[Page 227]
HALIFAX, FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 2004
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
9:26 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Mark Parent
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's bring this committee to order. It's 9:26 a.m. The Liberal Party has 15 minutes left. Russell MacKinnon was leading off with the questions. The MLA for Victoria-The Lakes will pick up for the last 15 minutes.
The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, as you're aware, the spreading of biosolids is quite a controversial issue in the area that I represent, having an area north and an area south of where biosolids are spread or disposed of. I will begin by thanking you for the extension that was given. I hope that the meeting we had a week or so ago had some input on the fact of your decision to extend the moratorium or the deadline for another two weeks. The spreading of biosolids, with the information that we have today on contaminants and the dangers of it - maybe you could explain the process the government is expecting is do in neutralizing the dangerous substances that are contained in the biosolids, before it's allowing it to be spread on the land?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour.
HON. KERRY MORASH: I certainly appreciate the question. I guess it's no surprise that biosolids comes up as we go through these estimates. It's been an important part to the media, and it's been discussed at some length. Certainly I can tell you that the department has been working just about full-strength on it since January, when the moratorium was imposed. At that point in time we undertook to look at all the legislation and regulations that there are out there concerning this. We pretty well did an exhaustive North American search to see what best practices were out there, to see how we could improve on our guidelines. As you're aware, we put those guidelines out for public review and have received some submissions and comments that have been very helpful as we move through this.
[Page 228]
It certainly is a topic that brings a great amount of emotion to bear. We've looked at all the science, and we have developed guidelines that we believe would allow for the safe spreading of biosolids at this point in time. However, there are still a lot of issues with municipalities. There's a tremendous amount of education that has to be done. One of the challenges that I mentioned, probably to my colleagues and perhaps to you, as well, when we met to discuss this issue, was the amount of education that is necessary in the Province of Nova Scotia, and everywhere, to ensure that people are fully aware of all the facts and all the issues, what the processes involve and how we can move forward to ensure people are safe, and also to use this product, which is going to become more prominent as we get through the Halifax Harbour solution and as we better take care of our environment in the future.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, one of the complaints that was passed on to me when I was asked about the treatment of the biosolids was, do you know what the treatment is, and I said no. Well, it's only going to be the use of lime and that's all they're going to do with it before it's spread. Is there more of an in-depth treatment of the septic sludge before it gets spread onto the properties?
MR. MORASH: The treatment, currently, for the biosolids is the sewage is broken down to some extent, just because of the nature of the holding system that it comes from. We lime it or put in adequate amounts of lime to bring the pH up to 12 for a period of at least two hours. Then extensive testing is done to ensure that we have treated and neutralized the material, so that it can be used in the future.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I refer to the new treatment plant that was built in Baddeck, during my tenure there, where it's capable of neutralizing what goes into the plant, but we took an additional step and created another segment of the plant that will dewater the sludge, which they tell me will cause it to turn into a product, something similar to peat moss, easier for transportation. We do have a permit there to transport it out to the landfill and put it in the licensed compost pile that's there. Is there going to be some kind of process put in place, that in the transportation of this, that that will be the case, or will it basically be transformed into liquid form?
MR. MORASH: Currently, we're looking at all new technology that's out there or existing technology that seems to be functioning. Certainly, discussions with municipalities are ongoing, because they're an intricate part in any kind of a move forward in this. We also have been talking with the septage pumpers, making sure that they're aware of what's out there. Certainly there are some things on the market now in the province, and the province is relatively small, so I think it's fair to say that most of the people involved would be aware of the technology. They're working with the department, and we're trying to ensure that everybody is up to date.
[Page 229]
There are some dewatering systems out there that seem to be working very well. There are also some infrastructure costs associated with that. Again, discussions with the municipalities would get us through those things. There are options out there that are very appealing and, at this point in time, are being explored. We would hope to be able to move forward in partnerships and in conjunction with municipalities to treat this material in the best possible way.
The other thing to point out would be that things are always changing, technology is always changing, so we look forward to moving in whatever direction, whatever technology comes that improves the system, improves the process and allows us to handle the material more efficiently, and certainly in a manner that would be most acceptable to the general public.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Dealing with solid waste, the province has moved toward generation-two landfill sites, very expensive but that seems to be the rule of thumb, the way that they're going to go. I did propose at one time, just locally, that instead of a generation two, a generation one and a half for the sake of facts and figures and, I suppose, modern terminology. I know that in the area I did represent, we only generated 3 per cent of all the solid waste in Cape Breton Island. North of Smokey, the area in particular where the municipality has thousands of acres of property, I thought that if we had permission to create, as I said, a generation one and a half, simply because there's a tremendous amount of fireclay there, I thought if we were to clear off an area, line it with 6 or 8 or 10 feet, whatever, the Department of Environment said - and if anybody knows fireclay, something will either stay there forever or it will evaporate, there's no seepage with fireclay.
I thought with the push to eliminate, and get your numbers up in recycling, it would be a lot safer to have a landfill site like that, with your organics removed and your recyclables removed. Basically what you would be putting into that site would be inert, rather than having the extreme cost of liners and ponds to monitor the leachate or whatever. Using that analogy, that didn't come about. One of the previous Ministers of Environment thought that was a good idea, because everything that's being done is done for the betterment of the municipalities, but the cost is extreme.
When you only generate a small amount - I suppose you could always use the argument that any amount is too much, but you're never going to get 100 per cent. With most of the organics removed and the recyclables, what I was thinking of here was - I believe Victoria County, right now, and maybe other sections of Cape Breton, are going to transport their solid waste to Guysborough County, because a generation two landfill just isn't in the ballpark. It's an $8 million facility that the municipalities just couldn't afford to build or to operate and maintain.
[Page 230]
I was wondering, rather than having two or three or four or five sites around, in different areas, for small dumping, did the government ever give thought to the fact that maybe, since we have a central area in a generation-two landfill, maybe we could have a central area for the collection of septic sludge. It would be rather expensive for the small operators to transport that to a central area, but something in the similar way to where they go around and they collect the milk from farms with tanker trunks, and then one large, massive tanker trunk will take that to a central dairy to be processed.
You could have a large tanker truck that could go and pick up from these operators and transport it, if there's a generation-two landfill being built in Guysborough, or wherever, maybe adjacent to that there could be a large septic sludge area that would take the sludge, treat it, dewater it and then make it okay to spread it on the property. I was just wondering if the province had given any idea or thought to something like that.
MR. MORASH: I found it intriguing since I've been involved with the department. I really never thought I would see the day where we would have municipalities actually competing for solid waste, and that's currently what's going on in the province. Certainly the second-generation landfill has prompted that. These are expensive operations to build, and they also have an amount of cost associated with the operations that's significant.
Currently, 15 of our 18 municipal landfills in the province that don't meet our new guidelines, and we're expecting them to meet our guidelines by the 31st of 2005. There has been a 10-year window in here for people to get ready but, of course, right now, with the decision-making process of how much material is going to go to each region, and we actually have municipalities competing for the same solid waste at this point in time, which has caused me to have some interesting discussions with some of the municipalities and some of the councillors at some of the meetings I've gone to, because so much hinges on their decision-making process, on knowing how much material they have or if they can actually get enough to justify the operation of one of these landfills.
I think we all agree, for sure, that our job is to move forward and make sure that we have landfills that have adequate leachate collection, adequate protection for the environment. Again, as we were talking about the biosolids with these second-generation landfills, there have been a number of municipalities that are very interested in putting in sewage lagoons and incorporating that as part of the parcel as they build. Right now we're working with the municipalities, but there are some financial decisions that they need to make with regard to this infrastructure and the infrastructure costs associated with it. It certainly appears to be cost-effective to try to run them in conjunction or in close proximity.
We will be regionalizing, for all intents and purposes, the second-generation landfills, just because there is a considerable amount of material that they need and, if my memory serves me, it's around 80,000 tons a year. So now we have everybody out there crunching their numbers, counting their numbers, to make sure that they can get their 80,000 tons to
[Page 231]
make things financially viable. I've been to a few meetings where there have been some exceptional business plans put forward. They've been dealing with the department on a regular and ongoing basis. This a business and a business decision, as you would appreciate, and it is actually big business for a lot of the smaller municipalities. It's a financial decision that they have to take very seriously, and they have to make sure they have all their homework done.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, what I would hope is that any mistakes that were made in the past would be corrected in the future. I go back to the transportation of solid waste, and I refer again to north of Smokey, because that's the area that I'm familiar with, and it takes 13 truckloads of aluminum cans, to transport them to Sydney, to have them baled in Sydney, to make one tractor-trailer load of baled aluminum to ship. So we have 13 tractor-trailers coming up, and as I said the rules have caused us to be like Ernie and Bert, we're trucking air. We're quite capable of crushing those cans there and bale them, north of Smokey, and when you have a tractor-trailer load - I know they have to be scanned, well, that would make a job in the rural areas, somebody else would be scanning them - and when we have a truckload we could ship it. As simple as that.
So what I'm thinking of is looking at it on a business scale, on an economy of scale, cut the cost wherever you can for municipalities, but also do the best job possible for the remediation of the biosolids, the same way we do for the landfill. Let's not let history repeat itself, but move forward and make a good business case. In the end we have a good, viable, safe product that can be reused again, and eliminate any impact on water sources or groundwater, and turn a negative into a positive for the public.
MR. MORASH: I understand the reason for trucking the cans, not compacted, is for accounting purposes, to make sure that the proper count is made and that the product . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Yes, but, Mr. Minister, surely once a bale of cans was counted, once or twice, give or take a handful of cans either way, the machine is going to bale them up, and that's going to be it. Anyway, I use that analogy, and I would like to see the septic sludge turned into a positive product without an extreme cost, because we're paying a contractor for 13 trips. And two and a half hours on one of those old windy roads, two and a half hours from Baddeck - if you had to take it to Truro, some people would think that was crazy, well, two and a half hours on the Trans-Canada and you would be in Truro, but two and a half hours from north of Smokey with a big truck on a windy old road, you're not even into Sydney by that time.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Our time for the Liberal caucus has finished. We will come back to them after the NDP caucus.
[Page 232]
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Before I ask my first question, if the minister wants to respond to the member, I have no difficulty with that. If not, I will get into my line of questioning.
MR. MORASH: Just quickly on the sewage lagoons and things like that, again it's the economy of scale, and some of this dewatering equipment is certainly very substantial and very costly. Again, everybody is looking at the types of centralization, where we can have some economies of scale and look into those things. We're certainly exploring all those things, and don't want to not look at every possible avenue as we move along. Of course there are a lot of variables in the whole system, which make it a little more challenging, but also we have a lot of talented people out there in the municipalities who are looking at the best possible ways and what will work.
I guess I'm not trying to imply at all that we can't make improvements as we move forward. Our goal is to try to improve whatever we find that is not at its best possible level of performance, and we'll continue to do that. We certainly appreciate your comments.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, it's good to see you this morning, and it's good to see your staff - they're still smiling. That tells me that they are a really good staff or the air quality in here is really bad. (Laughter)
Mr. Minister, I want to continue in some of the areas that we talked about last night, particularly around occupational health and safety issues. Through the course of one of my questions I brought up the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital and the associated problems there with air quality and, indeed, whether you agree with me or not, I think I tried to make my point last night on air quality regs, and I believe that none of the air is stale, but the regs are stale because it's taking so long.
In all seriousness, can you - and I appreciate this may be going over old ground - take me chronologically through the events at the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital, when you were informed, what role the Occupational Health and Safety Committee played in that up until the report was issued?
MR. MORASH: Yes, I can do that. We have some information that will get us through that. I will just start out by saying that I know there was an issue in the department, that everyone expected that the Occupational Health and Safety Division was in on ground level. I believe there was a question in the House, directed at me, that I forwarded along to the Minister of Health last Fall. It was an internal issue initially, where we had experts from the Department of Health and through the hospital who were looking at the air quality and the issues associated with that.
[Page 233]
There was a point in time where we were contacted, as I understand, and became involved. However, you can appreciate that the material, because of the detail needed on air quality, the information that we would look for was the same information that the Department of Health was capable and qualified to be able to produce at that point in time. So when we were contacted, certainly all the tests that we would have suggested had been looked at by the Department of Health, and they had brought in their experts, as well.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, I'm trying to narrow it down. It appears that at some point the OSH Committee working there, there may have been a breakdown. Are you satisfied with how that OSH Committee worked? If not, is there anything set in place that would make that committee more responsive?
MR. MORASH: I haven't had direct discussions with the committee. I believe from an internal aspect they were very active and involved and responsive to a problem that has been very difficult to isolate and determine the root cause and the source, and that seems to have been one of the ongoing issues with this. If somebody could have put their finger directly on what it was and when it was, we could have taken the remedial steps, but it has held on and we've had certainly experts in the field who have come in.
The health authority hired an occupational hygienist to do the environmental testing and we had other independent parties conduct audits on indoor air quality, air quality investigation, metal air analysis, air quality testing of the laboratory and X-ray departments, the laundry and air ventilation reports, water and material investigation reports and, in addition, Environmental Laboratory Services did a water analysis and all these results were within the normal limits, including the air quality testing results and biological exposure indices. This was a challenging one, as I know you're aware. We really, you know everybody who was involved was having problems. I guess the determination as to whether the joint committee acted, and I don't know, I'm not sure, they certainly acted properly when we were involved - whether you think we were involved soon enough, I guess maybe is the question.
MR. CORBETT: Well, that's part of it. At the other side of it too, it appears, upon reading documents, whether it's the actual OHS Committee from the hospital, or the larger group from the DHA, it appears that the investigative style led to maybe some of the problems being exacerbated inasmuch - I guess the analogy would appear to be that if the police came upon an accident and there was a body on the side of the road and the car sped off and they went and chased the car for speeding and didn't attend to the body and so it was almost split, that clearly when you look at some of the reports that they really, at early points, the management of the building didn't go down the road of air quality soon enough as part of their investigation.
They almost ran to heavy metals and said, okay, and leaving this whole piece over here, not really sitting down at that time and saying all these things look especially quite frustrating in a hospital atmosphere, for them not to think headaches, blurred vision, logy-
[Page 234]
ness, all this stuff, that's probably as much associated with bad air quality than any kind of direct heavy metals. So I guess, has your department looked into the fact that the investigation was so unbalanced that we could have prevented some of the illness had we taken a step back and looked at it in its fullness?
MR. MORASH: My understanding is that the preliminary investigation didn't cite air quality as an issue, but there was medical evidence which led them to look at the heavy metal issue and that certainly did focus things. Now the studies that took place, the joint committee was involved in those and I guess I can say with some experience that in order for outside experts to come in and have credibility in a workforce, you really have to have people from your joint committee, people who are on the floor and know the aspects of the workplace, a company assist, be involved with the people who are taking the samples, doing the sampling and, of course, you know the tests go off to the labs and then we need to have the results interpreted to us.
However, the joint committee was involved in those tests as they took place, which is proper and what has to happen just from a good safety program within any kind of a facility. It does appear that the medical evidence led in the direction that was taken and that was because they did identify heavy metal issues with regard to some sampling and, of course, I suspect, as we all would, once you notice a thing, you would concentrate on that and try to think that that was the problem and fix it. However, the preliminary air quality reports didn't red flag anything or indicate that there was an issue there at that point in time.
MR. CORBETT: I guess a couple of things, when you're looking at a 40-year-old building, you know it has all the aspects of a potentially sick building - its age, its design, the materials used. Indeed, the idea of cross-ventilation is opening two doors - and I don't mean to be flip when I say that, but at a point in time that was perfectly acceptable. But what's really frustrating here too, Mr. Minister, is that there are still a number of employees who cannot return to work because of illness. Yet they sit there, they don't have access to LTD, and right now they have no access to WCB. So what we're having is you're saying a report that indicated that exposure to heavy metals, we know there's exposure to poor air because of air quality and lack of proper air exchange, so can you tell me why these employees are off sick and can't avail themselves of benefits from workers' compensation?
MR. MORASH: My information here says that we have 31 workers' compensation claims that have been received from workers at the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital and that we have four workers who remain off work claiming metal intoxication from their work environment and, if you don't mind, I will go through some of this just so that we have the information.
MR. CORBETT: No problem.
[Page 235]
MR. MORASH: Now there have been no decisions on these claims from the WCB at this point in time and, as you can appreciate, they're very complex claims because we're still gathering medical information on this, and the WCB continues to gather information that would assist in the adjudicating of the claims. There are two aspects here. We have information that we're trying to gather, so the WCB doesn't currently have all the testing data that they need to adjudicate the claims, so there has been a request sent by the WCB to the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital requesting the missing information and the data and that's ongoing as we're speaking.
MR. CORBETT: When was that request put forward, Mr. Minister?
MR. MORASH: Also the Ontario Workers' Clinic is in the province this week. They've come down to do some testing and we will be able to provide, hopefully, that information that we're looking for.
MR. CORBETT: Okay, but you were saying when you sent off to the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital, or as the bigger umbrella, the district health authority for Cape Breton, they're the ones that are going to supply, from Dr. Haynes, whom I believe is coming in from Ontario - is that right, are they going to use Dr. Haynes' information to form part of their decision on whether to pay these affected employees' compensation?
