[Page 133]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2005
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
2:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Mark Parent
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: I wanted to start in today asking a few questions surrounding the contamination of the Greenwood water. This is an area that I think presently, and in the coming months, there will be many questions to answer surrounding the contamination.
First of all I would like for the minister or someone from the department to advise me as to why the department did not act firmly after the fire of 1995. Here you had a dry-cleaning premises that was destroyed, but yet there doesn't seem to have been any assertive action taken by the department to ensure the residents of the Greenwood area knew that perc had gone into the water system and indeed needed an immediate cleanup. From what I have from FOIPOP there seems to, in fact, have been no action taken in terms of testing. This was just 10 years ago and I'm wondering why no action was taken at that time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour.
HON. KERRY MORASH: Thank you for the question. Certainly the answer is not quite as straightforward and simple as we might like for it to be. As you are aware, when we found out about the current issue that is under discussion, the department certainly moved forward and we ended up with a ministerial order that was issued to look at cleaning up the site, to ensure we didn't have further contamination. There had been testing that had taken place with some of the residents and I should add at this time, certainly, with a lot of intervention from yourself, I think we were able to communicate better with the area residents to make sure they were aware of what the situation was with regard to the hazard and what was being done.
[Page 134]
Again, I know that you were directly involved with the municipality and had many discussions with them and the department, to try to ensure that we came to the best possible solution. However, the answer as to why things weren't done 10 years ago is something that we can gather some additional information on and get it to you at another date. It's not something that I can answer at this point in time.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. One of the other questions that I have had placed on my constituency doorstep and at the meetings I have gone to - and I appreciated at the time, you apologizing for the sloppy work of the department in handling tests that were done in 2001. The residents of the area keep asking me this question, in fact, as late as the public meeting held by MP Robert Thibeault, last Thursday evening in the Village of Greenwood, residents want to know what happens to an employee of the department who signs off on a statement that everything is okay with the water in the area; yet, as I said in the House, my Grade 8 students could pick up that there was perc in the test and in the records as shown by Jacques Whitford. What happens to an employee in the department?
MR. MORASH: The answer is we certainly are always looking at improving the quality of service that we can provide, that's an ongoing initiative of ours, as well, with our competitive initiative that we had some money budgeted for this year. Our intentions are to look for consistent compliance throughout the province to make improvements to ensure that we can give the best possible service. In the case that you're talking about, it wasn't perc that they were particularly looking at at the time and it was an oversight. It was something that Jacques Whitford had done a report on, had sent it in and as well, had not flagged that there was an issue with perc on that site. It was something that was missed and we certainly are working to ensure that we can do a more thorough job in the future, to try to mitigate any concerns in the future.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm wondering, is your department prepared to pick up on some of the suggestions being made by the local community? I gave the name of one resident who is prepared to offer his land for testing by the department. That, in fact, will conclusively move the investigation beyond the dry cleaners, to a bigger environmental problem, involving perc and possibly hydrocarbons in this particular area. Are you prepared to instruct your department to move in a direction that is going to bring some degree of comfort to the residents that the department is now willing to engage itself in coming up with nothing short of an environmental assessment of the Greenwood area? From what I have been able to ascertain, this is most likely a problem well beyond the dry cleaners in the Greenwood area.
MR. MORASH: The answer is, if you have any particular information that is pertinent to the investigation that is ongoing, we certainly would welcome it. You could contact anyone in the department, the local area, or bring it to me, or anyone here in the Legislature, and we certainly would review the information, with the intent to try to make it a complete investigation and do the best possible job that we could do.
[Page 135]
MR. GLAVINE: I appreciate that because it is a problem that the area is going to have to face. I have been in touch with some experts in the field beyond the Department of Environment and certainly, with the extent of the plume and the level of readings, the neighbouring community of Kingston certainly needs to be assured that the department is indeed committed to long-term monitoring in this area, and a very comprehensive monitoring approach. This is the only comfort, I think, that the residents in this area are going to be able to live with. I'm wondering is the minister prepared to keep that as a very strong, and a very high priority?
MR. MORASH: The short answer would be yes. We certainly appreciate what the issue and what the concern is out there. Certainly, there are experts in the department who model how the plume may move or how it has moved up to this point in time with the current testing that has been done. That information has all been collected and tabulated, and there's certainly a commitment on the part of the department to continue monitoring this to try to ensure that we have controlled, to the best of our ability, and have monitored any changes that would take place, so if there were changes and flows that people could be notified and we could be sure of safe drinking water for individuals.
MR. GLAVINE: I'll move in a little bit of a different direction, this being Compost Awareness Week. While Nova Scotia is touted pretty strongly as a leader in the waste management area, and we certainly have made tremendous strides compared to other provinces, other jurisdictions, we really still have a minor effort being made by some of the municipalities. I'm wondering where the department is going in terms of promoting a stronger approach to diversion of solid waste. We really only have two jurisdictions that have met the targets. And a lot of that, of the provincial target, has been accomplished by HRM.
MR. MORASH: There are discussions going on just about on a continual or a weekly basis, between municipalities and the department. They certainly work hand in hand with us and we certainly work hand in hand with them. The goal of those discussions at any point in time is to improve the abilities of the municipalities and to ensure that we're meeting our targets and exceeding our targets. We do have a good reputation for composting and reducing and how we handle landfill waste, but we do appreciate that we are far from perfect and that we have strides that we can make to improve on the processes in place currently.
We do have draft electronics recycling regulations out there now for people to discuss and look at. We've had a number of comments back from those. We happen to be second or third in Canada to get something out for people to look at, and I believe it's 14,000 tons a year that goes to landfills in Nova Scotia. We have a lot of electronic equipment now that's going to landfill that we believe could be recycled. We know we can do better with composting. There's an educational aspect to this. We need to make sure that people are aware of what's expected of them, what the best processes are, and that they comply with those. However, we are trying to work through that from an educational point of view, and
[Page 136]
a discussion with the municipalities on a regular basis, so that they can improve and we can assist them.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the areas of complaint that I have heard is the fact that there are different fees for the tonnage of waste that is going to the composting sites. I'm wondering why that would exist, because what it's setting up is actually a competition between those who are providing a service and providing a truly valuable service. But this is now causing some real issues, some real problems, in fact, around the stability and whether or not a particular operation will be able to stay in business.
Mr. Minister, you know they're being governed, and rightly so, by tough environmental regulations, and yet they have this added burden now of trying to compete and so forth with another site that is in fact offering and giving a lower rate.
MR. MORASH: The ability to set those rates at those facilities is governed strictly by the municipalities. They have determined what they need for a tipping fee in order for the facility to be feasible. They have the jurisdiction and the ability to raise or lower those as they see fit. We certainly have heard the discussions about the differences making challenges for some individuals; however, it is the municipality that has the full ability to regulate those as they determine by council.
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: Do you see the possibility of some need where site A may be competing for the waste from two or three other municipalities, and in fact the amount that they're able to receive may dictate the future viability of the business? Is there some desire by the department to guarantee and to make sure that this service is going to be provided, a valuable service and one that has gone through a lot of growing pains, then to reach a point where their futures may be jeopardized? Is the department willing to take a look at some kind of a provincial scale in order to deal with this issue?
MR. MORASH: Currently the province regulates the disposal of the municipal solid waste, and this is one of the situations where we kind of set the rules and we ask the municipalities to find the best possible solutions for those rules. So we don't regulate the inter-municipal movement of solid waste. That's the municipality's responsibility, where they want to dispose of the residential waste that they collect. They have the ability to shop around or do whatever is cost effective from their point of view. At this point in time, we aren't intending to get involved in that. We do have the siting of the second-generation landfills that is taking place.
[Page 137]
As with any business plans and negotiations, a lot of decisions have been made in the last number of months with regard to how much material is going to go in which direction in the province, and that is a municipal responsibility and those were municipal discussions and negotiations that had taken place. So it is their responsibility.
MR. GLAVINE: I'll turn it over to my colleague, the member for Digby-Annapolis.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, staff, ladies and gentlemen. I want to talk about - you know down in Digby we have the quarry situation still unfolding. We know that the three-person panel has been chosen, and that it's going through a full Class 2 assessment. We know the document has been released by the panel. There's 70-odd issues that the people who had input from that area, approximately 200 had input, and we know they must all be addressed by the quarry people and possibly by the department, too, but I think it's probably just from the quarry. Can you tell us just how that procedure - if you know - is going to unfold from there, and how long that may take?
MR. MORASH: I can give you some details on that process. The length of time is a difficult one, just because some of those people are looking for additional information, and the amount of time it takes to come to a decision point depends on how quickly people can get the information. Currently we do have both the provincial and the federal EAs required at that quarry and the marine terminal at Whites Point. There's certainly opposition, we appreciate, to the quarry and the terminal being located there. That's the reason why the panel review was chosen, to make sure that there would be public input and that there would be discussion with regard to water quality and the fishery and other things as well.
We ended up being with a Class 1 environmental assessment required. The quarry is going to be larger than four hectares, or that's certainly the intention. The federal EA is required by Fisheries and Oceans due to the fish impact on the habitat and navigable waters by the marine terminal. I know there were issues, or there have been issues brought up with regard to the marine mammals in the area and what kind of effect it would have on them. So they'll be looking at that type of information. Under the Environment Act, when an undertaking is subject to another jurisdiction's environmental assessment, we enter into an agreement with the government agency to conduct a joint review, for all intents and purposes, trying to work together, so that we would announce the decisions at the same point in time, and try to make things as efficient as possible in a system that is a very slow and drawn-out process.
