are, this has always been very well received. Aside from the toughness of the decision, justify it so I can explain it to my local youth group?
MR. BAKER: I think that the justification is one of the core functions of government and we looked, as part of the PAO process of which I know the honourable member has heard so much, at trying to determining first and foremost what programs are discretionary programs. There are clearly programs that I think he and I would both agree are not discretionary and a classic example, obviously, would be acute hospital care. Perhaps another one is provision of court services. There are those kinds of functions which are not discretionary to government that funding them in some form or fashion is not a choice. That process identified some programs as being discretionary, that is that government could choose not to provide them and that those programs, when they ceased to exist, would not completely cripple the core function of the government to provide public service. That is not, however, to say that the programs lack value which I think, we would both agree as well, is a different criteria.
For example, as I indicated earlier in the estimates, there was educational funding which has been maintained which is also a discretionary program and the Department of the Environment has a portion of its budget that is dedicated to environmental education. It was felt that that was important enough that, notwithstanding that that was as well discretionary, it served a very valuable purpose and should be maintained. We looked at the Nova Scotia Youth Conservation Corps and the primary purpose of this was to, in effect, create some work for young people. It obviously had some very other laudable side effects, but it created work for young people. In its core of cores the reason for existence for the Department of the Environment is fundamentally a regulatory reason for existence and it was decided that it was better to focus on those things.
[2:30 p.m.]
However, as a whole, government felt that there was still value to the Nova Scotia Youth Conservation Corps and hence the government, through the Department of Economic Development, continues to participate in funding the Youth Conservation Corps although at a reduced amount, as well HRDC does that. The rationale for that, I guess, quite simply is that if you are going to make budget reductions, if you are going to have to make some tough choices and this is one of the tough choices that had to be made, not because the program had no value, but because weighed against other programs, it was determined that this was less valuable than others.
Frankly, in trying to explain to young people, and I certainly see a great deal of advantages and there are opportunities that come to youth in working on these projects and I think that you as an educator, I am sure, could probably point out those in greater detail than I, but I can assure you that oftentimes with respect to these programs the decision was choosing of priorities and we felt that in choosing our priorities an elimination of funding from the Environment Department was a priority. Clearly as a government, we still put money in because we felt it was important and, hopefully, we can continue to do that if budgets permit.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I thank you for the explanation and, you know, not in the matter of scoring political points, but slashing from 175 students to 60 is pretty dramatic and it is a concern that I know we are going to hear further about, but on the topic of schools, there has to be some consistency to these questions I know. Mr. Minister, turn to, if you would, the Supplement to the Public Accounts, Page 63, where I notice ECO Schools, $35,000, and I am wondering if you could explain to me what that item involves? I assume, for the benefit of the Chair, it is an acronym for something and I have no idea.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have just enough time for the minister to answer this question and then I will be asking for an adjournment of the debate.
MR. BAKER: That is a program that was established with respect to the Halifax school system to set up recycling programs in the schools in Halifax.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that last answer, I would say that the time has come to adjourn debate on Resolution E8. The four hours are gone. That will leave 35 minutes remaining for the NDP caucus to continue questioning for the minister at a later date. I assume that we will be resuming on Monday, but that will be confirmed by all three caucuses. At this time we are adjourned for the day.
We stand adjourned.
[2:35 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]