MR. MORASH: There have been some other independent assessments that have taken place; this will be an additional one. So this will be part of the package that helps determine.
MR. CORBETT: It will be part.
MR. MORASH: Part of.
MR. CORBETT: Okay, then when we're talking about "part", and this has been a point of contention between quite a few people. If an employee has heavy metals in their body and they want to pursue a form of chelation therapy, will the board recognize chelation therapy as an appropriate therapy?
MR. MORASH: I guess, as you can appreciate, that's something that I can't answer right now. I can check with the board.
MR. CORBETT: Would you undertake to do that?
[Page 236]
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. MORASH: Yes, we will check with the board - and this is also new to the board, as you can appreciate. I don't know of any chelation therapy that has been approved by WCB in the past, but there certainly could be cases if it has been medically recognized that that was the proper treatment for some type of an exposure.
MR. CORBETT: So what I want to get to is you mentioned about the fairly large numbers of people who are affected and some have returned to work and some have failed to return to work because of their illnesses. My real fear is some of the ones who return to work because what we have sometimes in this system is we push people back to work because they have to pay their bills. It doesn't make them any less sick, it doesn't make them any better, but they're at work and people say well, there was nothing wrong with you anyway, look, you're back here. But they're only back there because of pure economics - it's either work or starve.
I'm quite frustrated with the board in its position around these because it's fine to say we need all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, but these are sick people who at some point were not paid benefits. People tell me they have contacted the board and the board has said we're looking into it. I mean there has to be a greater urgency from the board - we all know Dr. Haynes wouldn't be here if it wasn't a rollout from Dr. Smith's report when the union sat down with management of the DHA and said here's an expert we can all agree on and the three parties agreed on it, and they went out, a little late, but nonetheless he's here. It seemed the board was quite willing to sit on the sideline and say we have nothing on our books to cover this - tough luck - just keep sending us more information.
I guess, Mr. Minister, what I'm saying is at what point - like a former CEO of WCB has been trying to tell me that they're not a welfare agency and they're not a social net agency, they're an insurance company, but they're also an insurance company with a unique position that they're a no-fault insurance company and I guess I wanted to say barring the hard work of the workers themselves, the people who represent them and the DHA, there has been absolutely nothing substantive done by the board to help these workers - so if I'm wrong, can you enlighten me to what they've done to help make these workers whole again and get them the financial rewards that they deserve?
MR. MORASH: At this point in time, I really can't enlighten you because I haven't been directly involved or don't have any information on that, but I would endeavour to go back to the board and ask for a status on this issue and make you aware of what the status is, to confirm where we are with regard to these individuals because they certainly, you know we all appreciate they're very important and we want to do certainly whatever we can within the legislative limits for them. So we'll endeavour to do that and get back to you with the status at this time.
[Page 237]
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, I appreciate the undertaking. The other side of this is that it appears - and it depends on which day of the week it is - that the board is treating this, for want of a better term, as a class action. They're taking all of these employees and saying, okay, this is almost like you were all caught in a period of time and we're going to do this, I mean it would be similar as your background. If there was a major accident at a mill and they said, okay, a boiler had exploded and we're now going to, and that was on April 29th, treat everyone and get them through the system.
Well, it perplexes me that they're doing this because you know better than I do that air quality, people have different tolerances - I mean, if we go back to the mining thing of the wet lung versus the dry lung and so on - so why are they keeping all these people who file over here as opposed to saying Mr. or Mrs. X applied on this date and this is where we're pulling it through. Why is everybody being held out?
MR. MORASH: Certainly they would look at claims individually and I was thinking, as you were talking, that if we can get a status report of where they are that may be beneficial, but each individual would be assessed within the board, but there is this common thread throughout of what the issue is and what the cause is, and of course the reason we're discussing this is because we've had expert upon expert come in and not be able to pinpoint a source or have the types of linkages that we normally have associated with workers' compensation claims, and we would be very hopeful that somebody will be able to determine something. But at this point in time it doesn't appear that it's going to be easy and it doesn't appear that it's going to be quick, although we still have additional experts looking and people are taking this very seriously, so I am hopeful that we can find the source, eliminate the issue and, of course, each of the individuals has to be assessed individually as well as we go forward.
MR. CORBETT: I appreciate a couple of things, I certainly know it has not been quick, and I hope they're being reasonable, but it still seems extremely frustrating. If you just think of it, Mr. Minister, a lineup of 30-some people, and they're all being held out - and, again, as I think we could probably appreciate without seeing the files in front of us, that there would be varying degrees from maybe getting the odd headache at work to not being able to return to work, chronic fatigue syndrome, something like that, so I guess I will ask you again why is it that the board is not pursuing these on an individual basis and saying, like if these people don't avail themselves of Dr. Haynes, then what you're in effect saying is they're not going to get any resolve because they have decided not to go to Dr. Haynes. Are they being ordered (a) by the board to go to Dr. Haynes and (b) if they don't go to Dr. Haynes, can they still be considered for workers' compensation benefits?
MR. MORASH: Regardless of who they go to, they certainly would be considered for Workers' Compensation benefits.
[Page 238]
MR. CORBETT: Not necessarily, Mr. Minister, I beg to differ. I mean I've got files upon files of people in my office who have been refused WCB benefits because of what their board doctor says, so I mean I think that's a fairly important piece of the puzzle if the board is forcing them to see somebody.
MR. MORASH: The board certainly has their own physicians that they use, as you're well aware. However, we're also both well aware that it's additional new information generally from a specialist or an expert in the field that helps build the case for the individual to look through the appeal process, to look for added benefits or the beginning of benefits. With what's going on now, I would certainly encourage all individuals to make themselves available for any discussions or any assessment with any of the experts who are currently working on-site to ensure that the best possible case is built and the most information is passed along to the WCB. The Workers' Compensation Board is also on new ground from the point of view that this isn't something that has occurred before. There isn't an easy road map as to the direction to go and they're also trying to build their cases to ensure that they have the adequate information to make proper decisions under the rules and guidelines that they have.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, I'm going to be closing in a moment and sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth East. I just want to go on the record, I guess just a couple of moments with you, I know the Third Party is quite loud in their call for a public inquiry into what happened at the New Waterford Consolidated Hospital. I want to say to you publicly that I'm not a particularly big supporter of that. I believe, and you know from time to time we'll disagree on the investigative process, but I think that we're headed in the direction - and hopefully it's sooner - and we all have the same common goal, and that is that those who are ill from the workplace, that they're made whole again and they become productive workers.
I don't think anybody willfully went out and tried to hurt these people, I think it was an accident by every definition of what an accident in the workplace is. I take the position that - as I mentioned to you yesterday about some of the Occupational Health and Safety regulations that are still out there - 26 people died at Westray, we had an inquiry, and still most of those recommendations haven't been enforced, haven't been brought to regulation. So I really think that when we have a party speaking of we've got to have a public inquiry, it's more flash than any kind of meat on the plate.
I have confidence in your department that you will do the right thing. I would like to be able to say I have the same confidence in WCB, but I can't. And with those few words, I want to thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming here. I want to thank your staff for their excellent co-operation whenever I've asked the assistance of your department. I haven't always agreed with it, but they've always been more than helpful, and I appreciate their forthrightness with getting you the proper information when I asked you questions that may
[Page 239]
not have been right at your fingertips. So, I appreciate your openness, and your staff. With that said, I will turn it over to my colleague, the member for Dartmouth East.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
MS. JOAN MASSEY: I'm going to try to tie my questions to the green plan and the first part of my questions will be more monetary and on the estimates, and then I'm going to move on to more policy kinds of questions.
I would like to first say that I was disappointed in the Budget Speech because I don't think the word "environment" was in there even once. When I looked at the Budget Speech, I saw that there was a lot of talk about health care, but the government doesn't seem to be making the connection that what's happening in the environment is having an effect on the health of the people who live in Nova Scotia, and it will continue to do so far into the future.
I have had a lot of input from people around the province on the green plan and some of their comments and some of my feelings were that the plan itself was disheartening to say the least. People felt that where there should have been commitments to stronger regulations and firm enforcement, there were only promises to do things like promote, encourage and lead by example. Generally, the identification of responsibilities, timetables and compliance were only covered in a very sketchy fashion. It wasn't really tied to the Environment Act in any particular way, it was all over the place. There were feelings that not enough public consultation was done around that whole process and that it should have been followed by strong regulations, timetables, and they should have identified responsibilities to follow through with those commitments. My first question is . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me a second, can you bring your microphone in a little closer. Some are having trouble hearing. Thank you.
MS. MASSEY: Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister, on Page 9.3, went from $287,000 in the 2003-04 estimate to $425,000 in the 2004-05, which is an approximate increase of $140,000. Could you tell me, is this increase due to the issues that we're going to be facing in the very near future, for example, on biosolids, water quality issues, inspections and assessment? So what I'm looking for you to tell me is have you hired more staff to look after these issues or is this just a pay increase for certain people already there?
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. MORASH: We've increased staff. It's probably very important to point out that we have a deputy minister and an assistant deputy minister in the department, or we will as of January 1st, and this was an outgoing recommendation by the previous deputy minister - we had some discussion on this yesterday - who, I can attest was working very, very hard and had a lot of issues. As you can appreciate, our department seems to have a number of, I guess
[Page 240]
you would call them hot issues, issues that are certainly very demanding and we felt that this was a benefit to the department, to have some senior management in place and ensure that there was additional manpower to be able to discuss the issues and make sure that we can move forward in a timely fashion and that we certainly aren't holding anything up with regard to just a shortage of actual hours in the day. So by joining the two departments, we've got Labour and Environment, which are quite diverse, we've meshed them together, and certainly I think realize that there's additional staff that was required in order to be able to fulfill our mandate to the best of our ability.
MS. MASSEY: So can you tell me how many additional staff were added?
MR. MORASH: In total full-time equivalents, we really are I think less than one. We've added an assistant deputy minister. We will be adding secretarial services to support that and we also have a special assistant to the minister. Also there was an injection of $70,000 into Communications because they had been underfunded.
MS. MASSEY: That was my next question. You must have read my mind. Okay, that was my next question actually. So I'm wondering if that is a reflection of the needs that I've heard from communities across the province, that they aren't really being communicated with, and although the green plan does talk a lot about communicating, a lot of people across the province are feeling that they aren't being communicated with - for example, folks down in Digby Neck, and then a lot of people around the seismic blasting issue where I actually heard from people from as far away as California and England and all across the world who were quite concerned with that, but that issue continued to move forward.
My third question is, under the Policy, Administration, on Page 9.3, that has decreased by $200,000, if I'm correct, and I have a concern there because we have not written any policy or legislation on certain very important issues that our province faces, such as species at risk and climate change. It's a little concerning to me that we would take money out of that department, so perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that?
MR. MORASH: That's actually a very good question because what we had was a one-time injection for the insurance file, to do the work that needed to be done there last year. So if we go back an additional year, we have the same amount of money in for policy development that we had. So this was a one-time bump, the work was done, and it has reverted back to its original levels.
MS. MASSEY: Is that section, that department going to be, do you know, looking at drawing up and putting forward a new policy for those kinds of issues - species at risk and climate change, emission control, effluent control, those types of things?
MR. MORASH: If you don't mind, I will start with those - species at risk belongs to DNR, however . . .
[Page 241]
MS. MASSEY: Sure.
MR. MORASH: . . . our policy people would certainly be involved with them as well. We do work as closely as possible, but that would fall directly with the responsibility of DNR and the climate change would fall with the Energy Department, and again we'd be consulted and having discussions with them.
MS. MASSEY: Exactly, and that's sort of a whole issue with my critic area. It seems it's all over the place, it's Energy, it's the Department of Natural Resources, it's Environment and Labour, so all these things sort of intertwine, and I'm hoping what I am hearing today is that your department works very closely with these other two departments because all these issues tend to come together and create either problems or benefits for Nova Scotians.
MR. MORASH: Yes, we're there, I guess, to work with everybody. There are certainly improvements you can always make in communications as you move forward and unlike you with regard to the amount of places that you have to go for information, it really does take a road map and it takes some time to realize just exactly who the contact person is in order to get that information. It's challenging at first, I guess is the way to put it and I'm sure, especially from the point of view of your responsibilities, I guess, if there's anything that we can ever do when you call and ask about these things, we'll give you whatever information we possibly can and give you briefings to help you understand, because we're really all in this together, to try to do what we can to improve the environment. That's important to both of us to make sure that we do the best while we're here.
MS. MASSEY: On Page 9.9, Information and Business Services, Research, I believe there's an increase of roughly $100,000 in 2004-05. What type of research does that department carry out, can you give me just a short idea? For example, you mentioned earlier this morning with biosolids that you had looked at the science. What exactly do you mean when you say, looked at the science? Do we actually have people in a profession within the department who actually have a scientific background with enough knowledge to know when they're looking at this information, what information is the best and where we should go?
MR. MORASH: We certainly would have a number of staff who would be considered experts in their field working on these things, and we have hydrogeologists and engineers and others, and of course we wouldn't limit ourselves to the department at all either. If there's someplace where we needed additional expertise, we certainly have the ability and the budget to be able to go out and ask for that information, and on a contract basis have people provide us with third-party, independent information that would help us determine our path forward.
MS. MASSEY: I believe when you're talking about different experts, I continue to receive a lot of communication from various people and organizations. Is it true that the province does not have a certified limnologist on staff? There's a large concern I know even just within Dartmouth, let's say, the City of Lakes, that our lakes are in a pretty bad state
[Page 242]
right now and continue to be degraded and I'm sure other areas in the province are facing the same sort of thing. Is this something that the department is looking seriously at hiring?
MR. MORASH: We certainly at this point in time have hydrogeologists on staff, who do certainly a large portion of what an applied limnologist would do as is my understanding. Certainly if the need arose, we'd have that ability to be able to go out and contract with someone for those kinds of services, but at the current time our staff complement with hydrogeologists and other people who work in that field we feel is adequate to take care of the issues that have been coming up. Water quality is certainly a huge issue within the Province of Nova Scotia and it will continue to be in the forefront and our job is to make sure that it is, but at this point in time, we do not have an applied limnologist on staff and we don't have any plans at this point in time to hire one. However, if we require those services we would find somebody and get them to do that type of work for us.
MS. MASSEY: Thank you. Is the province looking at any kind of an overall survey of our lakes in the province and health of our lakes and what we should be doing to protect them, especially with building a lot of developments around our lakes, it does have a huge impact. I'm just wondering, what are the plans for the future?
MR. MORASH: I guess that the plans are to protect the lakes. There are a lot of things that we do within the department that formulate and go along with that, water quality - drinking water quality is one thing, you have to have your source water as clean as possible before it makes it to the drinking water stream, and of course our sewage installation people who are trained throughout the province to ensure that we have proper systems around water courses of all types: lakes and rivers and oceans. We have some old systems out there and we're constantly working with people who have some older systems, trying to help them upgrade, working with some communities to try to collect and in some cases we were able to help them access some funding to be able to do that.
I guess our plan is to protect waterways and watercourses within the province, with all aspects of the department's resources, as well as with other departments that have responsibilities for lakes and waterways as well. We work in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as being in close contact with the federal government on a lot of these issues, and certainly they're always there as a source of advice and a source of research abilities as well.
Overall, the department's job is to protect the environment and certainly lakes fall in that and we would be doing everything that's reasonably practical to try to ensure that the water quality is improving in some of the lakes where we've identified issues and we've identified sources. Of course, we all know some examples of pollutants that are getting into lakes and I'm thinking mostly from the sewage or septic issues that we're working on, on a daily and monthly basis, to try to clean things up and better improve the quality of the water.
[Page 243]
MS. MASSEY: On Page 9.7, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance, there's been a decrease by $300,000 from 2003-04. I think I heard you say yesterday morning or yesterday afternoon, something about new fees. Are we going to be recovering that through new fees, or is this through administration?
MR. MORASH: This would be similar to the others, yes, there are some new fees and those fees come into the department and are used for that exercise within the department, so the money is still there and is constant for us to continue to do what we were doing, but these additional fees have come in to offset our costs and therefore it looks like a reduction in the budget, but it actually is a reduction in the amount of money that we're actually spending.
We would be, as you would call it, subsidized by the people who are paying these new user fees and they're paying for the monitoring that we do and it's under the pollute-or-pay principle that we are monitoring their activities and therefore we believe that they should be paying for these activities which gives both parties good information, as well as the federal government and others, with information on what we are monitoring and what results we're getting so that we can look at different types of programs or perhaps new programs that have to come in to mitigate and reduce the overall, I guess, particulates and others that go into the atmosphere.
MS. MASSEY: Are these fees additions to fees, like have you topped the fees up or are these some new fees, for example, to control emissions from, say, Nova Scotia Power or Imperial Oil or effluents? Are there going to be fees involving effluents from industries?
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. MORASH: We have industrial air emission fees, watercourse alteration fees, contaminated site fees and some administration fees that are new, they add up to $524,000 for these additional new fees, and then there were also the cost of living fee increases in the other regimes of the fees that we charge in the department at a rate of about 6.5 per cent. So pre-existing fees went up by 6.5 per cent and, as I noted, there are some new ones that were substantial.