The people have been picked, we have a three-member panel. I think it's Bob Fournier and Jill Grant and Gunter Muecke. They are the three-member panel that will do the review. They have their draft guidelines for the company's environmental impact statement, which is certainly a significant part of any environmental assessment. I think we
[Page 138]
heard a bit yesterday about the environmental impact statements taking some period of time to complete. There was some discussion that they can take up to 12 months to have that in a finalized version. So that has been released for public review and comment. The public hearings on the guidelines were held back in January of this year. The panel has revised the guidelines, based on the stakeholder input and has issued the final guidelines to the proponent, and there's a cost-sharing agreement with the panel that has been finalized between the Department of Environment and Labour and the agency, and a cost-recovery agreement on who's going to pay for the cost and how it will come back in through.
We're looking for the environmental impact statement after this work has been done up to this point in time to take an additional six months. Then the panel will look at the process from there. So it would certainly be longer than six months before a review is completed. I suppose if there's an advantage, we have the department working with the federal government, so we are in the process and, hopefully, will be able to give information on the process to people who are looking for it. It remains a long and drawn-out process, which is very in-depth and will look at all the issues that have come up, and we'll have the public consultation. I guess that's some information on it. We can certainly give you some additional information if there are any specifics that you're looking for.
MR. THERIAULT: Out of these 70-odd issues that the people have brought up, do they have to be fully addressed to satisfy the people and the department? If not, what happens?
MR. MORASH: The issues would have to satisfy the panel. Right now we have the three-member panel of experts in the field, or people who will become experts during the process because of the information that they'll be given. They will make the determination as to whether the guidelines of the environmental assessment are met or not. Again, we have the six months just to get the impact statement sorted out, and then they actually start doing the work of looking to see if the panel will get to work to try to do the environmental assessment. There's a lot of work to do and it will take some number of months before they get to any kind of decision stage.
MR. THERIAULT: So the panel will end up making that decision.
MR. MORASH: The panel will end up making that decision, yes.
MR. THERIAULT: Out of the 70-odd issues, I just want to bring up three or four that seem to be quite paramount to me. I think they're probably the biggest fears of that area. It's quite a mega-quarry and it's a small area. What I hear most is, will it damage a way of life that's been there for over 15 generations? Will it damage the peaceful way of life that many seniors now enjoy? Will it do harm to a world, first-class ecotourism destination that has been and is being built in that area as we speak? Will it affect our next generation, who want to live here but can't because of the possibility of the damage mentioned above?
[Page 139]
The chance of this quarry going in is possible. We're not saying it's impossible, we're saying it's possible. So what happens if one of these four mentioned things that I just spoke about, even if one of them happens, who's going to be responsible for that in the end?
MR. MORASH: The way the system or the process is set up, the members of the panel will take into account all the different factors associated with the community, associated with the environment, associated with the marine habitat and all other information that's out there. They will come back and make recommendations to the federal Minister of Environment, as well as to me, with the background as to why they came up with this recommendation, then a decision would be made and forwarded along.
The points that you mentioned are some of the reasons, or a lot of the reasons, why there is the full-panel review, because of these issues. They want to fully look at them, and do the best possible job to evaluate what the impacts will be before they come forward with any kind of a recommendation.
MR. THERIAULT: Again, if this does go ahead, and we know where the rock is going, for the roads of the United States, has the department thought of or looked into any sort of royalty for that rock that will prosper another country?
MR. MORASH: That suggestion has come up before, as we've talked about this. I think some of the discussions that we've had had to do with the NAFTA agreements and the legal abilities for the Government of Nova Scotia to put a royalty on aggregate that's leaving the province. Currently it's not considered a mineral, so there is no royalty that's achieved by the province at this point in time. Interprovincial trade and inter-country trade make it very difficult, and the lawyers are suggesting at this point in time that we do not have the legal standing to be able to impose a royalty on this product.
MR. THERIAULT: I would like to jump to another resource, our fresh water in this province. Do we know how much water we have in this province, drinkable, usable water?
MR. MORASH: I'm sure the department or some of the people around the universities would have an estimate of the amount of water that is available, but that would be a very broad estimate. It's very difficult to say what x number of litres is available. It's a tough one to put a number on.
MR. THERIAULT: So if we don't know how much water we have in this province, do we know how much water we're using?
MR. MORASH: Yes.
MR. THERIAULT: We could find all this out, couldn't we?
[Page 140]
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. MORASH: We can find the actual number of what's estimated to be used in the Province of Nova Scotia on a daily basis or a yearly basis. Certainly the municipal water supplies would have a measure of how much they are actually filtering or they are producing, simply because it's a factor of the costs that they have. We have average amounts that would be used by families, and we have, again, reasonably accurate numbers on how many wells there are in the province, how many people are on town or municipal water and how many people are on treated water systems that may be private. So in total we can come up with a number that is used on a regular basis.
MR. THERIAULT: I believe those are numbers this province must come up with. Is it true - and I believe it has been said - that if someone buys a piece of land in this province, whether they're from this province, from this country or from another country, they cannot be stopped from extracting water from that land, just the volume can be controlled? Is that true?
MR. MORASH: That's my understanding. They could apply for water withdrawal, and we would treat everybody equally with regard to withdrawing water. I do actually have a number with regard to total water withdrawal that has been approved in the province, and it is 3.27 billion litres per day. Currently that's the water withdrawal that has been approved. Also, it may be worthwhile mentioning that bottled water withdrawals constitute about 1.67 million litres per day, which is about .05 per cent of the total annual withdrawal. So the amount that we actually withdraw to bottle right now is significantly low. There are the three bottling plants that we currently have, and as a total they would make up 1.67 million litres. I tend to show my age, gallons seem to make more sense to me than litres.
MR. THERIAULT: How much of this water is exported outside of this country?
MR. MORASH: I don't think that's anything we currently track. This water is bottled and could be transported anywhere outside the province or outside the country, as well it could be consumed within the province. I guess if you go to your local grocery store and take a look on the shelf, we certainly have water from other parts of the world that seems to make its way here and is cost competitive to be in there with ours. We don't actually control that. We do have legislation to control the bulk sale of water, but as far as water that has been bottled and is put in smaller containers, that's free to be shipped anywhere, as I understand it.
MR. THERIAULT: I believe in this country we have approximately 14 per cent of the world's water resource, next to Russia. I believe over the years there are going to be lots of other countries eying that, they are now. A lot of people believe that water is a common resource, the same as our air, and that we had better get a good count on the water we have in this province and in this country, and properly manage it over the next generation or two,
[Page 141]
because they do believe there's going to be a lot of extraction coming here. Down in our area of Digby-Annapolis right now there's, as you probably know, a company from the United States looking to bottle water to ship to the United States and to Europe.
The people believe this is a very serious thing. Water is a necessity of life, just like the air we're breathing right at this moment and the water we're drinking just at this moment. To properly manage that, we better get a good grip on what we have and what falls out of the air yearly. To properly manage that I believe there needs to be an income that comes from that, somehow, for the people, for the management of it. It profits us all for the necessity of life, so if people are going to profit from it monetarily, I believe this government should also profit for its proper management. Is this government going to seriously look into some form of a royalty to properly manage this water into the future?
MR. MORASH: As I said, we have done some preliminary work on that, and there seem to be some legal obstacles to doing that. We certainly will continue to look and see what options are available, and see if there are some ways to extract some value for the province for water that is leaving the province. However, having said that, there are legal obstacles that are an issue. The other part that is certainly worthwhile pointing out with regard to the department is safe drinking water would be one of the main goals of the Department of Environment and Labour. We have a lot of people who do a lot of good work along with drinking water strategies, and anything having to do with sewage management is directly related to good water supply.
I've said this a few times when I've been speaking, I grew up with a well that never went dry, so I took for granted that most people had good water to drink. I've found out in the last year and a half or two that that's certainly not true. We have a lot of areas in the province that can't depend on good drinking water. Whatever the geological issues may be, those ones are very difficult to control. We also have some other issues where because of poor septic management over the years, we have some small amounts of contamination in areas, and we're actively working with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and the communities and the municipalities to try to get some better processes or some infrastructure in the ground so that material can be treated and not be a contaminant.
There's no one, certainly within the Department of Environment and Labour, who doesn't appreciate how important safe drinking water is. Most every activity that takes place would come back to trying to make sure that we either protect that source, we reduce the use and that we have potable water for future generations. We also appreciate there's going to be more demand as we move forward. We do have a growing population, and there are going to be challenges that municipalities will have to face by making sure that they can assimilate and treat and distribute enough water for all the new houses that are being built in the new areas that are taking place. A great deal of effort takes place within the department on a daily basis to maintain and improve the quality of drinking water in the province. It's important to all of us.
[Page 142]
MR. THERIAULT: You speak about the legalities through NAFTA. I believe whatever the legalities are, and I don't know what they would be, we as a province better find our own legal ways to protect our resources. Someday we'll wake up and our jug will be empty and our land will be gone and on the roads of the United States. It has been said if this whole province was blown up and ground up into pieces, it won't quite cover the roads of the United States once. So we better be finding our own legal ways to protect the land and the water that we have here for the people of this province.
Anyway, that's enough out of me for now. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn this over to my colleague.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please continue. You have five minutes left.
The honourable member for Preston.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Mr. Minister, yesterday we were talking a little bit about an illegal dumping problem and one possible solution to this, and I just want to know if you have considered it and I know there are some obstacles to this, but the Enviro-Depots now take paper because they can sell it and some bottles and a few other items, paint, which is a very positive step forward. I was wondering why they can't take such things as propane tanks, the old ones that have to be disposed of, refrigerators and stoves, all types of batteries - some of them take batteries now because they can sell them - and possibly tires, the sort of thing that you find, typically, dumped in the woods or dumped at the end of someone's field or the places then that cost us a fortune to get them cleaned up. Now I realize some training would have to go with that for the personnel working at those locations, but they have so many benefits.