MS. MASSEY: Are we going to be doing more monitoring in the future? They're new fees, so you're expecting you're going to be levying these fees. So I'm expecting then that if there's going to be more monitoring going on, isn't that going to be a cost to the department if we have to go out and monitor, say, our 22 lagoons and Aerotech and all these septic waste sites and so on and so forth?
MR. MORASH: Some of our new fees as the watercourse alteration - it is a partial recovery. It's something that we've not charged before, but there was a cost to the inspection and the audit program for watercourse alteration. So that's a new fee, but that's actually just recovering what we did. We provide a lot of services where there aren't cost recoveries and
[Page 244]
it's understandable, you know, we're there to try to make sure that things are done properly, but we're not there to penalize people who are doing it properly. Now, unfortunately, it becomes necessary at some point in time to try to recover some of the fees that you incur just by doing your inspections and having your staff out doing the work, so that we do have a number of those that are cost recovery that we have just begun recovering those costs.
MS. MASSEY: If I could go back to the emission fee, could you just go into more detail for me on that? I'm not sure exactly . . .
MR. MORASH: Yes, I can. If you don't mind, I'll just give you some information from here. There are tiered fees for Nova Scotia companies producing sulphur dioxide, particulate matter and other gaseous emissions above certain thresholds. So the fees will cover the cost of services necessary to manage air quality in Nova Scotia, including maintaining and upgrading air monitoring networks, and I've come to find out that air monitoring equipment is extremely expensive to buy and extremely expensive to maintain although I guess when you're looking at what it performs, it's probably very cost effective in doing a good job for us.
Air shed management planning, policy development and research studies, so we have over 70 companies that have been identified as necessary to pay these fees and as far as I can tell, I've had very little opposition with regard to the introduction of these. It's not something that surprised many people. It was something that they realize that in this day and age there's going to have to be a monitoring program in place that's very extensive and that certainly the people who are producing the particulate that you want to monitor are going to be the bearers of the costs and certainly there were increased costs to Nova Scotia Power and other related companies, but Nova Scotia Power would be the largest increase, certainly to them, because of their business and because of the amount of coal that they burn to produce the electricity and I do have some general numbers with regard to fees if you were interested.
MS. MASSEY: I would love to have a copy of that later on. If that would be possible, that would be great. Are these fees then a reflection of the government moving forward perhaps on putting enough - it's a fee, but let's call it an incentive for industries or power generating plants to move to renewable energy sources because I'm not sure, you know, and have we based these fees on other places in the world that are putting these fees forward to make companies become more energy efficient and move to renewable sources?
MR. MORASH: I guess the short answer would be yes. I mean there's certainly incentive if you have to pay an additional fee because of your emissions, that you're going to work diligently to reduce your emissions and stop paying that fee. That is money that you would rather spend in operations than spend sending to us for a monitoring program. We did do extensive research on what other people, or other provinces, other jurisdictions do in this type of situation. So this would be after doing, pretty well, I guess, a worldwide with the Web - you do a worldwide look at what everybody else is doing and what's going on and
[Page 245]
determining what our costs were and what fit here and what was acceptable, but there's no question that we will have some incentive to these individual companies to try to reduce their emissions.
However, I must say that the companies in this province are working very, very hard at trying to reduce these already. We have the proper mindset and the proper regulatory framework that - I don't want to leave you with the impression that these companies aren't trying to do better because they certainly are and right now the fees are designed to move some of these people who are having the emissions to the energy strategy targets. So there are some targets that people are working for and I understand that British Columbia and New Brunswick would have similar types of fees as to what we have imposed. So this is not, I guess, a shocking situation for Canada.
MS. MASSEY: Page 9.8, Environmental Assessment, the costs there are to be eliminated and will actually generate $21,000. So, therefore, the total recovery is expected to be about $340,000. Is that totally through increased fees, there has been no change in staffing, and my other question in regard to that is, are we going to move towards Class II environmental assessment capabilities, are you going to put any suggestions in that we get an environmental assessment board ready and available to do a Class II environmental assessment since one hasn't been done for six years?
MR. MORASH: On the first one certainly, it was the introduction of the tiered fees on the industrial air emissions that made the difference with regard to the numbers and the budget issue. Certainly with regard to the Class II environmental assessments, we can put a board together, you know, to do a Class II assessment and we're currently in the process of putting a board together for the panel review that is going to take place and that would be the one at the quarry up at Whites Cove. So that process is ongoing and we've been dealing with the federal government and names have been submitted and I'm not sure of the exact time frame on that, but we will in the quite near future come up with the panel that will be reviewing that and they'll have a time frame and that certainly will be communicated so everybody is aware, and from my point of view the sooner the better. However, these things do take some time as we work through and develop what has to be done.
MS. MASSEY: Mr. Minister, I would like to just go into a bit more detail on the environmental assessment part of your department. The vast majority of registrations under the Environmental Assessment Regulations do get approved, including projects that do have a heavy impact on our environment. I don't know if this is an appropriate question, but how many registrations actually were turned down, say, last year?
MR. MORASH: I don't know if we have that. It looks like we may have that. If we don't, we'll get it for you. (Interruption) With regard to environmental assessments, we did not turn down any last year. I think we had in the ballpark of 10 to 12. One of the reasons for that is that we worked with the proponent before the actual environmental assessment begins,
[Page 246]
so they typically will develop a draft, work with the department, work through the issues that come up through the draft plan, and a lot of time and effort goes in prior to the submission, so that we have ironed out some of the wrinkles and some of the issues.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when these are approved, there are always terms and conditions on these. So we have the ability to put terms and conditions that we deem appropriate, and some can be quite restrictive. So we have control as we go forward to ensure that they are meeting our requirements, and also if we assess, at a future date, that they're not able to, there's always the remedial action that we can take and remove an industrial permit or things like that to ensure that we have people working. But there's a lot of work done behind the scenes.
Certainly companies appreciate how important these things are to their business-planning processes. They don't just bounce in and say, here, we need this approved and the clock starts ticking. They'll make sure that they have everything up to speed and up to our requirements. I can tell you that our staff works very diligently with a lot of the proponents that come in. There are massive - and I mean massive - amounts of information that come into the department with regard to these things. It's gone over with a fine-tooth comb, and then we look at what can be done, what needs to be done and make the decision at that point in time.
MS. MASSEY: We know that Nova Scotia Power is planning on adding another generator to its Tufts Cove station, and there have been a lot of people who have been against letting Nova Scotia Power go through with that without doing a Class II environmental assessment, by adding that other generator on. But your department continues to allow that to go through. Why is that?
MR. MORASH: I think I've been asked a few questions before on that. The decision for that to be a Class I was made back on January 8, 2004. This is an extension, but I think the one thing that is important to appreciate is that we have a Class I environmental undertaking. It's still a very significant environmental assessment. We don't take that lightly. A Class I is something where we'll take a look at this expansion. It is on the existing facility. There certainly are understandable allowances that you can make for an addition with regard to a greenfield site, where someone is going to start something completely new and they don't have the infrastructure in place, they don't have the monitoring systems in place.
A lot of things would have to be reviewed, and we wouldn't have any comfort level if it was out in a greenfield site. However, we know where this is going. We know their monitoring systems. We know their environmental programs. We know what they have done in the past. We have their track record. We have a working relationship with the individuals who would be involved in this. For those reasons, we are confident that a Class I undertaking will adequately address all the issues and concerns that are out there. We appreciate that there
[Page 247]
are people who believe that we should do a more extensive and exhaustive study of this; however, this is still an exhaustive and extensive study that we're doing.
The environmental assessments, we take them very seriously. They are a document - we ensure that all the experts in our department, as well as others in the field, as well as the proponents send in to us, and all this information gets reviewed, and we make sure that they meet the requirements within the Environment Act and move forward from there.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We've reached the end of the NDP time for questions. We will now move on to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Preston.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have some specific questions, to start off today, on the commercial diving industry, and the fact that Nova Scotia is the only province in the country that doesn't have either regulations in place or proposed regulations in place. I believe the only other one that's even considering proposed regulations at this point is Manitoba. Everyone else has regulations in place. How far along, and what is the status of the Province of Nova Scotia with these regulations at the present time?
MR. MORASH: I guess we've talked a bit about regulations. One of the first sets of regulations that I reviewed when I became minister was the diving regulations. One of the reasons was that I had some previous exposure from the point of view that we were looking for some guidance, where I used to work, for diving activities. They weren't as abundant or as clear, and we were in a bit of a specialty situation. So when I came to the department, that was the one set of regulations that I wanted to review and find out the location, or just where it was.
We've reviewed those, we've had discussions with the sea urchin divers or the representative groups, and we've also had discussions with the large diving groups. We're coming up with regulations, we want to be able to cover the professional diver. We also want to be able to cover the aquaculture industry. They have some unique situations. Unfortunately, as I'm sure we're all aware, they have some significant hazards in that industry that have proven that there have been some fatalities.
We are working towards coming up with usable regulations that would help educate and keep people safe. We are continuing dialogue with the different stakeholders, trying to come up with the descriptive regulations that would help out. Now in the meantime, we certainly are in contact with those stakeholder organizations, giving whatever information we possibly can to assist them in being able to work safely. They are in progress currently, and we've worked along through those. We're committed to completing these. There have been
[Page 248]
a number of individuals from across Canada who have been monitoring our progress and taking a look at what we're doing. So we've had some discussions with them as well.
There are some general regulations in place that apply to the diving industry currently, but they also apply to every other organization in the province. We had a provincial working group that produced a report in 1998, and we also have been working with, as I said, the representatives from the different industries to try to come up with the best possible regulations. We can adopt a code of practice currently, so we can impose some guidelines and codes of practice in the interim while we're working through this, but our intention is to complete these guidelines or these regulations and to get them out to industry.
MR. COLWELL: You indicated the sea urchin industry in Nova Scotia has been concerned about the regulations. It's my understanding that Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, which both have a sea urchin industry, have adopted the national standards and not watered the regulations down whatsoever to accommodate one industry, an industry, by the way, that a gentleman was killed in in March 2003. What's the difference between Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island?
MR. MORASH: The urchin divers in the province have indicated that they aren't able to comply with the CSA standards that were adopted, and that there are some details that they want to work out to better fit their industry. Also, as I understand, Newfoundland is having some issues with their regulations, as well. One of the challenges that we have is coming up with good regulations, that the minute it goes out it doesn't have to come back and be revamped because we overlooked some group and we've imposed something on them that is detrimental to their ability to perform their work. With that, you balance off making sure that you have regulation out there to ensure health and safety for the divers. There have been ongoing discussions; however, they haven't been accepted in this province as they have been in others.
MR. COLWELL: Again, if you look at the Newfoundland standards, they use CSA Z275.4-97 Competency Standard for Diving Operations, and they also use CSA Z275.2-92 Occupational Safety Code for Diving Operations. Right in the regulations it states that the standard applied to in Section 1(a) takes effect 24 months after the publication in the Gazette. And Section 1(b), which is the diving operations, takes effect six months afterwards. So both of those give quite a bit of time to get people up to speed.
Are you telling me, because some organization here can't qualify under a CSA standard or some other standard that Nova Scotia may put in place, that you're going to lower the standards, when someone's life is on the line? Is that what you're telling me?
MR. MORASH: No, I'm telling you we're trying to work with all the stakeholders involved to come up with the best possible regulations. If there are issues that we can work on and come up with an equivalency level of protection for that stakeholder group, we will
[Page 249]
work towards that to protect the employees, but also to come up with a standard or a regulation that is acceptable by the stakeholder groups.
MR. COLWELL: Maybe someone in your department can tell me why we have to change the regulations, when there's a national standard. I believe CSA 275.4 and possibly CSA 275.2 have been nationally recognized by the Canadian Standards Council. It's the only national standard used in the country, and you're going to water that down? Is that what you're telling me? I can't believe that.
MR. MORASH: We would actually be looking at - as I said, this equivalency -working with the stakeholder groups to come up with a level of safety, equal to but perhaps not exactly the same wording as you would find in the CSA standard. Some of the training requirements and these types of things, there's full agreement that people have to be trained.
Some of the issues that the sea urchin divers have brought to our attention have to do with standby people, who would be at the surface when they're diving, and the CSA standard, as I understand it, requires a lifeline, similar to firefighting. There are some indications where people who are on a lifeline are more concerned for their safety, getting their lifeline caught around the propellor of a boat or around some sort of obstacle on the bottom, that being a concern for their own personal safety. There are some of these issues that certainly are legitimate concerns that we want to work through, to make sure that they have the level of safety that they deserve.
MR. COLWELL: So you're telling me that because someone is complaining they might have to use a lifeline that Nova Scotia is going to rewrite the Canadian standard regulations to accommodate somebody. Now what happens if somebody doesn't go with a lifeline and they died or had a very serious accident, if Nova Scotia didn't adopt the nationally-accepted standard, and that person dies, because you buckled to somebody who just doesn't want to do what the standard says and we write the standard around that?
MR. MORASH: We are currently working with them, and they're putting forth some issues with regard to such things as pony bottles, which are the small air bottles that you would use in the event of an emergency, and that would be a standard operating procedure if you were going diving, also with regard to a recall procedure, to be able to have divers report to the surface on some interval, so that you could track and maintain their whereabouts.
Again, this is an equivalency type of system that we're looking at, so that we would have an equivalent level of safety to the CSA standard; however, it may not require the exact same terminology of the CSA standards. We're not looking at diminishing the level of safety, by any means, we're looking at solving problems that have been identified in the industry with an equivalent level of safety apparatus or procedure, so that we can ensure that the regulations that we come up with are comparable with the CSA standard.
[Page 250]
MR. COLWELL: Why go to all that effort when you have a standard that's nationally recognized, and if you look at Prince Edward Island's, it was very similar. The sea urchin operation, aquaculture sites, commercial diving, recreational diving, their standard states, and I will read it, because this is so straightforward. Their Occupational Health and Safety Act says, "The employer shall ensure that all underwater diving operations meet the CA Standard Z275.2, Occupational Safety Code for Diving Operations." That's their regulation.
Now it's exactly the same as Nova Scotia. Aren't Nova Scotia divers as competent as they are in Prince Edward Island? I highly doubt it, we would probably be more competent because we probably do more commercial-type work in Nova Scotia than they do in P.E.I. at the present time and there are probably more divers. Why would you want to change the regulations from a Canadian standard down to something that's going to be different?
MR. MORASH: With regard to the first part, on competency, I would certainly hope that all the divers who are in the water are competent. I've been a sport diver for a number of years, and it's something that you really can't take any chances with. You're in a confined space that's very unforgiving, and you have to make sure that your practices and procedures are where they should be. Our department has had discussions with Newfoundland, and they are having the same problem, after they initiated the regulation citing the CA standard, that we are going through now. So they have an industry that is having great difficulties complying with the rule that's been imposed upon them. Now they're looking at ways to work through that.
Our goal is to try to work through those situations prior to putting the regulations in place but, again, maintaining an equivalency level of safety, after consultation with the stakeholders and consultation with the diving experts and the people who do this for a living. They have a vested interest in ensuring that they're safe, and they also have a vested interest in ensuring that they can do this and it's practical under the experiences that they go through when they're doing their diving in whatever type of commercial diving it might be.
MR. COLWELL: Yesterday we talked about the North Sea, and you said the North Sea wasn't as harsh an environment as Nova Scotia. How many divers died in the North Sea - this is some information your staff should know right off hand - before regulations were brought in place?
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. MORASH: I'm not sure that's something that we have at our fingertips. We can research that and, I'm not sure, do you have that answer?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I do.
MR. MORASH: We don't have that at this point in time.
[Page 251]
MR. COLWELL: Well, that really astonishes me because here you're talking about doing regulations, watering down or modifying regulations, and it appears that maybe some of the people don't have the training. It sounds like some of the people don't have the training that they should have to be in commercial diving or even some other type of diving. I'm going to give you the number here because it's quite shocking and this is an environment, you told me yesterday in this meeting, that's not as harsh as Nova Scotia - those were your exact words here yesterday - and 58 people died in the North Sea before they put regulations in place. How many have died since then, can your staff tell me that, since the regulations were put in place?
MR. MORASH: I suspect if we didn't have the first number, we don't have the second.
MR. COLWELL: Well, I'm shocked. The answer is, and I'm going to tell you the answer and if your staff is looking at this stuff, they should bloody well do the research - excuse me, it makes me really upset. I will withdraw that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you withdraw that?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I will, sorry about that. There hasn't been a serious accident or a death in the North Sea since the proper regulations have been put in place and Nova Scotia is talking about accommodating a few people who figure they can't make the requirements. If that's the case, why doesn't the Department of Labour in conjunction with the Department of Education put some training programs on to get these people up to scratch in time so they can do the work?
MR. MORASH: Now, there is a differentiation between the offshore divers and the divers that we are working with currently. With regard to offshore, there are standards that are acceptable and used in the North Sea as well as in our offshore and they certainly have some very stringent regulations and requirements and training. I'm certainly not an expert in what those all are, but I know they take this very seriously and when you think that you're out in the North Atlantic bouncing around doing some things with heavy equipment, that's certainly a very dangerous position and condition to be in. Our issue is with the inshore and the very shallow water divers and not that that's any less hazardous, but they do have some unique issues that we are trying to resolve with them to ensure that they can work safely in the field in which they are employed.
MR. COLWELL: I realize they're two different things, but they're very similar. It's the same kind of occupation and the same thing going on. If you look at the North Sea with no serious accidents and no deaths in the industry - and that goes back to probably the mid-1970s, early 1980s, when these regulations were put in place - that's a long time, but in Nova Scotia, those same guys who want to have probably some changes so they can work in the shallow water, what are you going to tell Mr. Chadwick Zinck's family who died on an
[Page 252]
aquaculture site, which probably wasn't a dive maybe more than 25-feet deep, I'm just guessing - in Northwest Cove on August 19th and then also Steven Moore's family, the sea urchin diver - now, he was probably a bit deeper - in March 2003? No regulations in place. If the regulations were in place, based on what's happening in the North Sea and offshore Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and everywhere else, probably these gentlemen wouldn't have died and that's really the point I'm getting to.
MR. MORASH: You know we are currently prosecuting some of the groups or individuals that you're talking about. So we do have some legislative requirements currently in place that are there for the protection of these employees and I would probably go on record at this time, you know, all accidents are preventable and our job is to ensure that all accidents are prevented. That is no small task because of the variables that are out there but, you know, the department's job, my job, your job, is to make sure that we work together to do everything we can to prevent any kind of an injury in the workplace or otherwise in this province, and these regulations will be going forward. They're not purposely stalled by any means, but there are some issues that we're trying to work through so that we can come out with the best possible piece of legislation, or piece of regulation, and trying to ensure maximum compliance is the other part with any regulation or legislation that comes up.
You can make the regulation, you can send the regulation out, but if you have a portion of an industry that doesn't recognize or can't possibly abide by it, we've got the regulation but we don't have the compliance for the safety. So we want to come up with something so that we can, hopefully, ensure the compliance and make sure that we have the best possible level of safety and prevent those types of accidents that you're talking about because they aren't acceptable in this province and they certainly aren't acceptable to the department or myself and we will be doing everything that we can to try to ensure those don't occur in the future.
MR. COLWELL: I realize that and I appreciate that, too, and I know it's a difficult job to prevent accidents. I do appreciate the work that the department is doing in that area and I have no argument there. This particular topic though, it's really hard to believe after just saying that and meaning that - and I know you mean that, that you want to prevent accidents - that regulations haven't been put in place. Without the regulations in place and knowing full well that you had two people die last year and I don't know, I didn't do the research in years before that to see how many other people either got serious injuries, or compensable injuries, or died, in the diving industry in Nova Scotia, but the province knows these regulations have to be in place.
Even a place like Alberta that doesn't have the coastline we have with the potential of accidents has regulations in place and it just makes you wonder. Now, are we, as taxpayers in this province, responsible for every diving accident after this when we know that we should have these regulations in place and they're not in place, even though your staff may figure they're not perfect, but at least something in place that we can say here's what you have to
[Page 253]
operate to? Now, you say you're a recreational diver, I'm not, but from what I understand you can take probably a 22-hour course with two to four open-water dives and you're a recreational diver under the regulations at the present time. So if I take a diving course, don't know a thing about it, and then get my bottles filled and I show up on an aquaculture site and say I can dive now and I'm going to work on your system or I can dive for sea urchins, there's something wrong with that picture.
MR. MORASH: Well, we are planning to have presentations made to us by the sea urchin industry, actually very soon, within the month, and then move forward with these regulations at that point in time. I don't want to leave you with the impression that this is going to continue and go on, you know, forever. This is a process that we've worked through and we will try to come up with the best possible solution for the parties involved, but it is important that these regulations go forward and we will endeavour to move them forward as quickly as we can.
MR. COLWELL: What deadline have you got for putting these regulations in place, because with two deaths in this industry in less than a year, I would think this would be one of the top priorities the Department of Environment and Labour has, to get these regulations in place and get regulations in place that will do the job. Now, from what I understand, this has been looked at since 1997. So I mean we're getting close to 10 years on this and how many more people are going to die before the regulations are in place?
MR. MORASH: We are moving forward with these and, you know, our intention is to have diving regulations completed as soon as possible. I would be hopeful that they would be within this calendar year. At this point in time we don't have a firm deadline, but I can assure you that this is important and we appreciate that our department's responsibility is to ensure that we have up-to-date regulations and legislation that assists the prevention programs within the province and we will be moving forward with these regulations.
MR. COLWELL: Are you consulting with anybody but the sea urchin people? Those are the only people you've mentioned.
MR. MORASH: Yes, I guess it would be the commercial divers and a number of others. (Interruption) Yes, there have also been some other issues with some small diving operations and larger diving operations, but those issues, the same as this process we're going through, have been resolved at this point in time. So it wasn't just the urchin divers who had some issues with regard to the standard that we're looking for a different mechanism to be able to provide an adequate level of safety. So we have worked through those with the other stakeholder groups and we're just, I guess, completing and finishing up now with the sea urchin divers.
[Page 254]
MR. COLWELL: Now, if foreign divers come to work here, what standard do they have to work under, say a diver who normally works in the U.S., or Europe, or someplace outside of Canada, who we will assume are hopefully qualified?
MR. MORASH: If they were diving under our jurisdiction, they would abide by our rules and regulations.
MR. COLWELL: And there are none?
MR. MORASH: Well, currently there are practices with regard to diving in the province that people would be required to work under.
MR. COLWELL: Are those under regulation or Act?
MR. MORASH: We currently do have a code of practice for sea urchin divers that has been in force since 1996 and that was imposed upon them. So there is a code of practice out there now for safe standards for them to abide by. So those codes of practice would be the same rules that anybody moving in from, I guess internationally, who came in to do work would abide by as well and we can cover that under the general duty clause of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We can impose codes of practice and we can impose rules that we anticipate will ensure a higher level of safety within the industry. We have done that in the past and will continue to do that.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, if they've got a code of practice and for the sea urchin industry, evidently it's not working too good because we have a death in the industry. So I think those practices must be slack. They've got to be slack. I mean 1996, they've had seven years between 1996 and 2003 to get their people trained and in place and all those codes of practice done. So either the code of practice must be no good or the diver wasn't following the code. What are your comments on that?
MR. MORASH: The codes of practice are certainly codes of practice that are imposed upon individual companies or individual divers and there is certainly a need to update the code of practice with deeper water diving and then other issues that take place, and that's why we are moving towards the regulation because that would be consistent and cover all aspects of the diving industry in the province and give us a uniform set of regulations to abide by and work by. So we are moving towards that regulation and it is necessary and needed.
MR. COLWELL: There are organizations that train recreational divers. Our record is saying that the training that they do is not sufficient for commercial diving. Yet I believe - and I would ask your staff to verify this because I don't want to put any wrong information out there - that at least either Steven Moore or Chadwick Zinck was a recreational diver doing commercial work.
[Page 255]
MR. MORASH: Those cases are currently being prosecuted and it's for that reason I would prefer not to be discussing it here in an open forum, but I can tell you that there were issues with regard to training associated with those cases and that will be explored as we move forward and there should be information that would be made available in the due course of the prosecution process.
MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that and I appreciate the amount of information you gave me on that already. I won't ask any more questions on that particular topic as it may jeopardize the case and we don't want to see that happen, but the point I'm making with this is, here's a code of practice that was in place and imposed on an industry - I'm trying to search for the words here so I don't get tangled up with what you're trying to do in court. I can assume that it wasn't followed because I'm not part of the court case and if my assumption is right or wrong, it's even more urgent to put in a really strict set of rules for diving such as the Canadian standards, the standards that are proposed and used in the CSA Z275.4 and Z275.2.
[11:15 a.m.]
An even bigger reason to move forward quicker - and, again, separate from this - this court case you have going on, that should, even after the court case is finished, hopefully give you more ammunition to move forward quickly and it gives less credibility, as far as I'm concerned, to organizations such as sea urchin organizations, which I've got no fight with or anything, they're trying to do the best they can, I realize that, but coming forward and saying we can't do this and can't do that when they've got deaths in their industry and their regulations aren't as tough as they should be even though it was imposed on them by government, which I'm glad to see it was, and anything else for safety reasons that the minister or department may feel is appropriate that could be put in place in this particular instance to protect the lives of people and make sure we don't have accidents.
So what are your comments on that? I mean you've said several times about the sea urchin people and they seem to be the holdup in this whole thing, or appear to be the holdup, yet their safety record is less than satisfactory. Why the holdup then?
MR. MORASH: Well, I guess they are the last group that we're working through some of these issues that have been brought up and, as I mentioned, there were some issues with the larger diving companies and the smaller diving companies as well. We have dealt with those and worked through those. Now we're working through with the sea urchin industry and as soon as we complete that, we'll be able to move forward with the regulations.
MR. COLWELL: Under the present regulations here in Nova Scotia - and I mean regulations and Act, not just an agreement with somebody - if I go out and become a recreational diver today and if I meet all the requirements for a recreational diver and the organizations that will train me would say I don't have sufficient training to be a commercial
[Page 256]
diver and I show up at your aquaculture site and say I can check your net for you, is there anything preventing me from doing that today under the Act or regulations - I don't mean an agreement, but under the Act or regulations?
MR. MORASH: Yes, your employer would be responsible to ensure that employees are safe to perform the jobs that they're asked to do and that's a general sort of clause, but that would mean that you have to be capable, qualified and competent to be able to go in and do that type of diving work and, you know, your qualifications would be in question, but it would be your employer's responsibility to ensure that you're safe and certainly it would be your responsibility to refuse something if you felt it was unsafe.
MR. COLWELL: So I'm an employer, I've got an aquaculture site, I don't know anything about diving, I don't know anything about divers and a guy shows up, my site has got recreational divers, and he says I'm a diver because that's mostly what people say when they're divers, I'm a diver. I ran a manufacturing business and everybody is a welder, very few welders who really can do anything, but there are all kinds of them out there who can weld.
MR. MORASH: I can weld.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I can very poorly, too, but I wouldn't build it into something that someone's life would depend on. So I show up at the site, I'm a diver and I show up with my tanks and everything, all my gear, I look like I'm a professional, and as far as I'm concerned as an employer, yes, this guy is a diver. He says he is, he has all the gear, he must be. Any certifications that he has to show the employer to prove that he has done this stuff?
MR. MORASH: I guess right now there's a great deal of onus put on operators or owners of businesses, because, similar to the gentleman - and you made the comparison, so if you don't mind, I'll continue along - there are a lot of people out there who can weld but I can tell you that you don't want me welding your trailer hitch or anything else that would be structural.
The same thing, there are a lot of people out there who can dive, but the owner has a responsibility to ensure and do the due diligence to make sure that this gentleman - look at what qualifications they have, what experience they have, what additional training they have. Also, when you look at some of the diving applications that there are in this province - people who used to go inside of power generating stations when they're closed down, to check intake valves, which are sort of a specialized thing in themselves, it's not like going out in 20 feet of water to check the bottom of a boat - the employer has the responsibility to make sure it's a contractual agreement that this gentleman or lady can do the job that's being asked of them.
[Page 257]
If there's any concern or any question that someone doesn't have the proper qualification, or they don't have the abilities to be able to do that, it's the employer who is responsible for that employee, when you send them into the water or when you ask them to weld up a product that you know may - if the structural integrity fails, it will fall back to the welder, but it would also fall back to the employer.
There's a lot of legal responsibility out there now on owners of businesses when they're hiring people. This isn't a bad thing; however, it's a time-consuming thing, and it means that operators have to certainly be more diligent and better trained themselves, they have to be more experienced in all aspects of the business, and they have to ensure that the people who are going to be working for them can do that job safely. It will come down to the owner/operator making the call that this individual has shown up, he has proper quality gear, tanks have been inspected, he knows what he's doing, he's shown me proof of training, he's given me an outline of his experience, and he and I have talked and I believe that he can follow the rules of the road and perform this function for me safely.
It's a two-part harmony, as we move along with regard to all types of actions or safety-related businesses that take place. Owner/operators are responsible to ensure that the people they put to work, they are taking care of their safety.
MR. COLWELL: That raises some questions. And you didn't answer my question about what certifications I, as a diver, would have to bring to you, as an employer, so that you would be comfortable. You went around some of the things, such as the tanks and all that stuff, but actual documentation that I am qualified to do these things? It also raises the issue, we're coming up shortly with workers' compensation which could add 40 cents per $100 of assessment under the rate for employers in Nova Scotia.
These types of accidents that happened in the past, I'm sure, haven't helped that situation any. Also, the liability insurance that the companies have to have, if you have no requirement, presently, that I have to have this documentation. It's the same as me coming to wire your house. When I'm done wiring your house, you better move out because chances are you're not going to collect your insurance and your house is probably going to burn down, because I'm not capable of wiring a house. It's the same thing, but it's a lot more serious because - I shouldn't say it's more serious, it's more directly, immediately serious for the potential of death or a serious accident by the person actually doing the work.
It would be the same as you and I going out on a power pole up there and grabbing onto the big lines and saying we're going to cut this one or fix this one or put that one together, that's what diving is like, as far as I understand. If you do those things and you grab that wire, you're dead or you're blown all to pieces. In diving other horrible things happen to you. So as an employer, here I am, so you show up and you say, yes, I'm a diver, you've dived for a few years and probably could go on my site, an aquaculture site, and you say, yes, I've been diving now for 10 years, don't tell me that the only thing you've done is steal
[Page 258]
lobsters off the bottom - you don't do that, I know - or getting scallops on Sunday. You go with a couple of buddies and you just have a nice day, which is one of the nice things to do when you're a commercial diver, as long as it's legal, of course.
But you've been at it for 10 years, so I look at it and say, that's pretty good, you were trained by this organization, which I might have heard of, and that sounds good, all the tanks are inspected and everything, and I don't have a clue about diving in your aquaculture site. So then you're responsible for that. Don't you think you have to start taking some of this onus off the employers and make it so that they can say, okay, here's the documentation you have to have, such as they would need under the CSA requirements, the national standards, that bang, they know if they have a diver who's qualified to that, he's got a document that's either a forged document, which very rarely ever happens in the trades, or it's real. Then I have a guy here I know can do the job. It's that simple.
MR. MORASH: To answer your first question - which I apologize, I didn't answer before - there really is no card or specification that someone is going to present to you to say that I am an aquaculture diver and I'm competent and capable at this point in time. What you've run through is what a responsible employer would do. You would ask what certification do you have, what experience do you have, and those types of things. You would try to determine, make your own mind up that somebody was capable to be able to do the job for you.
We certainly have put a lot of responsibility on employers. We also have a lot of responsibility on the employee. Certainly the employee who is going diving for you has a great deal at stake, as we've discussed in previous conversations here. I believe that the issue of the regulations is to clarify and make it easier for us to determine what the liabilities are and what the responsibilities are, but the liabilities won't be reduced from owner/operators of aquaculture sites with a new CSA standard or anything like that. However, it may help them work through and find qualified divers who can come in and do some things that would assist them.
There's always going to be, and there probably will continue to be even more responsibility on owners and operators to be more aware of all the trades that they would employ, and in this case we would consider a diver a tradesman, like a welder or a pipefitter or anyone else. You may have people who actually have their trades papers and qualifications, and if the operator of the site doesn't consider them competent, wouldn't allow them to continue. I don't have any specific examples, but you would have the responsibility if you hired a qualified electrician and you didn't believe that this individual was doing work up to the standards that you believe acceptable to stop him from doing the work and remove him from the job, and ensure that somebody else came in to do that work.
[Page 259]
That's not an easy task to put before an employer. But that's where we are now with regard to responsibilities. Most employers do that anyway. They need to ensure that they have good quality work, they need to ensure that they're in business for a long period of time, they need to ensure their reputation, and they will build up a working relationship with divers and whatever other trade they might be working with. I guess if we look at it in a general aspect of this, to be able to do it safely, to be able to do it productively, to be able to do it efficiently, as an employer, an employer has to make a profit at some point in time in order to continue. So being efficient and being safe, making sure there aren't any work delays because, as an example, you hire somebody who doesn't really have all the qualifications that they should and they've spent a lot of time trying to put their gear together or trying to get ready, that's not efficient for anybody.
The employer will always be responsible for ensuring that people can do work safely on their site. They have a big part to play - I guess a huge part to play - to ensure that we eliminate these accidents that we were talking about earlier, and making sure that we don't have fatalities at work sites.
MR. COLWELL: I agree, the employer ultimately has to be responsible, as well, and I would never like to see that removed. Once you remove that, all kinds of strange things happen, as we've seen years and years ago. I never want to go back to that state, and I don't think we ever will. But the point is, the employer, in this case, appears to not have the opportunity for the best business practices. He doesn't have an avenue to come along and say, okay, you have to be certified to this because the government regulations say this. It also protects the employer.
[11:30 a.m.]