For instance, refrigerators and stoves, they are normally taken by the municipality, at least in the Halifax Regional Municipality, one item at a time and they do have value now. One time they didn't but they do now, probably thanks to the war in Iraq. But the refrigerators, for instance, the municipality goes out in HRM and actually takes the Freon out of them, or the refrigerant out of them and they run all over the place doing this. If the Enviro-Depots had refrigerators in one place, they could make a call, say come pick them up and then have the municipality come pick them up in one location, maybe once a month or whatever is appropriate.
The same with the propane tanks. You may not be aware, but if you want to get rid of a propane tank in HRM, I think there are 32 Saturdays a year that you can take your propane tank and your other household waste out to Otter Lake and if you live in Ecum Secum, that's a whole day's trip to get rid of a couple of things so it's easier for people to toss them in the woods, get rid of them that way, in the meantime creating problems that don't need to be created.
[Page 143]
So if these locations could take some of these things, or all of them, it would definitely help eliminate the illegal dumping activities that we have - not stop, but help eliminate. Do you have any views on that?
MR. MORASH: Yes, the department is continually working with the Enviro-Depots and with the municipalities looking for ways, jointly, to eliminate the problem that you are talking about. I was surprised that tin cans and refrigerators and metal are a scarcity right now and they like to bale that stuff up and they can make a dollar on it.
The point, I guess, that needs to be made as well, there is a cost associated with some of these programs and we have been actively working with the suppliers, manufacturers or whoever is involved with the program to see if there are cost-sharing avenues, if there are ways that the people who produce these things, manufacturers of the propane, or manufacturers of the tanks, who are the experts - in some cases, I know they can go back and be inspected and new valves can be put in the tanks that have been well maintained but are expired because they have reached their deadline. They can be refurbished and they can be recycled and put back out on the market, but those are programs that need to be initiated and set up with the municipalities, Enviro-Depots and the partners who actually can get the materials.
We are continually trying to come up with new and better ways to keep this material out of the landfills and certainly stop illegal roadside dumping. Some things have helped, as you said, and the cost of the product, or the product being a commodity and you can sell it to make some money certainly has helped with regard to tin cans, which sort of surprised me. I visited one place where they said they had a shortage and they were going on a tin can drive because at that point in time, bales of tin were something that they could sell and make a profit so they were sort of putting a push on one product over another, just depending on what the markets were driving. But all that metal is recyclable so the goal is to gather it, get it in one place and get it to somebody who can use it.
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has expired.
The honourable member for Dartmouth North.
MR. JERRY PYE: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the honourable member for Dartmouth East, our Environment Critic, for giving me the opportunity to at least pose one question to the minister. The minister is very much aware of the possible question that I'm going to pose to him because I tried to introduce it as a resolution in the Legislature on three different occasions. The minister, at that particular time, had indicated that there was not a problem but each time I introduced the resolution, there obviously was a problem because it never did hit the Legislature floor.
[Page 144]
The concern that I have is an issue surrounding outdoor burning apparatus, particularly outdoor furnaces and I do know that His Worship and members of council of the HRM have also sent the minister a letter with respect to outdoor furnaces or burning apparatus. What happens there is that they are in urban settings where there are huge populations and the population then suffers as a result of the emissions that emanate from those outdoor furnace apparatus. Not only that, what happens is that people who are in the demolition industry of dealing with construction debris and so on are the very individuals who, in fact, use these not only to burn the products but to heat the facilities as well, much to the disadvantage of the community.
When, in fact, you are in an urban setting and you have a corridor that might be a commercial corridor but beyond that corridor is a residential community and there are ground elevation levels that also cause a very serious problem, whereby the stack may not be sufficiently high to have the emissions go over the residential community and out into the atmosphere, it creates a very serious problem. Also, as a result of temperature conversions, there is a result that allows the material to linger in a staid atmosphere for a certain particular period of time. Much of this, as you know, the international health community, the national health community, recognizes that this is a very serious problem and it can have very serious effects on individuals' health, particularly those individuals who suffer from asthma, respiratory ailments, as well as pulmonary diseases.
My question to the Minister of the Environment is, when is his government, or his department, going to address this very real and serious issue that exists in populated, urban settings? Now, Mr. Chairman, I guess I will leave the question there rather than to expand beyond.
MR. MORASH: You may need a supplemental.
MR. PYE: I may need it, depending on what the minister's comments might be.
MR. MORASH: I appreciate the question and, yes, it has come up on a number of occasions and you certainly made the point very well here today. There is certainly agreement that these furnaces in proper areas, where there are very few people, have worked effectively and efficiently and haven't caused any undo concern to people. However, when they are in areas, as you said, with the temperature inversions, even people who have a wood stove that is burning efficiently, there are times when you can get the blue cloud or you can get the smoke that really lingers and causes problems and issues for some neighbours.
We have been in discussions with the Department of Energy and they have been in discussions with the federal government, looking at new standards and upgraded standards for all combustion-type furnaces but certainly they have looked very closely at the wood-burning furnaces and there is, I guess, a move afoot federally for some type of standardized regulation for this type of product. There is movement and people are looking at this. I must
[Page 145]
say that I haven't talked to the Minister of Energy recently on this, but I know there had been discussions earlier about a couple of manufacturers who would be looking at more efficient and effective ways to build or to do whatever they need to do in the combustion chamber to minimize the amount of smoke that comes out of them.
One of the other challenges that I think we have is that these furnaces - is what we call them - will burn varying degrees of dryness of wood and in some cases I know people have told me that if you are burning good, dry wood, whether they be large sticks or not, they can be reasonably efficient; however, because they do consume fairly large quantities of biomass, you end up with a woodpile that is outside and generally damp or wet and that certainly leads to additional smoke that comes out. But to answer your question, there have been discussions federally looking for some sort of a standard to regulate these products.
MR. PYE: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, the point that there are some discussions should leave me somewhat encouraged, I guess, but being involved with government and knowing the bureaucracy of government, we know how long these things take to find themselves out into pieces of legislation. We also know how long it takes for the community to become irate as a result of some development or activity that is affecting their lives. We also know that many municipalities, not only in Nova Scotia but across the country, have had energy subcommittees and environment subcommittees looking at the burning of wood even in urban settings and the real problem that the minister had indicated earlier with respect to wood burning and what that causes to individuals with the very diseases that I had mentioned earlier.
The problem that I have is that it's a different issue when, in fact, a residential unit is burning firewood that is treated and recommended and they usually buy it from the supplier with the recommended BTUs that are required to burn it. The problem I have is when a demolition company takes construction debris, piles it into piles and burns it without the Department of Environment and Labour being there every day and every minute, which they can't possibly be, that they had the potential to burn some material, and unless you are taking the ash or the content after and doing an assessment or evaluation, then we don't know, the community doesn't know and I'm sure your department doesn't know if, in fact, what that company is burning is legitimate material to be burned. The bottom line is this, I have witnessed what I have thought was, in fact, paints from houses that actually had lead because they were 60, 70 and 80 years old, and some parts of asphalt shingles that were attached to the wood and so on.
Now, in the evening when this is burning as well, it's almost impossible to detect what may or may not come out of there. You can go on site inspections and on site inspections you might see some things that are not trucked in there, that stay there on the site, but are not trucked in there later on in the evening and so on. So I don't believe that the community is getting the kind of secure protection that is needed in order to assure that community that it is living in a healthy community with that kind of an operation going on.
[Page 146]
So, Mr. Minister, yes, it's fine for you to sit here and tell me that at the national level, the federal Minister of the Environment is looking at it and we are looking at setting some standards but I want to know what you can do now, at the provincial level, that will give you the flexibility to deal with this issue now because I certainly, and I should have, although props are not a part of government, I could have brought you a videotape of some of the activity that went on there and some of the smoke and some of the particulate that has emanated from that stack and then you could see what the community's concerns were on days when they weren't even able, and still aren't able, to put their wash out.
I want to thank the honourable member for Dartmouth East once again for letting me have this opportunity to speak to you. So, finally, is there anything within your department at the present time that gives you the legal arm to address this issue now so that the community can at least be satisfied that until regulations come in supporting this kind of burning apparatus that they will be comforted in knowing that it won't be operational?
MR. MORASH: Thank you for the comment and I will try to clarify. I apologize, I misunderstood the first part of the question because when I was talking about federal standards or people looking at the standards, I was implying to the manufacturers of this type of equipment and what they were doing to be able to burn clean wood in the most efficient and effective manner so that it didn't cause particulate concern and that type of thing. However, I think you are moving toward people burning materials in furnaces that the furnaces were never intended to burn and certainly not something that the department would recommend be burned in those and with regard to construction and demolition debris which you've alluded to, that certainly would be illegal and that is something that the department can investigate and I will check into and try to find out or get to the bottom of the issue or the situation.
The other part, if you do have a video or you do have any information, we certainly would welcome that and use that as part of the investigation to determine what is actually taking place on-site and if these people are burning materials that aren't prescribed to be burned in this facility or in this furnace, we certainly would take corrective action with those individuals.
MR. PYE: I just want to say, Mr. Minister, that I had received a letter - I did not receive a letter, Councillor Jim Smith for the district had received a letter from you indicating at the time that the inspection was there, there was only non-treated wood being burned in the outdoor furnace and so on. Of course, I want you to know that the inspector can't be there all the time. You know that and I know that and the unfortunate part of it is that it is something that is extremely difficult to police.
I want to say that I would be delighted to provide you a videotape of just exactly what is going on there so that you can stick it in your TV on some leisure evening and certainly watch what is emanating into the neighbourhood.
[Page 147]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth East also. Mr. Minister, good to see you again, and staff. You know something I didn't do yesterday and now that I'm back on the record I want to not so much thank you for being here, Mr. Minister, because you, like me, are kind of hostage to this building, but I want to thank the staff for being here and the good advice they do give you and all Nova Scotians. So we may differ from time to time, I have to say I've been in contact with your staff, both from the Labour side and the Environment side, quite a bit in Cape Breton. I have to say that it's usually with a great deal of pride and pleasure I deal with your staff, the senior ones who are here and clearly right down the chain. They are a very diligent and hard-working staff and they are a credit to yourself, Mr. Minister. So I would wish that anybody who may not be in this room to hear this, and if you would pass that along, I would appreciate it.