So, if the regulation said you had to be a diver to the CSA 275 standard, then I know when that diver shows up at my facility and he has that documentation, that is the minimum standard that he has worked to and been trained to, so as an employer, I feel a lot more comfortable hiring this person, as does my insurance company, as does the Workers' Compensation Board, because they know I'm hiring qualified people. If that diver comes to me and says, look, I need a lifeline and I need a support diver on the surface, and I don't supply these things and refuse to supply these things, well, I should be charged as much as the diver is and the diver should refuse to work. You could probably look around in this province and you will probably find four or five divers who would work in those conditions anyway, foolishly, but they would, even if the standards were in place. Then the responsibility is back on me and the diver who does that, because he doesn't insist on it.
But without those tools in place, you're not accomplishing your best safety hazard prevention, you're not going to make a profit, although you may make a profit shortly but you won't for long, and you're not managing your company very well. So, the people who employ divers really need to have this in place for their protection, for the protection of their
[Page 260]
employees, and for the protection of their businesses. These ones that are in court, I don't know what the penalties will be for the people who may be held responsible for this, and I don't want you to comment on that because it is in court. But that's far more catastrophic to that company, whatever it is, and I'm sure the people who are in court must be emotional wrecks besides the financial situation, to think that they let this slide through.
The question, at the end of the day, will be, when this is all settled and the court has settled everything, would either one of these people be alive today if the CSA standard had been in place and followed? That is really the question. I know you can't answer that with a court case pending, but that's a question I pose just sort of to the industry not to the department because I don't want you to answer any of these questions that will harm this court case in any way. I just had to say that, and I won't pursue it any further.
MR. MORASH: I would just like to say that these regulations are certainly important to the department as well, and we are working towards completion and having them out so that employers and employees and everybody can benefit from the guidance and the direction and, hopefully, it will simplify some of the things that are out there now, that life is complicated enough, if we can get some regulations in people's hands to assist them, that's our goal, and to get them out there as soon as we possibly can.
MR. COLWELL: Well, I'm going to draw a comparison with this, although it's not a fair comparison because what I'm going to talk about isn't a life and death situation. The regulations for divers is a life and death situation. This is not maybe, it's for real. I put a quality assurance system in place in my business, and it took me two years to get the staff to buy into it. It was painful, I fought it all the way with my customers, and said I didn't want to do this, and probably the same way as some of the industry may be doing with these types of regulations. But I can tell you, once that was in place, it was very expensive to put in place, very difficult to train the people, I had no place I could send the people to get them trained, we had to train them internally, with limited resources, and no real way to do it. I couldn't go to the community college and say, here, train my people to do this process, because we had to write the manual ourselves.
Now since then it's gone to ISO 9000, so it's a little bit easier but it's still difficult. And that's not a life and death situation. It was very painful for the company, but do you know, at the end of the day, what happened? I can tell you what happened, it took two years to do this, at great expense and great aggravation - it was unbelievable aggravation - the company made more money, the problem with rejects going out of the shop were gone to zero, absolutely zero rejects going out of the business. And my customer satisfaction went up unbelievably. The market improved, and everything happened. Those are the kinds of things that happen.
[Page 261]
Now, if someone would have told me that two years before that started, I would have laughed at them, I probably would have thrown them out of my office and said get lost, but the truth of the matter was, when you work to these regulations, they're painful to put in place, first, the people who don't put them in place deserve to be left behind, they literally deserve to be left behind, and we shouldn't cater to those kinds of people, especially when people's lives are at stake and there's a possibility that someone could die because someone is foolish enough or not educated enough or not wise enough, whatever term you want to put on it, that this really needs to be done to protect the people in the industry and the industry itself and the province and the taxpayers of the province. Would you agree or disagree with that? Comments?
MR. MORASH: I guess my comments would be, first, to congratulate you on putting in the system, and I think you should make sure you let everybody know, as I expect you are. These processes do work, they tend to be somewhat painful, initially, to get started, but when you have something that's developed in-house, manuals that are written in-house, employees who are involved in the process, you have all the ingredients to success and additional productivity. Ideally, that's the way we would like to see all safety programs and all safety systems that are employed throughout the province in a similar-type way, because you have the buy-in, you have people who appreciate and understand why it is their employer wants them to do things in certain ways.
As we look, just from a safety aspect and customer satisfaction going up, it means that people aren't getting hurt. So these are extremely good systems. We certainly encourage people, and will do everything we can to ensure that we help employers and employees have the tools to provide that level of protection for people in the province.
MR. COLWELL: We talked yesterday, some, about the difficulties with regulations and getting offshore oil exploration in place, and we had quite a good discussion, I thought, yesterday about that. I appreciate your comments and the information you provided. But it seems strange that here's the Offshore Petroleum Board that has agreed on the Canadian standards for diving, no problem. They can't agree on a lot of other things, and there are reasons for that, I realize that. But that's one thing they've agreed on, and they've agreed on that because of the record in the North Sea, where there have been no serious accidents and there have been no deaths in the industry.
So it begs the question, if they can agree on that, why doesn't the Province of Nova Scotia learn from their wisdom and say, these guys are really, probably the elite of the elite when it comes to diving, because they're doing saturation dives and all the other things that are extremely dangerous - if you're decompressing someone and you make a little mistake with the mixture or a little mistake with timing, someone is permanently destroyed, they're either dead or they're basically the same as a vegetable. That hasn't happened, because these standards have been followed. So why is the province so, number one, slow getting these things in place, and, number two, listening to people in an industry that has had deaths, who
[Page 262]
want to water the system down and really don't operate to that high level of efficiency and demand for safety? The industry can only work with that high level of safety.
Now, it's already been proven here, and you drew the conclusion before, that the industry, if it's commercial, it's different. Yes, it's different, they have their act together, these other guys don't. In 2003, we had two deaths. Two deaths in Nova Scotia, two people died for nothing, absolutely for no reason, they died. If the regulations had been in place - I'm saying this, I know the department can't because you have a lawsuit - it's very possible these people would be alive today.
Why doesn't the department say, the devil with you guys, let's put this regulation in place, and do like the other provinces have done all across the country? The Offshore Petroleum Board has done it. Put these things in place and make some provision for them to get trained, make some provision, some time so that they can get things done. I'm not proposing that you want to bankrupt every company that's working on this. But give them time and put the elements in place.
Instead of discussing watering the regulations, the national standards down, why don't you say to these guys, look, we know you have some issues, let's address the issues, so we can make you fit the standards we're going to put in place, and give them time to do that, resources or whatever they need to do that, to make sure that the industry doesn't suffer? I don't want to see the industry suffer either. These two deaths have made the industry suffer a whole lot more than putting these regulations in place, financially, credibility, everything else.
MR. MORASH: I agree, and we are moving forward to get those regulations in place, because they are important. They are needed and necessary, and we will be moving forward to have those regulations in place for the industry.
MR. COLWELL: I'm going to ask you for a commitment now, and you can say yes or no. This is not a difficult one, this one - I'm going to ask you for another one, too, which you probably won't give me right away. Would you commit - and I know, as a minister, you're very open to dealing with the stakeholder groups and these things, and I truly do appreciate that - to a meeting of all the stakeholders at one time - and when I say all the stakeholders, stakeholder representatives - so that you can discuss this issue, so the commercial guys and the sea urchin guys and the recreation people, whoever represents them - and I don't mean 400 people showing up, but proper representation from each industry - to talk about these issues and sort of see if you can flush it out, that maybe one of the industries can help the other industry resolve some of these problems? Would you commit to doing that within, say, a very short time? I will leave the time to you, because I know your schedule has to be really hectic. But give me a time.
[Page 263]
MR. MORASH: We, in the department, have been doing that, but I think you make a very good point of some of the smaller groups or some of the people benefiting from the experiences of the larger ones. This is an industry and a group, and they all need to be working and communicating together. I know they compete on certain projects, but they all need to be working together to ensure that they transfer best practices, even once regulations are met, there are still best practices that are developed within, similar to the manual that you talked about designing. I'm sure that information would be shared freely, so that we could improve the overall safety of the operation for everybody who is involved. We have been meeting with the stakeholders, we will continue to meet with the stakeholders, and I'm certainly open to meeting with any of them at any time that we can arrange to discuss these issues.
MR. COLWELL: I think it's an important enough issue that I think your personal attention, not every day on this of course because I know you have so many things you work on, with one meeting, perhaps, to start this process off with the representatives of the stakeholders. As I said, I don't want to see 200 people there, yelling and screaming, that's not the idea of this. The idea is to save people's lives and create a safe environment. Maybe seven or 10 - I don't know what the number is - of the stakeholders with your personal attention to this, because I think this issue is that important. I know you realize that as well.
MR. MORASH: I would suggest that, perhaps, we could even have one meeting when we launch the regulations. I'm trying to get to the finish point as fast as we possibly can. But I'm not opposed to meeting with people at any point in time to discuss this. I'm certainly no expert in the field, but I guess I can talk, just because there's some background that I've had and some exposure. I would certainly be willing to talk to anybody who has issues or problems with regard to these regulations, and do anything I could to help work through them to speed up the development of these regulations, and to get these regulations out for industry use.
MR. COLWELL: Would you commit, then, to having your staff convene a meeting of the stakeholders - because they would know who the stakeholders are - with yourself, to see if we can't get this resolved sooner rather than later?
MR. MORASH: There is a working group that we have been dealing with, as we move forward with these regulations. We certainly can have the working group back to discuss this. I would commit that we would do that.
[11:45 a.m.]
MR. COLWELL: Yes, and the working group really represents all the industry, there's nobody left out in the working group?
[Page 264]
MR. MORASH: We can get you the information on the stakeholders who are involved in the working group, so that you're aware. If there's someone you don't feel is represented or if they're under-represented, we can discuss that.
MR. COLWELL: I would really appreciate that. That would be great. You will commit to personally meet with the working group, as well?
MR. MORASH: Sure.
MR. COLWELL: Just once, to sort of - I know you're very serious about this, I'm not indicating at all that you're not trying to get this resolved. I know it's a complex issue. I just want to see it move forward as quickly as possible, so we don't have any more deaths. That's really what I'm after here, at the end of the day.
MR. MORASH: And I appreciate your comments, as well. This is important, and we both appreciate that. Together, we can develop better regulations than if we're not working together.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We now move to the government caucus. Any questions? To the NDP, the Official Opposition.
The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
MS. JOAN MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, before I start my questions, I would like to say thank you to your department for extending the moratorium on applying biosolids to land. You extended it until May 15th, so I think that's a step in the right direction. Surprisingly enough, my first question will be on biosolids. You spoke this morning and I think you did mention, when a colleague from the Liberal side was talking about biosolids education. How much funding will be allocated, from your department, towards educating the permit holder on how to spread these biosolids and such?
MR. MORASH: How much money? We really don't have a dollar figure on that, but our staff are available and would deal with the permit holder on an individual basis, with as much time as necessary to ensure that they know what the permit requires, what stipulations are in there, what's in the guidelines that would be attached to the permit. We would just deal with them in that way, but we don't really put a dollar figure on that. It's as much time as it takes. They also have an open line through to the regional offices. I know in my short time here that they get lots of calls and give out lots of information with regard to any issues. We would just make staff available to whatever level the proponent would need.
MS. MASSEY: I realize that staff would be available, if that's what you're saying, but I have to wonder if this is going to be something that could perhaps be spread over 4,000 acres of land in Nova Scotia. I'm not sure how many more lagoons will come forward
[Page 265]
because of Aerotech going into operation. I do envision a lot of data collection, a lot of people trying to figure the guidelines out, follow them, specifically. I do foresee a lot more inspections. So, I can't see how this is not going to incur extra costs for your department down the road.
MR. MORASH: I did mention the education portion when we were together earlier. I probably should clarify a bit on that. We certainly need to educate the people who are going to be working in the process and will be directly involved, and staff will work with them. The education for stakeholder groups seems to be a very prominent issue that is there and we need to address that. Staff would make presentations to municipalities, we would make presentations to community groups, we would make presentations to individuals; however, it's more effective and efficient if we could get some people together, just from staff time.
I think the one thing that we have to look at, if you look at responding to complaints, responding to phone calls, responding to e-mails, that takes a lot of time. If we can refocus the complaint response into educational activity, I don't believe that there will be an excessive amount of additional time required by staff. Now, there is a transition period in there when the e-mails are still coming in before we get where we need to be, but with extended public consultation, I don't think that we can communicate with the public on this issue too much. I think we need to develop some, I suppose there are already consultation processes in place, we don't have anything particularly formalized at this point in time except to say I'm committed and the department's committed to make sure that we have discussions on an ongoing basis on this that will continue along as we move forward.
As we talked this morning about dewatering and other types of infrastructure that might come on stream in more areas, there's going to be additional discussions needed to make sure that the public is fully aware of what we're doing, fully aware of what the product is, what the product is going to be used for, and this is something that I believe through continuing to update the public in the technology currently and future technology that we'll be able to work to a solution on this because it's a complex problem, as you know, that everybody appreciates isn't going to go away. We have to manage it and we have to work diligently to communicate with everybody how we're going to manage the problem because our management strategies, I'm sure, will change in the years ahead as we deal with this issue.
MS. MASSEY: I would like to continue to look at the point of inspection. These are just guidelines and, therefore, they're not really enforceable because they're guidelines. They're not regulations, they're not legislation. This morning you mentioned when you were speaking, I believe, I don't want to misquote you, but that your department looked at legislation across North America and when you say you looked at legislation, I'm wondering why did you not draw up legislation, or at least regulations, for the spreading of biosolids and instead just do some guidelines?
[Page 266]
MR. MORASH: We do have an answer for that actually. It was well thought out within the department and when the guidelines are attached to the applications that are out there now, they're enforceable by law. So these guidelines when cited by the department are law, are enforceable, you can be charged for not abiding by them. We also appreciate that with ongoing consultation, which we plan to initiate and continue as the months go by, that there may be emerging information that would cause us to want to improve our guidelines and we would be able to improve these guidelines and attach them to the permits quite readily and easily as we move along and this would be a very public process.
People would know what was coming, but rather than make the regulations knowing that we still have more work to do, you know, this is rather a moving target at this point in time and will be over the next number of years, so that was the logic and the thought behind that, but they are enforceable by law. They are equal to a regulation when they are attached to a permit that says you must abide by these guidelines. So the lawyers are happy that we can do everything we need to do with these guidelines.
MS. MASSEY: Right now there are various communities in Nova Scotia that are having problems with lagoons and sewage disposal companies and this relates back to the whole issue of inspection. It seems to me that what I'm hearing is that, for example, the folks in Crowdis Mountain, Cape Breton, their experience with George's Vacuum Septic Disposal Company and those lagoons overflowing, and then the other example was citizens in the Truro area who have had a problem with the lagoon there receiving waste from abattoirs and rendering plants, and what I'm hearing from these communities is that it was only because of their diligence in being out there and videotaping specific things and collecting information, doing the testing on their own, that the issues were brought forward to your department and I do have a concern that perhaps maybe we don't have enough inspectors on staff. So what is the problem there when we have to rely on communities to police these lagoons and storage facilities?
MR. MORASH: That's a very good point. We've always depended upon the public to assist us with our enforcement or monitoring of the province and we do a risk-based analysis and use our resources as wisely as we possibly can with regard to what areas need to be inspected and others, but I guess I can tell you on a number of occasions I've had photographs and e-mails that have come to me directly and it has been very helpful actually. In one case it was a roll of film which we weren't sure what was on it until we had it developed, but the public is out there and they're better educated now about what the rules are and they're more diligent with regard to watching what people are doing in their community and they have always been a source of information for us and, you know, thankfully they are out there and there are people who are willing to take the time and do good work, pass it along to us so that we can proceed from there. So we're very appreciative of that. If anything, we expect more of that in the future and I believe that that's a working partnership even though it's a rather loose working partnership that has worked well for everybody involved and will continue along in the future.
[Page 267]
MS. MASSEY: Certainly I respect those communities for doing whatever they can to protect their community from the issues that revolve around sludge and biosolids. However, I'm wondering if, you know, right now we only have, I believe my numbers could be wrong, 22 privately-owned septic lagoons and seven municipal lagoons. My concern is if we can't control what's going on in these facilities now and there are only 22 plus seven and we're relying so heavily on community involvement, we're going down a road that we really don't want to go down, that could lead us into a lot of problems. So I'm again going back to, you know, are we going to be hiring more inspectors and how many inspectors - actually, here's a good question - how many inspectors do we actually have in the Department of Environment and Labour who inspect these facilities and are they the same inspectors who inspect our pits and quarries because I believe we have thousands of those and I get complaints about those all the time, too. So it all relates back to the issue of inspection, inspection, inspection, and do we really have enough there that we're going to be able to alleviate any problems that may crop up?
MR. MORASH: We have currently approximately 80 inspectors and they would inspect the lagoons and the pits and quarries and other things with regard to compliance. Now, under our risk-based management system, we would have the lagoons on a rotational basis for our inspectors so there would be a routine, or there would be a frequency of inspection that would be required by the department that would be logged and documented and we would move along with that.
Of course, if we had complaints from the general public, or concerns in any way, we would respond to those issues certainly as soon as practical and possible, but we would be looking at these things. We would do an assessment of need and, of course, you appreciate that there will never be an opportunity that you have one inspector for every pit and one inspector for every issue in the province. These people do work very hard and they do have a very full workload, but we are working with them to make sure that we can manage and do adequate inspections to give us confidence that regulations and rules are being met in the province and that we are continuing to move forward with regard to environmental protection.
[12:00 noon]
MS. MASSEY: I'm sure you saw in yesterday's paper, I think it was yesterday's, turning sludge into gold actually was the headline. This was a story about a sewage treatment plant in England that was using the enviro process but, unfortunately, after the process was completed and the plant started out as a little plant and it grew a bit bigger and a bit bigger, it's no longer there because no one wanted to buy the product. The plant closed in 2001 and now the product is sitting in a landfill. I can't tell you how many e-mails and information that has come across my desk on this issue. What people I think want to know is how are we going to guarantee that the food we are going to be eating will not be coming in contact with
[Page 268]
things like pathogens, pesticides, dioxins, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses, parasitic worms and pharmaceuticals?
What I've been reading, and I'm certainly not a researcher or a scientist, apparently after the lime stabilization process is completed and even after land application, these pathogens can still be found and actually in conversations between myself and the person in charge of HRM's sludge management, this person has admitted to me, and it's in your guidelines, that the stabilization of biosolids, that process that we're going to be using, only reduces pathogens. Is that not true? I think I threw in more than one question there, but it's the whole issue, it's a huge issue and, again, I thank you for putting the moratorium on it, but I think it's just a very complicated issue that I'm trying to spend a lot of time on. People are very concerned about this. This is going to affect what we're going to be eating, what's going to be put on our kitchen tables for our children.
There is, apparently, an unwritten policy within your department that biosolids are not going to be used to grow food crops in which is totally not what's in the guidelines because the guidelines do state that if, you know, the biosolids meet certain standards, you will be able to spread them on crops after a 38-day waiting period after land application. So there's so much conflicting information out there and I think the people want to know what it is that they're going to be eating.
I have people telling me that there's science out there that says that food crops can bring up through their root system these pathogens. There are concerns about BSE because one of the lagoons - and this is not confirmed, I have not confirmed this - is actually using spinal and brain tissue in their sludge. I have huge concerns about this. I have three children of my own and, again, I have to thank you for putting a moratorium on that, but I don't even know if that moratorium is going to be long enough. So I'm just wondering if you can make some comments that may alleviate my fears and the fears of I know thousands of Nova Scotians out there?
MR. MORASH: I fall back to the education because right now, as you appreciate in your discussion, we have a lot of people who aren't aware of the regulations. They aren't aware of what people need to do and how they can do it. Certainly in the guidelines there is a minimum waiting period, a list of land use, what you're using it for, and what the waiting period is and for certain food crops it's 38 months before harvest. The other thing that you can appreciate, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for ensuring that we have safety in our food supplies. Also we've been dealing with them and with Agriculture and Fisheries on this issue as well because, again, I guess we get into that spider web where there is more than one department, or more than one group, that is responsible for this.
Now, the communications are good within these departments, but they all have a part to play with regard to food inspection and we aren't in that business of food inspection, but we certainly deal with them on a regular basis to make sure that we are up-to-date on what
[Page 269]
it is we're looking for and what goals we have and we appreciate that we play an important part in things down the road that they will be associated with.
MS. MASSEY: I appreciate your answer although I don't think I got the answer I was looking for. I will let people know if anybody is wondering, I know, I did speak to you about this yesterday and one of your staff people, but I do need to put it out there for the record that I am getting reports that mixed into the process at the LaFarge cement plant is going to be waste from the Sydney Steel plant and that is a grave concern to me and I'm sure to everybody else and I'm hoping that that is just a rumour that is untrue and that that is not going to be occurring.
MR. MORASH: Sometimes it's difficult to get all the information out in a timely manner. There is nothing going from Sysco to LaFarge with regard to any kind of a toxic material or otherwise to be burned. However, there was a point in time where there were some tanks that were being decommissioned on the site and there was some bunker C in these tanks and it was removed. My understanding is that it was used as a fuel supply at LaFarge. Now, this would have been under, I guess, direction and there would have been agencies involved making sure that this was done according to guidelines and others, but this was a fuel supply that had been decommissioned that was just moved to another location, tested, and used as a fuel supply again. However, that was not any type of material other than something that came from I guess an oil tank on-site.
MS. MASSEY: Can you explain to me what is cement kiln dust? This is what Enviro will be purchasing and mixing into HRM's sludge to produce biosolids. That's the liming agent they're going to use. So what is cement kiln dust?
MR. MORASH: It's what's left over from their production process. It would be the ash or the dust that's left over when their process is complete.
MS. MASSEY: So that does not come from the burning process?
MR. MORASH: That would be the end result of the burning process.
MS. MASSEY: So if you're using, if there has been stuff coming out of the Sydney Steel plant and they're using it as a fuel, that's going to be in the cement kiln dust?
MR. MORASH: If bunker C and/or used oils which have been approved for a fuel source at LaFarge, as far as I understand, they would be burned and then there would be an ash residue left at the end. The amounts of product of any kind of hydrocarbon product that would be left in this ash, we can find out the tests and get you that information which may be helpful and I suspect that's what you're looking for, but the kiln itself burns at 2000 degrees. So anything that would be a volatile hydrocarbon would be flamed off or gassed off in the
[Page 270]
process and I would anticipate that the ash that we're talking about is probably quite pristine and most likely quite pure, but we can, I'm sure, find out.
I'm interested I guess now that you brought it up in just what the composition is and what the material safety data sheet on that material would be. I suspect there would be one that would have to be developed by the LaFarge plant if it's a product that they are going to produce and they are going to sell or move off-site. Under the Hazardous Materials Regulations, there would have to be a material safety data sheet which would give you in a snapshot all the important information that you and I would be looking for and I believe that that manufacturer or the parent company would be responsible for that prior to it leaving the site in any particular way. So that information should be readily available, it's all up to the experts, we could endeavour to get a material safety data sheet on that material, on that product, so that we would both have a better understanding of exactly its composition.
MS. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your answers on that and I think, I know I'm on a steep learning curve with the whole biosolids issue and I think your department is, too. So I think every day everybody is learning something. I think you've done the right thing in putting the moratorium on there because I think there's a lot of information out there and this process has not been successful in a lot of other areas other than England. I can't even keep up with the amount of information that has come in through my computer, but I'm going to move along to another topic.
MR. MORASH: Thank you for your questions, they're very helpful.
MS. MASSEY: Pollution, we all know that coal-fired generators are the most harmful to both the environment and human health. They release mercury which is a known cancer- causing substance. They release sulphuric acid which causes breathing problems. We know that we have a high pollution level here in Nova Scotia and it is aggravating respiratory symptoms that cause asthma. We know that 10.2 per cent of Nova Scotians were diagnosed with asthma compared to the Canadian average of only 8.5 per cent, from 1998 to 1999, Statistics Canada. Phasing out coal-fired power plants through using safe alternative energy sources would be a step in the right direction. Implementing regulations to reduce and eliminate airborne pollutants are some of the ways that this government could improve the air quality in the province.
However, we have not enacted legislation to put specific limits on these emissions and that hasn't been done at the provincial level or the federal level, to limit sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. So my question is, when will you be tabling legislation, or your government, that will protect our environment and our health by limiting the release of these and other types of emissions?
[Page 271]
MR. MORASH: Maybe if I could just start with a couple of comments about air pollution in Nova Scotia. It was very surprising to me to see the amount of transborder air migration or pollution migration that occurs. I know there was a point in time some number of months ago where Nova Scotia was referred to as the tailpipe of North America which kind of caught me off guard and I wasn't that pleased to hear that, but just because of airstreams and other associated climate factors, we certainly do have other people's pollutants that come across our borders and contribute to what we have here and that's not to diminish the amount of work that has to take place within the Province of Nova Scotia and we certainly have been working on a number of things.
Part of the air monitoring, the system that we talked about earlier with regard to the fees charged, is to help us get a handle on what happens and where and what the currents do and you have to study the problem and look at the model of airflow in order to determine sources and to be able to determine. Now, locally, it's certainly much easier if we have facilities where we're just monitoring the stacks, we certainly can easily recognize how much is going out. In the long term, there is no question that our goal as a province and as a country has to be to reduce these emissions. It is a long-term project. It is something that there are alternatives that have to be phased in. It's one of these programs that will take some time. We need to hurry it along as much as we possibly can. However, there are steps as we move forward and also a partnership with the Canadian Government and the federal Department of Environment to ensure that we have a co-operative and consistent method across Canada as we move along.
We do have air quality regulations that are set out for ambient air quality criteria and SO2 emissions for the province and for the larger emitters and, as I guess I mentioned before, Nova Scotia Power, you were referring to, is one of our largest emitters of pollutant. Commitments under the energy strategy currently stipulate a 25 per cent reduction in annual provincial SO2 emissions by 2005. That's a new cap that's in place. We're also looking at a further 25 per cent reduction of SO2 emissions from existing sources to a cumulative 50 per cent reduction by 2010. We are looking at a 20 per cent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from 2000 levels by 2009. So we do have some targets that we have moved along there for people to be working on.
MS. MASSEY: Mr. Minister, some of the key words you just said there were we've made a commitment, but commitment is not the same thing as tabling legislation that would reduce the release of these emissions into our atmosphere and certainly we are getting a lot of pollution from other places. We're not producing it all ourselves, but I would have to remind you that right now Nova Scotia Power continues to generate 60 per cent of their power from burning coal and I know they're not going to switch that overnight, but that also 84 per cent of all the air pollution in this province is from power production. So we've really got to very quickly bring forward legislation that's going to limit the release of these emissions into the atmosphere because, don't forget, these companies that are continuing to
[Page 272]
burn coal, their bottom line is dollars and your job here is to protect the environment and health of the people in this province.
[12:15 p.m.]
Although I know certain companies are doing certain things to lower their emissions, we need a very strong stance from our Department of Environment and Labour and our government in Nova Scotia to protect our children right now and into the future. So I'm looking for some real commitment from your department. Can you tell me, is there legislation being drawn up or is there a committee working on that?
MR. MORASH: There are regulations that will include those commitments under the energy strategy that should go out for public consultation within a month. So we have the energy strategy. We have drafted regulation to include those numbers and those amounts, I guess as you would put it, to have a strong hand and ensure that people are aware of what our objectives are to make sure that industries in the province get a clear signal that this is important to the government, this is important to everyone in the province, and we will have those out, I'm sure there will be lots of comments that will come back in. Hopefully, we will be able to improve them with the comments that will take place.
The other part of the consultation process which is always good is there's an educational factor in there. You send out a set of regulations and, of course, everybody, or a number of people, will review these and they will go through them with a fine-tooth comb to find out what it means to them, how it's going to affect their business, or how it's going to affect their life if they're a concerned citizen and they will, in turn, send back submissions to us with improvements or perhaps other things that we can consider and we will be able to educate the public, come up with better regulations, and also the end product will be a set of regulations that are enforceable by law and are out there for everybody to appreciate that we are serious and we have to have these reductions. This is a global problem and we have to do our part.
MS. MASSEY: Mr. Minister, that's nice to hear, that there are some regulations being worked on. It's good to hear good news. I would like to go on, I don't have that much time left. Protected areas is my next topic. As you know, 80 per cent of Crown land has no protection in Nova Scotia. In 1992 a network was to be established to represent 80 distinct natural regions. Only a fraction are represented in the province's protected areas system right now and I believe there might be around 23. Nothing new has been added since 1997, if I'm correct. We need a clear process to identify and establish new protected areas and we must protect what has been identified right now. We must complete the network and we need more than just isolated pockets of protected areas. We must save the best of what we have left before it's too late. So my first question is, what is the department doing to complete the protected areas network that was promised in 1992?
[Page 273]
MR. MORASH: There is a great deal of activity that has been taking place in the department with regard to protected areas and just recently, I guess as of last Friday, we did
put out the draft management plan - I guess it's the third draft management plan - for the Tobeatic Wilderness Area which has gone out for consultation and discussion.
As you'd be aware, we have approximately 8 per cent of our Crown land protected at this point in time and 0.1 per cent of private land protected. There's certainly a need to ensure that private landowners have any impediments taken out of their way so that they can protect their land and they can be good stewards. I know we have a number of individuals out there who are willing to put their land in a type of protection so that it will be here for generations to come.
Towards a sustainable environment, we've had more than 200 written public submissions for valuable input on priorities for government and how to best implement commitments of the government. We're making some progress on a number of these issues, we've committed to Gully Lake and Eigg Mountain and the socio-economic study, I believe, is nearing completion or is completed now. That's one of the first large steps to move us in the direction. I guess our targets, as you can appreciate, do change on a daily basis, but we were looking forward to October/November as possibly a deadline when we could include those two candidate wilderness areas in the overall wilderness area protection program that we have in the province.
We have a very dedicated staff that works hand in glove with DNR because DNR has some enforcement responsibilities that they do for us in these areas and it has been an ongoing pleasure from my point of view since I started talking about protected areas. Of course, there is always the issue with regard to how much protected area would you like and how much can you afford to give. Those discussions are always taking place from a fibre commitment aspect.
On private land, we certainly don't hear as much about that. We also, being a very old province, have 70 per cent of our land in private hands which makes it much more difficult or more of a challenge to manage private wilderness areas simply from the fact we have a lot of landowners out there who own the majority of our land, unlike some other provinces where the majority of the land is Crown land. It's much easier for government to look at a map and pick areas and say, this is what we would like to do and these are the ecologically sensitive areas or these are the types of terrain or the ecological systems that we want to be able to protect and ensure that we have something for our grandchildren in perpetuity.
British Columbia has approximately 90 per cent of its land being Crown land. When you take a map of 90 per cent or you look at a map of 30 per cent, you can appreciate we have some challenges. Also, just the nature of our province, we certainly have some beautiful areas and some wonderful wilderness areas currently, but because of the configuration of our province, we're not too far away from anything. It's not like we have vast resources of untapped land currently. We have a province that has roads pretty well speckled through
[Page 274]
everywhere with communities mostly along the shoreline, but also some in the interior. We do have some challenges as we look at areas.
Currently, the management plans that we're producing or are in the process of producing for these wilderness areas are a very important part of our management ability by getting some community support and getting community involvement so that they appreciate what we are trying to do and we appreciate what their traditional historic uses have been for some of these parcels of land. Some of these parcels of land have been great recreational areas for a number of people and some others have been certainly further away from the beaten trail and have remained virtually intact.
Our goal is to balance these things and ensure that we take good care of the land that we've been entrusted with and also ensure that the general public has an opportunity to explore the beauty and the tranquillity and the peacefulness of a lot of these areas. That is something that's a little harder to find these days than it was perhaps 100 years ago.
MS. MASSEY: I think you just hit the nail on the head. It is a little bit harder to find than it was 100 years ago. Did I hear you say you were going to designate Gully Lake and Eigg Mountain in November of this year, 2004?
MR. MORASH: That was a tentative date, that's a ballpark, that we hope to be ready by this Fall.
MS. MASSEY: It was announced, I think, back in June, 2003. Here's hoping we'll see that then.
MR. MORASH: There is a long process that we go through. We want to make sure that we have consultation and that we've contacted people. You can appreciate there are people on both sides of the issue and there are some compromises that need to be met to ensure that we can move forward.
MS. MASSEY: Well, I'm just going to wrap up, but I would like to mention one thing that you hit on when you were talking about wilderness areas and you mentioned the Tobeatic Wilderness Area. I know you're familiar that the government is going to allow Black Bull Mine to go in there within a couple of feet of that wilderness area. That is an issue and I know more than one of the groups have recently dropped out of that organization that was looking into protecting that, but they've gone back in the hopes that government will recognize that when government allows a mining operation to open up within feet of a protected area, this is one of the reasons people become disheartened and they just give up. Thank goodness these people have come back on and they continue to fight for our protected wilderness areas.
I will wrap up and I will say thank you very much for the time you gave me today and all your answers. I'm sure I've learned a few things and, hopefully, some information has
[Page 275]
come to your side from my side. I'm going to turn over the last few minutes I have to my colleague for Halifax Fairview.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Minister, I've said to you before, you have a department that covers a lot of ground. I am going to reduce my remarks to an entirely local level on the Environment side of your department so the rest of your staff can relax.
I want to talk to you for 10 minutes or so about the Fairmount Ridge development in my constituency of Halifax Fairview. I don't want to talk about the court case that's going on because I know it's not appropriate for me to ask you about it or for you to comment on it while it's still under consideration by the judge. This development in my constituency raises some issues that are broader than just that development - and that's what I want to focus on today in terms of the Department of Environment's policy on various things that were raised by this case.
I take it, Mr. Minister, that you're familiar, generally speaking, with the situation at Fairmount Ridge?
MR. MORASH: I have a limited knowledge and I have all the experts behind me.
MR. STEELE: I'm sure you know that recently the developer took you, the minister, to court over approval for the method by which they were proposing to clean up the site. I attended most of that court hearing which took place over three days and to my knowledge no decision has come down. Am I right, Mr. Minister, in thinking that no decision has yet come down on that case?