MR. MORASH: Thank you, that's certainly appreciated.
MR. CORBETT: Okay, let's tear them apart. (Laughter) So much for being nice. No, I joke.
Some OSH questions, again. Some of the regulations that are outstanding and some regulations that have moved forward, I want to talk about you moving forward on your diving regulations and I would like to know, Mr. Minister, how did you arrive at that, by consultation, and are these regulations the highest standards? Do they meet the Canadian standards for diving?
MR. MORASH: They certainly reference the CSA standards in some instances. They are not a direct adoption of the CSA standards. What we've looked at, and as I said yesterday, we looked at the people who are sea urchin divers, we've looked at the people from universities who do scientific diving. We've looked at the deep sea divers, who would be the large professionals, and we have also looked at people who are, I guess, in between and we've tried to come up with a set of regulations/guidelines which would allow them all to safely perform their duties and their functions. That's the goal.
[3:00 p.m.]
I certainly agree we've been a long time getting these to a state where they can become regulations because I can say a number of years ago I was responsible for a diving program facility where I worked and trying to find some assistance through regulation and/or legislation in the province was just about non-existent. So we ended up going through a Canada-wide search and finding regulations from another province and I guess adopting what was helpful from that to come up with a policy or something that would be safe and useful within the province. So we are coming up with something that everybody will be able to use
[Page 148]
as a set of regulations that will help ensure their safety and their day-to-day routines and their businesses.
MR. CORBETT: Would it surprise you, Mr. Minister, that there is what we refer to as professional divers who feel that the regulations are more geared toward recreational divers than the professional divers and really look toward scuba diving as opposed to the actual working divers. I have a letter here from a professional diver, Mr. Bill Miller. Have you seen this letter or not, Mr. Minister? I will certainly table it if you wish to see it.
MR. MORASH: I don't know if I've seen that particular one but I certainly have received a number of letters and the department has received a number of letters from all the aspects of diving that we just talked about.
MR. CORBETT: In particular, his concern is that they voluntarily follow the CSA Z275.2 safety code for diving operations, which is a Canadian standard, and he feels anything less than that would put their industry at risk. So I'm going to ask you again, Mr. Minister, why would you put anything less than what people in the industry feel is the best for them to follow from a safety perspective?
MR. MORASH: We are not, in any way, suggesting that they should minimize the standards that they have been working to for numbers of years. If they are comfortable that they had to work to CSA standards, we certainly promote that. What we are saying is it is our job to come in with a minimum set of guidelines or regulations to improve the health and safety within the diving industry. This has taken a great deal of time, I guess for whatever the reasons are, that is sort of incidental at this point in time but we do have a document that we feel will help all aspects of the diving industry be able to perform their functions more safely as we move into the future. Again, in no way do we want to encourage anyone to lessen the standards that they currently work towards or work to now, and we would anticipate that these individuals would continue to work to a CSA standard if that's what they have been complying with in the past.
MR. CORBETT: That's the crux of it, Mr. Minister. I can't get past the idea, why would you put lesser standards in than what they are working toward? You seem to have taken the downward slope on this. Rather than raise the bar, you lowered the bar and the only reason that they were at CSA levels before was the lack - you said this yourself - of provincial standards. But instead of taking the standard in which they worked at, you decided and agreed to standards that are less. The question is, why have you agreed to a standard that is less than the CSA model?
MR. MORASH: Our position on this is that we have raised the bar extraordinarily high compared to what we currently have. We've come up with a set of regulations that impose significant procedures and/or work that needs to be done for pre-diving. We've covered aspects, it's a long regulation. There is a lot of information in there, a lot of good
[Page 149]
information. It sets ground rules to ensure that we have certain standards within the province and again, I believe that we have raised the bar significantly and that is our goal. We certainly don't rule out improving the regulations at some point in time in the future and there is always an option that may include the CSA standards at some point in time in the future.
MR. CORBETT: That's just the problem. You say you raised the bar. Well I mean the bar was laying on the ground before you picked it up. That's the problem. Any movement would have been significant. I tabled a document with you, Mr. Minister, and you gave it to the deputy. This is coming not from a recreational diver but a professional diver who does this and works within the industry. They are not satisfied so when you say you raised the bar considerably and you have professional people out there who are saying this is wrong, yet you are still going to take that point, well, there were no regulations before so even little regulations are better than no regulations.
There is no magic being asked here. It was easy to understand. CSA guidelines were there and you could have gone to them but you chose not to go to them. So what that does, in essence, it puts in jeopardy then, all of your other OH&S standards because are you ignoring other factors - and we will get into violence in the workplace regs and so on - is that what we are doing?
You use this word minimum and it's like minimum wage. If that's all an employer has to pay, that's all they are going to pay. We went down this road a fair amount yesterday. You look at your standards not as maximum but as minimum. Why do you do that? Why not set the bar at a rate that the first and foremost thought has to be the complete safety of that worker?
MR. MORASH: I believe with the regulations that we have compiled, that we've worked on up to this point in time, as you said the bar was relatively low, we've raised the bar significantly. This is a considerable improvement. We've taken into account all those aspects of the diving industry that we need to be cognizant of. We need to appreciate that it's our job to assist them with technology and/or education to work safer.
As I look at this letter, I also have a letter that came in last week from someone who has been diving for 29 years with scuba who says thank you, he has reviewed the regulations. He apparently is a professional diver as well and he says that these regulations are a significant improvement, a significant help and will make the industry safer. So we do have certainly a difference of opinion between the people we are trying to regulate and that is one of the reasons that it has taken longer than any of us had anticipated or expected. But we do get letters from both sides, some saying good, some saying bad, but all saying we need regulation.
[Page 150]
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, that's right but this is a fact that we clearly have someone who is a professional in the industry saying it's not enough and you have a choice to make. You can agree with the one who says it's not enough or you can agree with the one who says okay, it's good enough. You are going to take the "it's good enough" attitude and shut the door on the one who says this puts my life in danger. If you are happy with that, then it rests in your shoes.
Let's move on then to violence in the workplace. This has now been an ongoing problem. I can remember my colleague, the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, was working for the Department of Environment and Labour at the time and was dealing with this file, and we still do not have violence in the workplace regulations. How many times do they have to be sent over and sent back? What's taking so long to protect workers in this province against violence in the workplace?
MR. MORASH: An issue is that we have been concentrating on the diving regulations, as was pointed out yesterday. Unfortunately, we are having fatalities in the diving industry, in the aquaculture industry, and we are committed to coming out with regulations that will reduce the injuries that are in the diving industry. As we speak, we have put significant resources, influence and effort into coming up with diving regulations and during that process, some of these others, we are looking at coming up with the priority for the advisory committee on which ones we can look at and move forward. However, being realistic, we cannot come up with all regulations at one time. We have to pick our priorities and we will do some of the risk assessment with regard to which ones come to the top of the priority list next.
Again, the diving one was fairly straightforward and easy to say this is one that we want to make some progress on because the industry needs it and the province needs it and we definitely have to have this set of regulations in place. We are still in the process of getting that approved and through Cabinet. I am hopeful that we will be able to do that relatively soon. I think I mentioned yesterday that it would be, I hope, in a three-month window that we would have those completed, so we still have some work to do with those. When we have completed those, or when they get to a stage that they are taking less resources from the department, we will be looking at other priorities, other sets of regulations that we believe need to be moved along and at that point we will be putting something through to the advisory council, trying to give them some guidance as to what direction we are taking and we look forward to moving some additional regulations forward.
MR. CORBETT: Are you willing to tell us today what your priorities are? Can you list them for me, give me five priorities?
MR. MORASH: I guess right now we have the regulations that have been discussed on a regular basis. We have the violence in the workplace, we have joint health and safety committee regulations. We may look at other things such as ergonomics regulations and we
[Page 151]
need to be looking at the risks associated. We need to be working with Workers' Compensation to find out where the largest numbers of claims are, where we can make the most impact, make the most difference. I know you and I both share the same goal of reducing the injuries of workers throughout the province, and one of the challenges is to make sure that you put your resources in the right place to make the largest impact possible. So those are some of the things that we'll be doing and trying to accomplish. We don't really have a priority list yet. They certainly are all a priority but we will have to, rather than the shotgun effect, single one out and start doing some work on one as we move forward.
MR. CORBETT: It bothers me that there is no priority list and we keep talking about moving it forward. We've seen glaciers move faster than this. That's the reality of it. We are looking at something that needs political will and that's the reality of it. As I told you, since 1997-98, they have been at the department at some level. We are going awfully close to a decade and to say that we are studying it. You know, Mr. Minister, with all due respect, we talked less than a week ago, on the Day of Mourning, about people dying and I'm not as quick to call them workplace accidents. I think some of them are beyond an accident and it has always been my position that there's no such thing as an unsafe worker, just an unsafe condition, and for us to say that we are working on them is kind of shameful. Ten years. There has to be, at some point, political will to put these up the agenda. The occupational councils, they know what's going on. Why is it that there is no political will in your government to move these forward at a rate that's acceptable to workers in this province?
MR. MORASH: I'd like to point out that there certainly has been a great deal of time, effort, energy and work that has gone into the development of all these regulations to the state that they are currently in. However, I can only speak, I guess, of what I may have had some influence over and at this point in time, we have diving regulations that are in a state that are ready to go to Cabinet and I guess I see that as the political will to move something forward so that we have a better regulatory regime for the diving industry which has proven itself statistically to be a high-risk industry in the last number of years. So I do see that as the political will to move things forward and try to get us moving in the right direction. Again, looking at the priority for the future seems to be, in my opinion, what we need to do and then concentrate on that to see if we can pick a priority and move forward to make a difference to those people who are out in the workplace.