MR. MORASH: No, no decision.
MR. STEELE: What the developer is proposing at the Fairmount Ridge development is something called a containment cell where, to reduce it to very non-technical language, they scrape up all the contaminated soil on this 39-acre site and they separate out the smaller pieces from the larger pieces, they take it for granted the larger pieces aren't contaminated. The smaller pieces are supposed to be put in this thing called a containment cell which is a stand-alone, engineered site which has an engineer-designed base and then it's covered over. Essentially, it's a holding cell for contaminated soil.
[Page 276]
[12:30 p.m.]
It's my understanding that this is the first time ever in Nova Scotia that this technology has been used in a stand-alone manner. I was wondering if I could start by asking you, what is the department's view, generally speaking, on the containment cell as a technology and its suitability for residential developments?
MR. MORASH: We are comfortable with the design criteria, although this is one of the first times it's in a site similar to this. We have a great deal of experience with regard to industrial sites and others where this technology has proven to work adequately under these types of circumstances.
MR. STEELE: Is this something the department expects to see more of in the future?
MR. MORASH: Yes, it sounds like within HRM, in areas where property is certainly becoming a premium, that something like this may be an alternative that could be used in the future.
MR. STEELE: One of the issues that has risen around this containment cell is the issue of security. I'm using the word security in the legal sense of the word - I don't mean fences and guards or anything like that. I'm talking about who is financially responsible for the maintenance of this site? Because, what is unique about this site, what's new about this site is it's a stand-alone lot and so there are houses going to be built all around this lot. On the other side is a railway track and on the other side of the railway track is another residential subdivision. So people are going to be living all around this containment cell which, to the naked eye is going to look like a grassed mound, as I understand it.
The issue of security is, what if something goes wrong? Who's going to pay for it? My understanding is that the department does not require the owner of this containment cell to post financial security to ensure that if anything does go wrong, there is money there to deal with it. Is that your understanding as well, Mr. Minister, that there is currently no financial security to cover that containment cell?
MR. MORASH: My understanding is that we're still in discussions on that point. It's not something that we will be in a position to discuss until after the court case is completed.
MR. STEELE: Okay. I suppose I can see that. Of course, if the developer wins the case, there will be no containment cell at that particular site. The developer, as far as I understand it, is trying to say the soil is not contaminated as badly as we thought it was, so don't force us to put in a containment cell because it's not that bad.
[Page 277]
There's still the broader issue there of the lack of security. The department only raised the issue of security with the developer after the plans had been approved and the project had started. It's too late to force the developer to do it so now the department's in the position of pleading with the developer because the project was already underway. So, let me ask, not about that particular project, but about this kind of thing in future - the containment cells, which as you've said, minister, we might expect to see more of in future, particularly in HRM, has the department changed the way it approaches the issue of financial security in light of the way that the Fairmount Ridge situation unfolded?
MR. MORASH: Certainly, where this was the first one, we've learned a lot as we've walked through this. There are security issues that we would be reviewing and looking at for anything in the future to ensure the issues you brought up were addressed because we will be looking at some residential areas possibly in the future and, of course, nobody wants to have these types of things make it to the courts. We would like to ensure that we have all the issues taken care of and can be dealt with as a local issue.
MR. STEELE: Okay. I'm sure, as you know, the problem here is that the property is owned, this containment cell, is owned by an entity that exists only on paper. The developer who's developing this subdivision is actually one of the more reputable developers around - he's actually got a good reputation with city staff and others - but no developer lasts forever. This subdivision is being developed by a company that really exists only on paper. When the lots are sold, the company will have no assets left, so this containment cell which will be full of contaminated soil, will be owned by an entity with no assets. So, if anything goes wrong, not just next year but 20 years from now, 30 years from now, 50 years from now, the only entity with the ability to pick up the tab will be the province, because the paper owner of the property will be just that, a paper owner and nothing more.
Let me raise one final issue that has been raised by the Fairmount Ridge situation and that is the question of notice to surrounding residents. Most of the issues around the subdivision have been municipal in nature and have been dealt with between residents and their city councillor. There have been significant issues about blasting, significant concerns about traffic. The one issue which clearly had a provincial dimension was the environment, but the Department of Environment never considered itself to have any kind of responsibility to notify surrounding residents about what was going on there.
I'm sure you haven't been out to the site, Mr. Minister, but there is residential development around three sides of this 39-acre property and on the fourth side is Northwest Arm Drive, then the city watershed. There's development around three sides - Crown Drive, the Fairmount Subdivision - everybody there has a profound interest in knowing what's going on around them, especially the people who live downhill from this site because if anything goes wrong in future, environmentally speaking, they're the people who are going to be affected by it.
[Page 278]
Let me say one more thing before I ask the question - when I've raised this issue with the Department of Environment and Labour, the response that I've always gotten back, in one way or another, amounts to the department saying, we have no legal requirement to notify the residents, therefore, we don't. Now, it's said a lot more nicely than that and more gently than that, but that's the essence of what I'm being told. We don't do it because the law doesn't require us to. My question for you, Mr. Minister, is what responsibility does the department accept to notify surrounding residents of environmental issues happening in their midst, if any?
MR. MORASH: Our opinion of this is that there would be development agreements with the municipality. The municipality would be the better avenue to have those discussions and ensure that whatever communications needed to take place would take place.
MR. STEELE: But the city has done that about municipal issues. The municipality has no responsibility for the environmental issues. Why should it be the municipality that informs the residents of environmental issues which are not in their jurisdiction?
MR. MORASH: We're certainly available for people to call into the department and get information or any kind of advice that we might be able to pass along to them. But, at this point in time, it's with the developers and the municipalities to ensure that the people who are moving in are aware of the issues surrounding the development.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, we won't be using the remainder of our time and we'll turn the floor over to the Liberal caucus.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We'll run out of time at 1:25 p.m. so you have until the end of the time today and it will be the member for Preston continuing.
MR. COLWELL: I'm just going to ask one last question about diving. This will be the last one. I don't see it in your business plan, in the plan here, the business plan for 2004-05. Am I missing it, I might have missed it because I just quickly went through it, in the actual written document?
MR. MORASH: The department plan is at a higher level and doesn't include that detail. However, the department plan, the Occupational Health and Safety Division would have that in their particular plan.
MR. COLWELL: Could I get a copy of that plan, just the overall plan?
MR. MORASH: You certainly could.
[Page 279]
MR. COLWELL: Okay, if you could just forward that to us, that would be fine. I'm going to change the topic a little bit here. I see, on Page 4, I guess, in the environmental protection of natural areas management that you're talking about some air sheds, or regions where ambient air quality is influenced by common emission sources as one of the priorities that the department is going to have in the 2004-05 year. What are you going to do about the emissions coming out of the Nova Scotia Power stacks in Tufts Cove?
Now, I will give you a little bit of background on that. I drove in here this morning, which I do on many days, and any day that it's not windy or foggy, you can see the emissions out now to Lake Echo and it just happens to be, by some strange coincidence, exactly the same colour brown as coming out of the stacks in Tufts Cove. As you get in closer and closer to the city, it gets darker and darker and darker. Now, if you're within the city, you don't notice it, but if you come from outside where this cloud is, it's very obvious. I mean it's completely obvious and that line used to be, as few as three or four years ago, on the boundary with Dartmouth and Westphal and it has actually moved out about five or six kilometres. So it's getting worse and it's getting worse very rapidly.
The other morning I came in it was a particularly still morning and you could see layers of this brown cloud coming out of the Nova Scotia Power stacks. I've asked Nova Scotia Power about this and they were adamant to say they meet all the standards and they said when the standards increase, or they get tougher, they will strive to meet the new standards and I'm sure they will. When are you going to change the standards so that brown cloud isn't hanging over the city anymore? I mean it has got to be causing all kinds of health problems that we're paying for as taxpayers.
MR. MORASH: Air quality is a significant issue in our province. We are aware that we have some challenges and we need to improve the air quality that we have in Nova Scotia. The other contributing factor certainly is things that blow our way that aren't produced here which are harder to capture or harder to control. However, with regard to the pollution that is created on-site or in the province, we do have a monitoring program for that. So we're trying to ensure we have a handle and a model and a level that takes place currently as we move along and you're aware that we have some new user fees that we've put in for our air quality monitoring program and system throughout the province and those fee increases were significant and also put in as a deterrent certainly for anybody who is producing large amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.
The air quality regulations that set out air quality criteria and N/SO2 emission caps for the province are for the largest employer and that's Nova Scotia Power. So they certainly are - nothing I'm sure they're proud of - the number one polluter in the province just because of their process and they have some internal commitments and goals that they are aiming for and we also have some commitments under the energy strategy and that's stipulated - 25 per cent reduction in annual provincial SO2 emissions by 2005 and that's a new cap that has recently been installed, a further 25 per cent reduction of SO2 emissions from existing sources to a
[Page 280]
cumulative 50 per cent reduction by 2010, and also a 20 per cent reduction in nitrous oxide emissions from 2000 levels to 2009.
[12:45 p.m.]
Those commitments under the energy strategy have been drafted up in regulation that should be out for public review sometime within a month or five weeks and that would ensure that people appreciate that we're very serious about this and that the path forward is for all employers, or all industries that produce these types of emissions to certainly try to reduce them to the best of their ability and look at alternate ways of performing the functions that they perform. We know that Nova Scotia Power is going to do their part to have their internal targets. We will have regulatory targets in there to assist them in what they plan to do and our goal is to improve the air quality for the people of the province.
MR. COLWELL: I asked this question to Nova Scotia Power, too. Evidently they can change over to natural gas and they do from time to time now burn natural gas in Tufts Cove and the reason that they said they wouldn't completely go to natural gas, and it's a business decision of course, because the bunker C is so much cheaper and also they sell bunker C so they make money off it that way too, as they sell their natural gas and make money off that. So I would think it would be appropriate for the government to push them as quickly as possible to go to a cleaner burning fuel, whether that's bunker C with scrubbers, or whatever it is, or to natural gas because this is a serious problem.
I can't prove this and probably nobody can, but I would imagine likely it's not helping the health conditions of Nova Scotians who live in the regional municipality who are covered by this blanket of pollution on a daily basis and it really has to be addressed. I mean it's not acceptable. The fact is we've got to clean up our own backyard first, or our own home, and then work on the other ones at the same time, because you can't go somewhere else when we have a polluter that's probably one of the worst in the country - not that they're not a good company - but are polluting our air that we breathe and contaminating things and then we say, well, it's coming from the southern U.S. That could be true and probably is true, but we have to clean our own act up as well and we can control that, we can't control what's coming in. So if you have your house half full of garbage and someone else is dumping garbage in the window, it will soon fill up, but if you keep moving your garbage out, it doesn't get filled up. Look after yourself. What plans have you got to put some pressure on Nova Scotia Power to clean up this particular operation?
MR. MORASH: These regulations that will adopt the energy strategy, the 25 per cent reduction in SO2 by 2005, the 25 per cent reduction in SO2 emissions from sources to a cumulative of 50 per cent by 2010, and a 20 per cent reduction in nitrous oxide emissions, those are going to go to regulation so that they will be enforceable and they're substantial reductions now. I'm aware that Nova Scotia Power is working as well, they are a progressive company and they appreciate that they have a part to play and that the public demands of us
[Page 281]
and of them to reduce the amount of airborne particulate that they produce on an annual basis.
We, as well, have installed I guess fees for the air quality monitoring system that we have that are substantial and they are new fees that total about $500,000 over 70 companies that are monitored in the province and, of course, Nova Scotia Power is the largest producer in that group of 70 simply because of the product that they produce and the amount of coal that they must burn at this point in time. They have, as you have mentioned, changed over to natural gas or to be able to use natural gas as a cleaner alternative and there are always operating parameters and business decisions that need to be made, but I think it's extremely important that they are moving towards alternate abilities and at some point of time in the future I look forward to the day when they're using certainly much more natural gas and less coal.
We do have some dates there. We will enforce those dates, but I'm sure they will be looking at all types of technology to ensure that they can meet and exceed those guidelines and they will be moving forward with their endeavours to clean up and reduce the pollution that they produce now. Now, we will leave it with them as to how they get to that level. We certainly aren't going to prescribe what they do in their business. Our goal I guess and our job is to produce the target limits and then just have them be able to work to meet those targets.
MR. COLWELL: You have increased monitoring fees. They have equipment, Nova Scotia Power and other major companies, that analyze the air that's coming out to see what kind of pollutants they have in it, does the Department of Environment and Labour calibrate that equipment and make sure that it's proper or do you just leave it up to the company to do whatever they want?
MR. MORASH: At this point in time they would do their own calibrations. People from our department would audit the system and ask for verifications on a routine type basis, but we would, as part of their permit, know how they plan to do it, what their procedures are for the calibrations of the equipment and we would monitor their procedures, but at this point in time we do not calibrate the equipment that they use for air quality monitoring.
MR. COLWELL: Wouldn't it be wise to either have the department do it or some independent company rather than, you know, the fox and the henhouse routine. It's easy to modify - not that I'm saying that any company in Nova Scotia would do that, don't get me wrong - modify the records they might keep. It really would make sense if you had an independent company do that or the Department of Environment and Labour yourself do that to make sure because this is a serious, serious issue. It's not just one of, you know, maybe it will happen or maybe it doesn't, but it's a serious issue.
[Page 282]
MR. MORASH: I don't know all the details of how they run their business with regard to the calibrations, but in many instances there are specialists or experts who would be contracted out who would be third party. However, they would be paid by Nova Scotia Power to come in and calibrate the equipment. They would be either manufacturers or manufacturer representatives who would come in to ensure that the monitoring equipment was certainly installed properly, was working properly, and was giving proper readings and come in and do whatever kind of maintenance would be needed on a regular basis.
As far as stack emissions and some of the other types of tests, we would certainly be involved or have been invited to be on-site when those have taken place and I think we have to also depend on the integrity of the people who are running these systems and these programs within a plant or a company similar to Nova Scotia Power. These people have their reputations staked on doing a proper job, in doing good reports and, again, as I said, we audit these and we have no reason to believe that they aren't complying with all aspects of their permit and the manufacturers' requests and requirements for calibration and we continue to do routine checks to ensure that things are to a standard that is satisfactory to us.
MR. COLWELL: Two quick questions and it will be my last two on this one. Does the department have a quality assurance system in place to ensure that these are done to a national standard and, number two, do you insist that the companies that would be monitored in this way have a quality assurance system in place for doing this to a national standard that you can audit as well as the records? (Interruption)
MR. MORASH: We would certainly ensure that anybody doing the calibration of equipment were meeting a national standard or a recognized standard and not just the manufacturers' recommendations. So we would ensure that there was a quality standard in place, that they were meeting it, and that it was accepted and recognized by the department.
MR. COLWELL: In other words, you don't have a quality assurance system in place in the department and you're not sure if the other ones have quality assurance in place. I'm going to ask you another question. Long Lake protected area on the Eastern Shore, when is that going to turn into a protected area - a real protected area?
MR. MORASH: I'm making a mess with my notes.
MR. COLWELL: Also, you can also have your staff, if you don't mind, look, I want to know has an assessment been done, they're probably different staff, on the CND fire that was in North Preston and the cleanup that's needed for that, has there been any action towards an order to clean that up or anything done with that? That's the end of my questions and after that I will turn it over to Diana Whalen.
MR. MORASH: With regard to Long Lake, if it would be acceptable to you, I will check into that and we can get you additional information on where that is.
[Page 283]
MR. COLWELL: If it could be provided to me directly in writing, I would appreciate it, yes, that would be fine.
MR. MORASH: Yes, we'll do that and the second, on the CND site, there is a ministerial order that's working its way through the system. So at this point in time I would prefer not to make too many comments about that, but there is something in place to help clean up and rectify the problem.
MR. COLWELL: Was there an assessment done in the community for the smoke because it was terrible black stuff that day? You can send me that answer in writing as well.
MR. MORASH: No assessment was done as I understand.
MR. COLWELL: Maybe you could look at that because it is a major concern in the community. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: I appreciate the opportunity to raise a few issues and questions with you, Mr. Minister, and your staff. I haven't looked so much at, again, the estimate and the dollars, but some of the programs and activities that fall under your jurisdiction and control, I wanted to just touch on a few of them.
I was interested to see, and I realize there is some overlap with the Department of Natural Resources on this, but part of your mandate and I guess one of your priorities is acquiring and protecting land, is what I saw in your business plan, and that would be public lands. I wanted to raise with you an area that has a considerable amount of Crown land in it which is in the Halifax Clayton Park riding which is the riding I represent and it is land that is bordered essentially by Bayers Lake Business Park on the one hand, Timberlea, growing subdivisions in Timberlea and Hammonds Plains on another, and then on the fourth side it's the Bicentennial Highway coming into the city.