[3:15 p.m.]
As you and I know, we have people out there being hurt every day. Our job, as legislators, is to try to ensure that we come up with the words on paper that will help them. We do have a good Occupational Health and Safety Act. We have big fines we can give and we have all kinds of things that we can walk in with, but regulations certainly do help people go through their routines and puts some regulatory control over it so they can work safer. So I believe we have moved some things forward reasonably in the past while.
[Page 152]
MR. CORBETT: You are, again, in your answer saying then you made a priority out of diving. My suggestion to you, Mr. Minister, would be that's cold comfort to Yancy Meyer's family, the young store clerk who was killed in Antigonish a few years back by holdup because he was working by himself overnight. If nothing else, something like that should have stirred government into action, but you didn't see that as a priority enough to move violence in the workplace regulations forward. So what is it going to take to finalize these regulations? Again, they have been on the books for almost a decade. What's it going to take to move it forward? I've heard enough with the diving stuff. What are we going to do for air quality? What are we going to do for violence in the workplace, such things? What are we going to do? Give us a timeline. It can't be that difficult.
MR. MORASH: I appreciate the comment and certainly I guess since we have been doing these estimates, we have spent a lot of time on the diving regulations. Some other things that are worthwhile pointing out, to date we have reviewed a new operating policy. We have revised the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We have made some changes over the last number of years, since I've been in this Legislature, to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Even though they have been minor, they have been changes and we've moved forward. We have new regulations on fall protection and scaffolding. We have First Aid Regulations and we have Occupational Safety General and Underground Mining Regulations. The Underground Mining Regulations came into effect on November 8, 2003, and those are certainly some movement forward.
I know that in this business we should never be content and we should always be concerned with what isn't done but if you do step back and take a look at the progress that the department has made, it has been significant. There have been significant steps forward that I believe have improved the safety of workers in the province.
We also are looking at updating or reviewing our Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations. We want to look at priorities certainly with the construction industry coming. We know that there will be, unfortunately, injuries because of people not either properly wearing fall protection or not having proper scaffolding. I really hate to say it, but you know there will be accidents that will happen because people won't have their proper protective equipment on as we move into this season. We need to make sure that those regulations are top-notch. There is no equipment that comes on-site all the time, when you look at the grab hooks and you look at the anchor bolts or the anchors that are cited in the regulations and the Act for fall arrest. There are always new products coming out. They need to be reviewed and gone over.
We have the Occupational Safety General Regulations which is a pretty large document and as well as the Occupational Safety General Regulations, there's also a companion set of plain language guidelines that go along with that to try to help people understand the regulations.
[Page 153]
One of the challenges that I've found since I've been involved with this is that we have a massive amount of paper that we put out to people. I'm certainly not saying it isn't necessary. My comments are that we have to make sure that people understand it, because we want the people out there doing the work to know what it is we want them to do and how to do it safely. We have an obligation to make sure that they are doing that.
We've got General Blasting Regulations. Certainly with the incident that occurred probably about two years ago now with the quarry and the rock that went across the road and down through the roof, we are continually taking a look at our regulations to make sure that we have everything in place and we're doing everything that we can to be sure that we're giving the guidance to the industry that they need.
We have temporary workplace traffic control regulations, and a workplace hazardous materials information system, which there's no active review. That would be the federal government regulation that we've adopted provincially. It's something that high school students are getting now prior to Summer jobs. It's something that community colleges are certainly teaching as parts of their course. I used to do some instruction in that, and my comments always were that it's dull and boring, but it's necessary.
We have a lot of information that we have to impart on people if we want them to go out and work in the environments that we have out there. We have Disclosure of Information Regulations out there now. We have Summary Offence Ticket Regulations, which make it, I believe, easier for our inspectors to go out and do inspections and, if need be, issue a ticket on-site to make sure they punctuate the necessity of people following the workplace rules. We are looking at these diving regulations as we move forward.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone stop pushing the department on a regular basis for more and better regulations. I'd just like to say that we certainly do have a full regulatory regime. Some of this came about as a result of Westray. Certainly there was a review of the Act and all associated regulations, but we have a lot of material, a lot of information, a lot of regulations out there to help protect Nova Scotians.
I think one of our cumulative and largest challenges is to make sure that the people who are out there that we're trying to protect know that this information is around, understand what it is we expect of them, and I'm talking employer and employee, and that we do everything we can to make sure that we have plain, understandable language out there so that people can protect themselves and make good decisions. I mean that from an employer and an employee point of view. We do have a lot and, yes, picking the priorities is a process that we want to go through because we want to expend our resources in the best possible way.
[Page 154]
MR. CORBETT: That's good information, Mr. Minister, but you didn't answer the question. I see what you're doing, you're reading the document, and you're quite literally ragging the puck. If that's going to be the type of answers you're going to give me, that's fine. There'll be another venue where we'll be on the record more so than here. We'll be pursuing you on this, because I think your position on it shows me a whole lack of political will either on behalf of yourself or your government that is not taking air quality regulations seriously, that doesn't see them as a priority, that doesn't see violence in the workplace as a priority.
It's good to announce the things you've done here, and any measure to keep a worker safe, I'll never push it off. But, Mr. Minister, your government has done nothing in a large, substantive way that could stand up and tell the workers and give them the comfort that we're hearing from you. This is 12 years post-Westray. It's almost, as I told you, a decade into this program and still your government is sitting there with its hands on its lap, saying, no. That's what you're doing. You can say all you want about, we're looking at it, we're being careful.
If the workplace was as careful about its accidents as you are about moving forward with these regulations, we'd have a damn fine safe work site. But you're not doing it. It has to be politically motivated. You folks have no motivation, politically, to do it. That's the problem. The only answer you gave me was a briefing note. Quite honestly, I find that upsetting and disconcerting, that you would not answer and say, here is the priority list, here are the things that we have to do to make workers safe. You list a bunch of incremental steps that you've done.
Again, I want to emphasize, anything to assist workers in being safe is a good thing, but what you're not doing is looking at the large, substantive picture. You've decided to turn your back on them, quite literally. Mr. Minister, I have a hard time getting an answer from you in this venue, so we'll try it in another. At this point, I'll be turning my time over to the member for Dartmouth East.
MR. MORASH: Mr. Chairman, if I might. I do apologize if you felt that I was ragging the puck. There are a number of good initiatives within the department. In all honesty I don't have those all at the top of my head. I did think it was worthwhile going through them, because some of them had slipped my mind. We are looking at coming up with a priority, and our intention is to move forward with issues and try to prevent injuries within the province. I do apologize if I gave the wrong impression.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth East, you have 19 minutes.
MS. JOAN MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, since I only have 19 minutes in this session, I'll probably have to go into the next hour after the Liberals have their hour. I would like to bring up a very current issue right now, Williams Point in Antigonish. Just to refresh your
[Page 155]
memory of what's going on down there right now - because they did hold a big rally on the weekend, even though it was raining, and a lot of people came out to that - people down in that area are very concerned about their homes, the roads in that area, and that's because a developer has come in and he has started infilling. In fact, the trucks started to come back because they can only operate in certain seasons of the year, and I believe they started rolling back in on Monday, or they would have been able to.
The developer has started infilling in that area, and that has caused a redirection of the flow of water down there, and actually has already flooded some of the homes that are already there. So these people are not just concerned for their own homes flooding, but for the homes that will be built there in the future. Some of the concern arises around the issue that the developer did the initial study and was given the go-ahead by the municipality. The people in that area don't think it's right that the developer has something in mind that he wants to do, and for him to come in and produce this study, they have an issue with that.
They're very concerned that they were never consulted with by this developer, even though there's a long history of flooding in that area and that many people know that this flooding occurs every year. So why that was not done is a question for them. That's over 71 people down there who say this area floods regularly. They're concerned about the environmental impact that this is having. That area is apparently a natural basin, and it actually filters out silt and debris that flow into the area, and is actually a habitat for trout and salmon.
Some of the questions that I have revolve around your dealings with this issue, and whether or not the federal government is involved, because this involves fish habitat in the ocean and infilling in there, and to my understanding right now the silt fences that were constructed are now underwater. It's a great concern to these residents. Also, apparently, there was a study that your department had ordered to be done. Now I could be mistaken on that, but apparently there was a study that the department ordered and it was never done.
[3:30 p.m.]
So what this community is asking for now is that an independent study be done, through you, through the municipality, through the federal government, whoever, working together to make sure that this independent study is done before any more damage is done and before unsuspecting people come out and purchase more lots in this area that could incur the same problems. I'll just leave you with that question for the moment.
MR. MORASH: If you don't mind, do you have any date when the initial study was requested?
MS. MASSEY: I'm sorry, I don't have that information.
[Page 156]
MR. MORASH: We'll check. Currently, I guess we had some discussion or some questions in Question Period on this one as well. The way this issue works at the current time is that this is certainly a municipal issue. They have looked at it through their planning department and have given permission to the developer to move forward, taking into account the flood plain. Certainly there are differences of opinion as to where the flood plain is and how the water will travel, and those types of things.
I have had correspondence from the MLA in the area and others. We certainly will look into this, and do sort of a review of what has taken place up to this point in time. Where we currently stand, it certainly is the municipality's responsibility, they would have had consultants take a look at this and have the documentation to say that things are happening or things will not happen. I haven't had any discussion with the municipality at this point in time. I don't know if they have any plans for additional work by themselves or not, but we will contact them just to see.
MS. MASSEY: So has your department not already talked to the people involved in the municipality down there, or are you saying you will talk to them?
MR. MORASH: There have been discussions, but we will have additional discussions with the people to make sure that I'm up to date.
MS. MASSEY: But you're not willing to do an independent study, you're going to do a review?
MR. MORASH: I guess I'm not planning to commit to an independent study until after we've had some discussions with the parties that are involved to see what has been done, what information is there. I'm sure there are many issues, I expect, associated with this. It wouldn't be as simple as just one or two things. I'd like to make sure that we've gathered as much information as we can.
MS. MASSEY: I would hope so, because it is an issue that, I think, is occurring around the province, this infilling. We have seen this happen before. People have just been slapped on the hands and given a small fine and left the damage there. It is very important. If this government is saying we care about the environment, we care about the habitat, and all these things, but then allows this kind of damage to go on, then I really don't know what we're telling people. It's that whole issue of we always seem to be seeing the municipality and the province at odds with each other or laying the blame, one on the other. Somebody has to speak for the people on this. If these people feel something has gone on that shouldn't have gone on, then the province needs to step in and do what they can to alleviate that problem, at the very least. I'll leave that for now.
MR. MORASH: Do you want any response on that?
[Page 157]
MS. MASSEY: Sure, yes.
MR. MORASH: Just sort of quickly from the point of view that we're speaking right now, we consider the municipality to be a competent entity that can determine their own developmental plans, certainly with assistance from the department. It's one of the reasons that we are allowing them to progress in the way that they are moving. Obviously there seem to be some issues and concerns along the way, so we would like to gather some additional information. We aren't arguing with the municipality in any way at this point in time.
MS. MASSEY: Well, that's good to hear. I hope somebody acts fast enough so that these people who are worried that their homes will be the next ones to flood, that that doesn't happen, that somebody steps in and does what needs to be done to protect those people.
I would like to just go to a question that the honourable member for Dartmouth North had mentioned earlier. He was speaking about these companies or businesses that are burning combustible fuel. It could be wood, whatever. He was speaking about one in his actual constituency that I was aware of quite a while ago, and I don't remember if I talked to you about that one or not. We actually do have a video on that. Actually, the homeowners who are concerned there live in a house that used to be my grandmother's. So I know exactly the layout there and why that is such a concern for them.
There's another very similar issue going on, actually in Halifax. I did speak to you about that, and I know you did get me some information. I guess one of the concerns is that this other business is actually burning used oil. In an urban setting, for somebody to burn something like that, which apparently is quite overpowering, the smell, just brings about all those questions of how these places are inspected and how often testing is done, because the person who was in contact with me was quite surprised that there didn't seem to be any monitoring system set up, on a regular basis or such.
In fact, what was told to me was that the inspector came out and just sort of sniffed the air. If that's how we inspect things in Nova Scotia, I think we have a long way to go. Hopefully that's not really what happened. I would really hope that that wasn't what happened, but that's my information.
These kinds of businesses that are doing this really affect the quality of life for people who are around them. I don't know if the business was there first and people built around it, and again, there you go with this whole municipal planning strategy and everything. Somehow the province, with the regulations, and the municipalities have to find a way to work together so that we're not at risk of our health and just the quality of life these people have around their homes. They want to go outside in the Summer and enjoy their yards and what have you, and they just can't.
[Page 158]
We all know that affects health, because asthma in Nova Scotia is around 10-plus per cent above the Canadian average, which is about 8 per cent. So we have a problem here in Nova Scotia, and I don't think we need to add to it. I know you did mention that the federal government and the provinces were looking at coming up with some new standards for these types of furnaces, and I hope that happens sooner than later.
I don't know if you have any comments on that, because it is a bit of a different issue. I'm just wondering if you can sort of say something that might make these people feel a little bit happier that maybe something is going to be done, somebody is going to come out and look at this issue in their neighbourhood.
MR. MORASH: This is the used oil furnace?
MS. MASSEY: Yes, they burn used oil.
MR. MORASH: Yes, we did have some discussions on that. They do have an approval for a furnace that is designed to burn used oil. I don't know the viscosities or how thick an oil it can actually burn, but there are approvals in the province for those. Some that we had mentioned, I heard in my own community, certainly bus garages and places like that, actually some larger vehicle maintenance shops have incorporated those types of furnaces into their situations, just because it is a way for them to eliminate the need of having pickup for used oil when they are producing it. I guess they are certified by the manufacturer to burn to acceptable standards and limits.
It's very difficult to tell what type of emissions the furnace is actually putting out, because of age, because of atmospheric conditions and those types of things. It certainly would not be an easy thing for anyone to go out and inspect, I expect, without some detailed apparatus and technology. However, if you look at the approval that has been given, you look at the certification that's on the furnace, you can move from there to appreciate that they do have the proper standards to be able to do that.
Again, with your colleague, he's going to share the videotape with us and get us some specific information. I guess I'd encourage you, if an issue comes up where there are strong smells or odours, that you give us a call and we would go out there. As well, I believe the department had committed to sort of put that on the routine run by so that people would be checking on that facility into the future to try to ensure that it was working efficiently.
MS. MASSEY: I know I only have a few minutes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Four more minutes.
[Page 159]
MS. MASSEY: I know the inspector was out there and I'm just wondering if you can - maybe at a later date, or as soon as possible - give me a copy of his inspection report. Maybe that might be helpful for these people to actually see that and see what he actually did when he was there. I know the department does have air-testing apparatus and I'm just wondering if perhaps somebody can be sent out there and actually do a more scientific test, if that hasn't already occurred; I could be wrong, maybe it has. Since then somebody may have been out and actually looked at that.
MR. MORASH: Not to cut into your time, but I just had a note that we certainly have plans for a mobile monitor next year. So we are moving to have equipment that would allow us to respond more quickly to those types of complaints.
MS. MASSEY: So right now we don't have mobile monitoring equipment, is that what you're saying?
MR. MORASH: We would have some types of equipment, but apparently this would be the best for that application.
MS. MASSEY: So we don't have any apparatus right now that you could actually bring to Halifax to test the air in that surrounding area outside that building?
MR. MORASH: I guess we have 12 sites throughout the province where we monitor air quality on a continual basis so that we can determine what the overall air quality would be with regard to jet stream and other contaminants that would move in. But those are very large and I guess they model the entire province and not a particular block or street. So we do have that ability and we're looking to fine-tune and have more resources available to be able to look at things.
MS. MASSEY: So can you say that again, when are you getting this new transportable monitoring equipment, is there a date for that?
MR. MORASH: Next year.
MS. MASSEY: Next year.
MR. MORASH: Yes.
MS. MASSEY: Well, that's not going to do them much good I guess in Halifax because if the sniff test is all we can do right now, then I don't think that's really appropriate for a lot of people.
[Page 160]
MR. MORASH: In the short term we certainly can do testing and more contracting out to have testing done. There are a number of services in the local area that can perform any of those services that we need if we don't have the equipment available.
MS. MASSEY: So you may be able to contract something out in the meantime and another company out there to test that?
MR. MORASH: I'm sorry.
MS. MASSEY: You may be able to contract this out in the meantime?
MR. MORASH: We certainly have the ability, you know, if we need additional resources, or whatever, to be able to purchase those usually pretty locally.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have two more minutes. Do you want me to pass the time to the Liberal caucus? Okay. Sorry, we shall move to the member for the Independent Party that has dissension within its ranks.
[3:45 p.m.]
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: There are two issues that I would like to raise, one is with regard to the outstanding regulations that have not been approved and I understand the minister has answered at great length a lot of detail surrounding those, the ones regarding, for example, violence in the workplace, confined spaces, air quality control, chemical sensitivity, that sort of thing. The question that I'm about to raise and the issue is one that I believe, and having had the good fortune or misfortune, I'm not sure, of sitting where the minister is sitting on a previous day, everything has a cost. Everyone seems to walk around on egg shells when it comes down to this particular issue because from a government point of view and from an employer point of view, you're always afraid to say, well, this set of regulations is going to cost x amount of dollars, or that set of regulations is going to cost so much more.
I recall back in the early 1990s the issue of chemical sensitivity coming up and estimates of somewhere in the vicinity of between $200 million and $250 million, should that be included for coverage with the workers' compensation system. My question to the minister is, is it possible to sit down with the appropriate stakeholders, both employers and employees, and generate at least some type of a list of these outstanding regulations, the ones that haven't been approved, and put some kind of a general estimate, a cost, to that so at least all the cards would be on the table and we would be able to get past this state of inertia that seems to exist?
[Page 161]
MR. MORASH: But for fear I won't read what I read yesterday, but we do . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I will take the abbreviated version, please.
MR. MORASH: We are looking and we've put $500,000 into the budget to look at a competitiveness and compliance office which would employ people and part of their mandate or part of their job would be to look at these types of things and look at the costs associated, to look at what industries would need to do, and to make sure that we have as much information as we possibly can at our fingertips as we move along. I think you may have missed some of the diving regulations.
MR. MACKINNON: No, and I will take that as having been answered if you've already answered that, I will be reading that.
MR. MORASH: We have had some discussions on those.
MR. MACKINNON: That's fine.
MR. MORASH: I guess the goal will be to look at what is outstanding, to pick a priority, and I think everybody appreciates that all regulations will have some costs associated with them. However, we'll pick the priority by way of the benefits that we hope to achieve through reduced injuries. So we'll look at what will help the workforce the most to reduce them.
MR. MACKINNON: That's fine. I think it would help to develop a meeting of the minds in a more common fashion than this perceived polarization that always seems to exist particularly around the violence in the workplace regulations.
The next issue I would like to raise is with regard to community hall bingo gaming that is becoming an issue of concern in my constituency, and I'm sure in many communities across the province, and that is because of the way gaming has developed over the past several years. Many small community organizations, community halls, fire departments, et cetera, are in the position where bingo gaming is not attractive and it's not attracting the population that it once did. What is the government strategy to deal with that? Is there anything to help these small, particularly rural-based organizations?