Now, this is an area you would be aware of because the quarry that had the blast there last year is right along there. It borders on Crown lands. The area is known as Blue Mountain and Birch Cove Lakes. It's a considerably large piece of Crown land and it's not unique, but one of the good attributes of it right now is that the Crown lands there are not under any kind of working agreement with forestry or any other use of the land. It's really in a natural state and there's no work taking place on it. This is an area of land that's very important to the constituents in Clayton Park, perhaps, in particular, because they've seen such a huge growth in their own subdivisions and it's one of the more densely populated areas of Halifax, and it's grown in a very short period of time, as you will be aware. Certainly, the area of Clayton Park West, itself, there was nothing there in 1990. The first streets were going in in 1990. So that
[Page 284]
would be the area between Dunbrack and the Bi-Hi. It has completely built out in less than 15 years.
[1:00 p.m.]
What is a perennial theme in our riding is that there is a need now to preserve natural lands before it's too late. Having served as a city councillor, I know that if you wait until the applications have come in and things start to happen or land has been sold or traded, then you don't have an opportunity to protect it. What I would like to ask you is if there is an opportunity, and if it's your department that I would look to, to have those Crown lands given some higher level of protection? Right now they're just Crown lands, they're not protected in any way.
MR. MORASH: At the current time, we don't particularly own any Crown land. We are stewards of the protected areas, so that would fall, for the most part, with DNR, with regard to any type of a management plan or something that's in there. They would be the stewards of that land, prior to any kind of a designation. DNR manages the land that's out there, and uses the integrated resource management planning system. That's a system that they have set up to determine the proper management techniques for different pieces of land. We are participants in that, with regard to ecological designations or special places that we might identify, and pass information along to them.
Now the IRM process also includes public input. Through the public, these items and issues would be identified. I believe - I'm trying to get the best direction I can - that through Minister Hurlburt and the department, the IRM system would give you a step in the direction as to know what's going on out there or what might be planned in the future, or what the actual capabilities are, what the range of treatments might be, or what they may be looking at.
MS. WHALEN: What I would say is this area has been identified as being ecologically important because of the topography and the lakes and so on that are there. What I will do is pursue it with the Department of Natural Resources and hopefully it will come under your jurisdiction, maybe in the future. I have sent a letter to Minister Hurlburt about it, but I was hoping that you had some say in it as well. I would like to see it as a protected land, and I think that it would show some real foresight, because this area will soon be engulfed with even more pressures of development around it. I would like to be able to draw a line now and say this land will be protected, because the city will soon be all around it, and far beyond.
MR. MORASH: I will certainly commit to speak with Mr. Hurlburt about the piece of land that you're discussing.
MS. WHALEN: Birch Cove Lakes. That would be great, if you would do so. I would appreciate that.
[Page 285]
I would like to touch on the quarry, if I could, today. Because of the blasting incident last August, it is my understanding that it may be going to some further action, and perhaps you're not able to talk about it today, more than in a general sense.
MR. MORASH: There is the possibility that there could be further action, so, yes, you're correct.
MS. WHALEN: So I should stay off the specifics, then I will go into some of the general questions that arise as a result of that. I hope all the staff know what I'm talking about, the blasting in Clayton Park West where the rocks flew across the highway and struck buildings and what happened at that time. But leaving that behind, as to what exactly were the circumstances, it raises issues about the appropriateness of quarry operations so close to, again, a densely populated area, with a high number of residential homes and apartments. I wondered if you could talk some about any discussions you may have had with HRM, in terms of the continuing management of these kinds of facilities? I'm sure this is not the only quarry that is within HRM's more populated areas.
MR. MORASH: We've had ongoing discussions, certainly, because the need for quarry materials is growing. We have a growing population, and with the construction that you mentioned out in your area, it's kind of essential to be able to move forward and go on. We have other quarries that have issues with regard to the restrictions of the 800-metre limit from people who must be contacted and who must give their consent before there is blasting or a quarry that is established in the location. As well, there are a number of areas that are in more rural areas of the province that have gained a lot of attention. We have a lot of issues with regard to quarries, and certainly the one that seems to have attracted a great deal of attention is the White's Cove one, where there will be a panel review, a joint federal-provincial assessment - just an environmental assessment - to see what the actual issues are that could affect marine life in the area and in other areas there.
We've had discussions with DNR on pits and quarries. We've had discussions with regard to new quarry regulations, and splitting pits and quarries to try to move forward. These are all in discussion at this point in time. As most things, it seems, in our department, it's quite a complex and heated issue with a fair amount of emotion from the people who are involved. We are looking at setbacks and trying to determine what we can do in the future. One of the difficulties that we've had, as with the Gateway Quarry, is that it has been there for some length of time. Then there was a construction explosion, you might as well say, everything started growing and just booming so quickly that it started to encroach upon the quarry. Of course, there needs to be certain setbacks and certain limits.
The unfortunate accident that took place certainly shouldn't have taken place or been an issue that we would be contending with or discussing at any point in time, however, there's always the vibration. If you're going to blast with dynamite in rock with a considerable amount of dynamite and/or whatever substance you use, you're going to have cracks in
[Page 286]
gyproc and you're going to have cracks in the basements or whatever that residents just aren't willing to put up with. We have had some discussions, I can't say that we've solved all the problems, but we are ongoing with that.
MS. WHALEN: Could I add to that, I think you're right, you mentioned the point that development really has met this quarry. The quarry was in the country at one time. It was really the Kearney Lake area and there were not many people around there. Now it has become part of the city, and so we're trying to come up with a balance where you can co-exist because clearly the owners of the quarry have previous rights to continue to do their work.
What I'm curious about, and perhaps your staff will be able to tell me, is whether or not there is a possibility of having different standards for the intensity of the blast, so that noise and dust and some of the other factors that really do upset the quality of life for residents could be mitigated?
MR. MORASH: We don't have anything at this point in time that's hard and fast, but we are reviewing the whole quarry issue. A lot of things we've discussed have to do with public consultation with regard to a new siting. However, we know that we have the issues with the urban and rural connect or the quarries that have had this type of expansion and growth around them. We're reviewing now, and we'll be looking at just about every aspect or all aspects. Certainly there have been comments that have come into the department that have been collected, and we will be reviewing those and using those as we move forward.
MS. WHALEN: I would like to urge that you work closely with HRM. I know there is communication between your group and the development office there, that they have done a lot of work on blasting, really relating to new developments, again homes and apartment sites that are being blasted. They are very well aware of the sensitivity in communities, because this blasting is taking place, essentially next door to other homes. It's been a real source of aggravation, and people are getting very fed up with it in areas that are fast-growing, like Clayton Park West. So the quarry is sort of just added to that.
In fact, I had calls when I was a councillor for that area that came from a long distance away that related to the timing of blasts from the quarry, not from any of the other construction in the area. It was through HRM that they were able to determine, because if they give out the permits, they know where the other residential sites are blasting. They related it back to the quarry, and it was closer to the Bedford Highway than it was to Dunbrack. It's just interesting that it does travel a long way, and it creates a lot of disturbance.
I have a concern there that we should coordinate better with HRM standards and make sure that if it's in an urban area like that, which you would have to really classify it - it's not really suburban - as very heavily populated, and it should be a decreased level of intensity,
[Page 287]
even though I realize that slows down the operation, and that it would require more blasting and more rock-breaking to get to the point you want to be at. I would like to suggest that that should be coordinated with the kind of standards that HRM has. They have just come in with some new ones for residential blasting.
MR. MORASH: I can assure you that we would certainly be in contact with HRM and all the stakeholders on any of those issues. We'll be looking for all the information we can get, and the best information that we can get, as we move along, because . . .
MS. WHALEN: Can I ask, are you intending any sort of formal input of stakeholder opinion? Do you want to hear from the public?
MR. MORASH: We will. There will be a process where we will be looking for public input. I don't know exactly what form that will take at this point in time, but the public will know that we're looking for information and will welcome comments and responses from anyone.
MS. WHALEN: I would encourage you to do that, and I just wanted to make sure it would be formal so that I would know about it and so would the community, at such time as it comes up. I think the community is reasonable and would like to co-exist and so on, but we need to have controls in place that are going to protect everybody, and that's aside from something like an industrial accident that was unexpected. This is just business that's going on there on a regular basis. We need to control it better.
I'm going to continue on with a couple more. I was curious to see that you have insurance under your guise. It says you're looking at the gender differences in insurance.
MR. MORASH: We do. In my opening statement, I made mention that Minister Russell would be willing to come and replace me to talk about insurance, because we have the staff here who have been working on that. I believe it was the New Democratic Party's intention that they would quiz him on insurance when he came for estimates, however, the offer is there now. If you would prefer to go to insurance, we can try to track down Minister Russell.
MS. WHALEN: No, I don't want a delay. If there's an opportunity to speak to him when he comes forward, if the NDP are in fact going to speak to him later about it, then I will wait and do it at that time. (Interruptions) I just don't want to miss the opportunity to speak on that, too.
Just briefly on the Alcohol and Gaming Authority that you have under your guise as well, could you tell me if that is working successfully with its division of duties between that and the Gaming Corporation?
[Page 288]
MR. MORASH: I'm sorry, would you mind repeating the question?
MS. WHALEN: I wanted to find out how the division of duties is working, if it's a good division of duties, between the Alcohol and Gaming Authority that you have under your authority and the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation? I believe we're the only province that has the Gaming Corporation as a separate entity.
MR. MORASH: We have a good relationship, as you can appreciate. We're the regulatory body, and they would be the corporate body responsible for gaming. We work co-operatively with them on different issues, and things are working every well from our point of view. Certainly they may have some different points of view, but we believe we're working very well with them. The regulatory process is working very well. They comply with issues as they come up.
MS. WHALEN: So you would see, very much, the Alcohol and Gaming Authority, as you say, as regulatory, you're doing more to ensure that regulations are met and enforcement, in a sense, and the other group manages and operates. Is that right?
MR. MORASH: Yes, in simple terms, we end up being the policeman. That's our role in this. We have the same name but, yes, making sure that they cover the rules of the road is really our responsibility.
MS. WHALEN: I appreciate that. I'm interested because I do believe that when we introduced casinos in Nova Scotia we created the other body to operate and manage, and I wanted to know how that is working in the longer run. One of my roles is as Gaming Critic, so I'm just interested in exploring it a little bit - you might wonder why I've gone off there. I'm going to leave it and turn it over now to my colleague, the member for Annapolis.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Annapolis.
MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: You mentioned earlier about the Whites Cove assessment that's taking place, the federal assessment that's going to be taking place. You're well aware of the quarry in Victoria Beach, in my riding, which is going through the process. I'm wondering why we wouldn't be waiting for that assessment in Whites Cove, before we start getting involved in doing other quarries along the shoreline.
MR. MORASH: These would be individual applications that have been brought in and assessed as such. We don't do panel reviews for all quarries that occur within the province. Now Whites Cove, there was an issue brought up from DFO with regard to marine mammals and marine life, and that triggered the panel review. We do have some names that have been put forward now with regard to the review panel itself. It's moving along. Now, Victoria
[Page 289]
Beach, I think we've endeavoured to try to keep you up to date on that. That was an application that was put in, and certainly there are some residents along the road that they would need to use to haul that material out, who don't consider the road adequate to be able to take that type of traffic. I was fortunate enough to be able to go and meet with a number of those individuals who kindly extended an invitation to actually see first-hand what it is they were talking about.
At this point in time, we don't have all the information in from the proponent of the Victoria Beach proposal, so there has been no move forward from our point of view. We don't have the clock ticking, so to speak, with regard to this application at this point in time. The staff at the regional office have been working with the individuals in the area, and I'm very pleased to say, not surprisingly, have built up a very good working relationship, from a communications point of view. This would be another issue where communications is extremely important. The environmental assessment process is not simple and straightforward, as I can guarantee to you, from my own experience.
We have had department staff touching base with the people who had the issues, making sure they've been educated in the process. In doing so, as they are commenting and having communications with my office and are positive with the communications level that we've been able to achieve. I know that you certainly have a very good working relationship with the people in the regional area as well. Hopefully, you've found them to be able to get the information to you and make sure that you're up to date on where we are as well.
MR. MCNEIL: The big concern from the community perspective, and I do appreciate you taking the time to meet with that community group and seeing the site, when you recognize the location of the site and the fact that there are much easier spots along the mountain face that they could be bringing out material to deal with local usage, it makes one wonder why anybody would be putting a quarry in that location for any other reason than to take it on the water and export and I think it should be a concern to the department. We have companies looking to get in under that 3.9 hectare clause which is in the regulations now.
I'm wondering, where's your department going with that? At what point can you use what power you have as minister in saying, this needs an environmental assessment because we're concerned about the fact that this is much larger than 3.9 hectares, and you're using the guidelines to come in underneath?
MR. MORASH: Some of the issues we have are certainly the emotions and the opinions of people who right now, I guess, there are a number of people who say this is going to be a marine terminal and from a department's point of view and from a regulator's point of view, you can appreciate that we have no indication whatsoever that this will turn into a marine terminal. We certainly know it won't if it remains under the 3.9 hectares because it's not large enough to be viable.
[Page 290]
The issue even at 3.9 hectares is the road structure and infrastructure that is available there to move even local rocks, or aggregate for someone's driveway, but as a regulatory body, you know, we look at the information that's put forth to us and the applications and when people give no indication that they are intending any kind of a marine operation, we have to take them at their word simply because if they change their mind at any time, then that changes the whole process and the review changes its slant altogether and, of course, if that was the case, there's a good possibility that they could be into a panel review similar to the one at Whites Cove.
MR. MCNEIL: I will just add a comment to that and leave off there. At some point, recognizing the environment where this quarry is going in, common sense has to come into play. No contractor is going to put a quarry at the tip of Victoria Beach. The cost is just out of whack for them to start dragging that material out of there. None of us could afford to have our driveway doing it, that's the big issue. So at some point common sense needs to play a role in all of that, which leads me to my other question which is on-site septic systems. At some point common sense has to be moved into this equation. So maybe you want to stay on the quarry, do you?
MR. MORASH: I'll back up to quarries. One quick point on quarries before we move is again there are certainly comments that you can't possibly be viable with a quarry of this size. However, again, when you are the regulator and someone sends you information on the permit, whether they can be feasible, whether they can make a dollar and whether they can stay in business, is not an issue that we regulate. We regulate through the Environment Act and the information and regulations that we have and I know there are numerous opinions out there as to what size quarry you need in order to be viable and if you turn into a larger quarry, what might happen down the road but, again, you can appreciate we deal with the information that we've been given and if we're given new information or if we find out different information, we can adjust as we move along.
MR. MCNEIL: I'm just trying to help you because they say government should always be forward thinking and I'm just trying to help you get to that point.
MR. MORASH: I know you're just being helpful.
MR. MCNEIL: We're kind of going out of time so I will just make a general statement around the on-site septic issues and I'm just asking at some point will that be looked at over the next year or two to look at whether those regulations are actually doing what the Environment Act wants it to do?
MR. MORASH: They certainly, yes, are up for review and we're hopeful to make some revisions to the Act on those this Fall. There's consultation. We seem to be into consultations, but we're the kind of regulatory department that doesn't regulate things the way necessarily everybody wants to see them done. So we get lots of comments on a regular
[Page 291]
basis and, yes, those are some things that we would be looking at and seeing if we could make some improvements as well.
MR. MCNEIL: One of the big issues surrounding this in my area is when an engineer is stamping plans for a septic system which is being sent back to them as, you know, needing modifications, it's my understanding that that engineer by stamping those plans is accepting liability. So I think that's an issue that we need to deal with, you know, if they're accepting the liability of the plans they're putting out there, why are we sending them back saying, no, they're not good enough?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will have a response to this and then you'll be finished. We've reached the time.
MR. MORASH: We are looking at streamlining the process and trying to move forward with that. The other part is we approve with regard to whether it meets the regulations or not and I know there's always a gray area in there between the engineer who designs and the regulatory people who take a look and interpret the regulations as to whether it meets the mark or doesn't. I know in a lot of cases ongoing dialogue has solved the situation.
MR. MCNEIL: Just on behalf of our caucus I want to thank the minister and his staff for giving us the opportunity to go over the estimates with them and appreciate when we call your office that you're more than willing to accommodate us and try to answer our questions. So thanks again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So I assume that there will be no further questions of the minister from the Liberal caucus. From the NDP caucus?
MR. STEELE: We would like to thank the minister as well and move on to the Department of Finance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you have any closing remarks and, please, read your resolutions into the record.
MR. MORASH: I have very quick closing remarks. I really do appreciate the opportunity, I appreciate the questions. It's really quite an opportunity from my point of view to be able to sit here for the first time and try to wade through the paperwork and attempt to answer your questions and I hope that we've been able to pass along some information to you. Your patience has been appreciated and certainly your comments have been appreciated and we will work with you in the future to do everything we can to help out the situations that have been brought up. At this time I will read the resolutions:
[Page 292]
Resolution E22 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,581,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Securities Commission, pursuant to Estimate.
Resolution E23 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,882,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, pursuant to the Estimate.
[MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E6 stand?
Resolution E6 stands.
Shall Resolutions E22 and E23 carry?
The resolutions are carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will reconvene as a committee following resolutions, the opening part of the session on Monday, that would be roughly around 12:30 p.m., I imagine, no, yes, 2:30 p.m.
[1:27 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]