MR. MORASH: At this point in time I think all the small communities are having some of the same concerns. I know recently I attended one in my own area and comments were made to me that there were half the people there that there would be five years ago even. The challenge and one of the things that we're competing against are additional forms of gaming that people find attractive and there are more ways to gamble now than there have been in the past. These localized bingos that raise money for communities are extremely important to small communities. Certainly the goal is to make sure that they can maintain
[Page 162]
their self-sufficiency and that they could actually expand and grow if there's a market that's available, but there is a great deal of competition out there now for people's time and their resources.
MR. MACKINNON: Does the government have a plan to more or less centralize the management of bingos in the province so that some type of an umbrella organization or institution would be regulating the activity within all these different community-based organizations?
MR. MORASH: As you would appreciate, we're the regulatory end of the gaming strategy. Certainly I know one thing that we always take into account is that any of our regulations pose the least amount of impact on some of these operations that you are referring to so that we aren't a particular burden from their point of view. I do know there have been a lot of discussions within the government to try to assist these community groups in any ways that are possible. Again, there are some things that we can do positively and there are also some limitations just because of circumstances that we currently have.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm just a little curious because I read through the business plan and I didn't seem to notice anything that focused on bingo gaming specifically. In my constituency I have 15 volunteer fire departments. Bingo gaming for some of them was quite integral to their budgetary matters, to be able to buy the equipment and to be able to go to these refresher courses at the fire school in the Fall River area and so on. I guess that's where I'm going, it seems to be silent on that.
MR. MORASH: The reason for the silence on the issue is that we are regulatory so it would be linked to the bingo games as part of the gaming strategy. That is something that I know has been discussed and has been considered with regard to the gaming strategy.
MR. MACKINNON: So we can expect a bingo strategy?
MR. MORASH: I guess you may be asking the wrong minister the question about the bingo strategy, but we certainly are looking at a regulatory regime that wouldn't impair or wouldn't make it more difficult for these operations to continue.
MR. MACKINNON: What you're telling me, Mr. Minister, is that I haven't hit the jackpot on this issue yet. Since you're more regulatory, it doesn't look like I will. Anyway, I'll take that on notice. Thank you very kindly. That's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll turn to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Kings West.
[Page 163]
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much. I'm pleased to have an opportunity to follow up on a couple of other areas with the minister. I had to leave to go over to the Chamber.
When I left I was actually asking about solid waste management. In taking a look at some of the notes that I had prepared here, in looking a little closer at this topic, we actually see that our world-renowned status, if we look a little bit beneath that kind of glowing comment that is often referenced, we see that since the year 2000, we have actually dropped. We had hit the 50 per cent diversion target in the year 2000 and now we're at 46 per cent. We have only two of eight regions that are above the 50 per cent and it's really bolstered by what happens in HRM, which seems to be doing an excellent job on setting their targets even higher. In fact, in Cape Breton and western Nova Scotia they're at 25 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively.
A related statistic is in the year 2002, Nova Scotia had the lowest per capita budget on environmental protection. Why aren't we moving stronger, more aggressively to make these kinds of things, which can be accomplished, happen here in Nova Scotia?
MR. MORASH: We certainly have some issues that are taking place that should assist and help with what our concern is because we certainly have the same concern on the issue. One of the things that is taking place now is the second generation landfills. I think the majority of municipalities that are planning to site one of these landfills are in the process of doing engineering or making the final plans to be able to do that with these second generation landfills. Simply because of the nature of the operation, these will be lined and the leachate will be collected, and they will be a relatively expensive disposal method for materials that can't go anywhere else. Because of tipping fees and the cost associated with that, there will be the maximum amount of diversion from these, I'm assuming, from the general population, and that should be something that's beneficial.
We have had a number of groups come to Nova Scotia to talk about our diversion from landfills and it really surprised me. When I first started with the department we had 22 scientists from Japan and we've had people from Bosnia, people from all over North America who have come to tour the province, tour the facilities and find out how we were doing as well as we were doing. I suppose maybe because as a province, we felt we were doing pretty well and maybe let our guard down a little and we have slipped somewhat - a few percentage points. Our goal right now is to make sure we get back up to the prescribed amount.
We do need to refocus and make sure we have a renewed emphasis on this and also look at new technology and new ways that we can do some of these things. We are looking at electronics recycling which would reduce a lot of material going to landfill. That is useable material, that certainly has cost a fair amount of money to manufacture. As everyone appreciates now, computers after three, four or five years are very disposable. Unfortunately, probably with all of us, when you walk through a store these days, you kind of look at how
[Page 164]
long this is going to last before it ends up in the garbage, unlike when I was growing up most things were reused or built to last for a long period of time.
Today we have - I guess televisions would be an example - moved away from repairing televisions, the cost has come down considerably. Now people are just as likely to go out and look at the purchase of a new television as they are to try to find somebody who's able to repair it and pay the same amount of money, possibly, with no guarantee of longevity. So a lot of this material is currently going to landfills, and we are working close with the electronics' industry to see if there's a best possible way to work at removing this, to make sure we don't have additional materials go in. But I guess we have slipped and we intend to catch up to where we were.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. I like that approach, that attitude of wanting to move back to where we were and certainly to improve on that.
I'm wondering, has your department actually sat down with what I would consider the two easily targeted and the two most responsible companies in terms of materials - solid waste - going to the landfill, work out some type of stewardship agreements, a green approach? That is with Tim Hortons and McDonald's who actually put 32 per cent of all materials into our landfills here in Nova Scotia, which is an incredible and documented fact. I'm just wondering, is your department prepared to start moving to what I would call 21st Century thinking, where we can truly do something, especially along the lines of a simple little piece of legislation, not really costly for these companies, and that is to have compostable cups, such as you see at Irving now. Irving has cups that are compostable, so I'm just wondering, is your department starting to look at an area like this?
MR. MORASH: The department has actually been looking at areas like this for years now. They have had discussions with Tim Hortons and McDonald's recently and will continue to meet with them to look at new ways they may be able to recycle and do additional composting. I have noticed certainly in the McDonald's up my way that they do have composting bins inside the facility now and they do have trash separation which is something they didn't have some time ago, so they certainly are moving in that direction. I know there was a point in time where they moved from the styrofoam container to the paper wrap or the cardboard for those exact reasons, because it was either more compostable or easier to dispose of the garbage than it was to get rid of the styrofoam container. So they are continually working with the department and working with the governments across Canada to try to reduce the amount of waste they manufacture.
I guess my own personal issue is the people who tend to toss it out the window when they're finished with it. I guess our job there as well is to try to work with them and educate them to realize that they have to dispose of that in a proper manner, and alongside the roads of Nova Scotia is certainly not the proper manner.
[Page 165]
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: Just to move in a little different direction, yesterday my colleague opposite, the Environment Critic for the NDP, talked about Nova Scotia water, that 40 per cent of the water we use in the province comes from well water or spring water. One of the things that has happened over the last while, and I'm well aware of this because I'm one of those very fortunate people who has spring water - in fact, I'm really interested in my colleague's bill on water royalties, because I have water so good that, yes, I'd love to sell it.
Seriously, with 40 per cent needing testing, I feel the department has moved the other way and it's now more difficult for people to get their water tested. It used to be so easy to take a sample down to the local hospital, it was a free service, and that most vital and necessary daily need of water - boy, we have sure found that out in the Greenwood area recently - is there a way in which we can restore that kind of access, especially for rural Nova Scotians, to make sure that in fact they're drinking healthy water from a biological standpoint? We know that chemically people should also have their water tested. I see this as a really big area that we're all responsible for. I'm just wondering, again, is there any kind of review of that going on?
MR. MORASH: I guess I can speak sort of a little more specifically. I know the community health board in my area is very active in trying to promote people having their water tested. Their concern is that not enough people are testing to determine if there are problems, and to find out what they are and to remedy those problems. Their biggest concern is there aren't enough people doing that. They've set up some drop-off points, they've certainly had awareness days. They're trying to do everything they can to make it as easy as possible for people to drop off the samples, get them to the proper labs for testing and get the results back. However, there is that cost involved with the testing. In some cases, unfortunately, that can be a deterrence, and that's an issue that's difficult to overcome.
The department has worked with the community health boards, the Department of Health and other departments and/or agencies to see if there's some possible way we can have the maximum amount of testing throughout the province. We certainly have the boil-water orders throughout the province now with some supplies that need to be tested on a regular basis. I guess there are two ways of looking at it, we do always have a list of boil orders out there in the province, and I'd like to contribute the list to the fact that people are testing more now and they have a better regime and a water quality testing system in place, something the department has had an intricate role to play in, and has required additional testing in these situations.
MR. GLAVINE: One other area, before I ask a final question - I know my colleagues have some questions - is in the area of monitoring sandpits once a sandpit has been given a licence by the Department of Environment and Labour. The question that has come to my office on several occasions is, are they being monitored once they're in operation? People
[Page 166]
do worry, living adjacent, in terms of their water supply. Sometimes the trucks seem to be operating late into the night. Also, the other area is sometimes the speed on a private right-of-way.
I'm just wondering, especially to me, the water and the trucking business around the pits, is there monitoring of these on a regular basis? Do you have enough people in your department to make sure that the environmental agreements are in fact adhered to?
MR. MORASH: It currently would be a complaint basis, if we had a complaint we would go in and look at the situation and identify the situation. Currently we do not have a routine inspection of all the sandpits there would be in your particular area. I know you have a large number of them. I've heard that some farmers might have - I probably heard it through you - up to three on their property. Just depending on where the material was needed, they would have a pit in different corners of their farm.
MR. GLAVINE: I'll stay there for now, because I'm still gathering some information. I'm only a matter of weeks into this portfolio. I do want to make a couple of reference points and ask for a little summary perspective here. I've been brought close to the work of the Department of Environment and Labour through the Greenwood water situation. I certainly didn't feel the local department, out of Kentville, handled themselves professionally all of the time. One of the meetings they were invited to, they did not even come to the meeting, it was at a point when things were getting quite heated in the community.
The first meeting which I basically had to call for, when they already had the information about the health, was almost a disaster because of the way it was orchestrated by the department. I've also found it very cumbersome getting information. I see the Department of Environment and Labour as sort of that last resort to protect my health and well-being, and yet I have to go after, through FOIPOP and so on, information that should be readily available to people, very transparent about things that go on. If a department is doing good work, there's absolutely no need to, in my view, hide some of the kinds of information that I felt the area residents should have had.
I guess I come back to the Greenwood situation because I've sat down with a couple of people, and now that Baltzer Bog is sort of in a hiatus, having gone to the Ombudsman, and I do know a lot of the story there and in my view it's a disaster for the department, and I see Greenwood having the potential, all the potential in the world, of moving into the same category. So I'm asking the minister here today, and his department, to in fact initiate an environmental assessment of the Greenwood area. We have some major problems well beyond one little dry-cleaning company that only put litres in the ground and is only one of the sources of contamination.
[Page 167]
I would ask the minister to prevent another Baltzer Bog by covering up information, but initiate a wide-scale investigation of the Greenwood area to bring that comfort to the residents. Really what I'm asking for is, I know the minister has been in the portfolio for about a year and a half, what do you see as a vision piece for your department? Out of my whole experience in Greenwood, it was the one negative area that I felt shouldn't happen. I know you as a minister are well-intended, mean well and you have limited resources. Can you get the job done now? That's an important question that we as Nova Scotians are facing. Can you get the job done with the resources that you have? Can you give the areas that I've just mentioned the kind of resources to deal with these very serious and complex kinds of issues?
MR. MORASH: Maybe I'll address your statement or your question in some stages. The first one would be the FOIPOP. We get a lot of concerns with regard to FOIPOP, and we also are the department that has more FOIPOP requests, I think, than any other. We have people who are working full-time, making sure information gets out the door as timely as possible. One of the most frustrating things from staff's point of view and from the public's point of view is on occasions there are documents that need to go through FOIPOP and possibly two or three words out of a four-page document will be blacked out or blanked out. However, legally, we need to make sure that we've run through the process, so that we are protecting people's privacy, as well as making sure that there is open and transparent information.
We have looked within the department and will continue to look in the department to try to make as much information available as easily as we can without the FOIPOP process, but I'm sure you appreciate that's going to be there just because of the legalities and the protection issues. We'd like to say that that will be getting better in the future, and I hope that it will. Through our competitiveness and compliance initiative, we'll be looking at all those issues that are places where we would hope we could improve and have information out quicker and easier. But again, FOIPOP will be there. We get a lot of requests, and sometimes that leads people to think that we don't want to give them answers or information, but it's the matter that we just need to go through the FOIPOP officer before those go out.
With regard to the area, certainly there has been a lot of discussion on the Greenwood area. There has been a lot of testing done on this particular substance that has posed a contamination problem to the homeowners. We have gathered a great deal of information out there. As mentioned earlier, we continue to monitor the situation, and are committed to continuing to monitor that situation to determine and detect any changes that might take place so that we can work with the community and the municipality to best stop any adverse effects from continuing.
With regard to the department, we certainly are always looking at ways of being more efficient and effective at performing better services for the Province of Nova Scotia. We do have a very capable and talented staff who are capable and able to work through the
[Page 168]
department and work through the province, and do the inspection and the tasks that are requested of them. We're also looking at developing a public consultation policy, which is one of those things, like communications, I don't think you can do too much of it. The more you can talk to people, the better it is. So public consultation is something that we are optimistic that we will be able to improve upon and will be able to get out and talk to communities and make sure that there is adequate discussion back and forth, so that we can work together to solve whatever the issue is that happens to be out there.
We also have compliance and inspection coordinators. We've hired four of them, which is something relatively recent. They'll continue to work to support the inspection staff by advising them on matters dealing with inspections and investigations. We have a good staff, I guess we certainly felt that we needed some people being mentors or being there to help coordinate the investigations and the inspections. That's one way of ensuring that we have consistent enforcement throughout the province. Our challenge is to make sure you get the same service in Greenwood as you get in Yarmouth, as you get in Sydney. We are working towards making sure that's a reality.
We also have a new solicitor who has been named by way of the Justice Department. So we do have someone who will add that legal expertise to our compliance and inspection coordinators and to our inspectors, who will help them prepare and understand the laws, and will be there to give them advice and support when they are in need of that, and also, if charges are laid for something regulatory, they will be there to make sure that the case is built. Our goal is to make sure that if we charge people, the judge sees that we have a valid case and sees fit to levy a fine, which is certainly a deterrence from people violating the Environment Act in the future.
We've worked with a lot of different departments, and we continue to work with different departments. There are certainly some resources that are available to us, but we currently believe that we can continue to monitor the province, monitor the situation that you have concerns with, and do it to the satisfaction of the people of the province.
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: I'll pass it over to my colleague, the member for Victoria-The Lakes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, I'd like to address the issue of Island Vacuum and Portables Limited, and their closure basically on Crowdis Mountain, and maybe decisions that were made or not made by the department. The first one is that the site being 30 years old was causing the residents fear and upset that leakage from that septage lagoon would impact their water supply. Of course you're well aware of the tests that were done and
[Page 169]
whatnot, and it had the residents fearful of the fact that they may be consuming contaminated water.
The second decision, or lack of, or wrong decision, was the fact that the new owners were instructed to do certain repairs or upgrades, which they did, close to the cost of almost $40,000. In good faith, they did that, they're just a young couple. The third decision was an immediate closure of the site, which then caused them hardship. So we had hardship caused to the residents, because of it being allowed to operate, and immediate closure causing the owners' hardship because of having invested that cost, all for naught, without at least a six-month time frame to close it out or whatever.
Anyway, the site had outlived its usefulness and something had to be done. The department is admitting that the Crowdis Mountain closure site could probably be a pilot project or set the baseline for the closure of any or all open lagoon sites that will have to be closed in the future. Being a pilot project, what I'm getting at is the fact that it's going to be an example or a test site or a test procedure for closures in the future. The couple that has spent close to $30,000 - and I've given the deputy minister a copy of the letter where they are looking for financial assistance until they find a new suitable disposal site.
What's happening now is that they are paying Sullivan's Environmental Services more to dispose of the septage sludge that they are collecting than they are charging to collect it. It's to the point that you may have a young couple losing their home and losing their business. The second problem is the fact that I don't want to see the residents of Victoria-The Lakes go from spending - it's $200 with taxes to have your septic tank pumped, and that may escalate to $400 or $500 if they're going to have to start hauling that sewage north of Smoky to their other site, or we're going to have to have somebody come in from a further distance and pay more to have that done. The money was spent under the direction of the Department of Environment and Labour, and I'm just wondering if the minister has any plans to assist with a new site.
In discussions before you said it wasn't the mandate of the department to supply a new site, but given where this is a pilot project, given the improper decision making that surrounded this, I would say in hindsight, I think something should be forthcoming from the department. Could the minister reply to that, please?
MR. MORASH: I know we've had quite a number of discussions on this. I think you appreciate the department's point of view, and I certainly appreciate your point of view. I want to commend you for bringing lots of points forward to me that were helpful. We have been dealing the MacAskills, and they certainly have been great to deal with, they've been very good to work along with the department. I do appreciate the situation they're in. They had spent considerable money upgrading, and for reasons beyond their control - the age of the facility and other things - it was not an available option for them to remain operating on that particular site.
[Page 170]
Since that has taken place, we have audited the 27 other sewage lagoons that are in the province, and are now looking at that. I recently met with them when there was a Septic Pumpers Association meeting in Truro. Staff and I were fortunate enough to be able to sit down with them for a short period of time. I guess at this point in time we're working with them to see if there are some possibilities in the future that they may be able to pursue that would assist them in remaining in the business with the long-term goals of prospering and becoming a very viable company in that area.
We do have staff who are looking, currently, to see about some federal funding. There is a possibility, or a program - I guess there's some new technology - there's a truck in Norway that has new technology for dewatering. I've only heard the preliminaries of it, but it appears that it could pump up to 20 or more systems, and it would dewater the material and it would put the water back into the septic tank itself, which would reduce the amount of solid material that needs to be disposed of.
Currently we have an invitation from that industry, or that company, to have some people come over to take a look at that. The department is certainly interested in seeing if we can get something to Nova Scotia for a pilot project, as well, to see if this type of technology would work under our climate and our situation. We have made efforts, and will continue to make efforts, to see if there's a possibility for the MacAskills to be able to go over and view this truck, to see if they would like to take part in the pilot and see if that's a possibility for something they are looking towards in the future as a longer-term, sustainable option for them to remain in that business.
We will work, along with the federal government and others, to try to look after some of the costs. This is not something that's been finalized yet, so we don't have all the details but there have been contacts made. We appreciate their co-operation with us, and we're hopeful that we can have a situation arise where this new technology is good and lends itself to use in their area, something they may be interested in in the future.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Let's proceed down the road a little further. Let's just project the fact that, yes, that truck is something that would work in the local area, and tanks are pumped and dewatered and the water is put back in the tanks. So then we wind up with a truck full of dewatered material. My point is that it still has to go somewhere. Now, because that's dewatered, that doesn't mean that any contaminants that are in that are neutralized.
What I would like to propose or see is that the department be proactive in the fact that it has to go somewhere, it looks like the days of dumping this in open pits are long gone. What about some kind of a processing plant or whatever you want to call it, a facility, that this dewatered sludge could then be taken to, and it could be neutralized before it would be disposed of. So because you take the water out of it, you still have the germs and the
[Page 171]
infections and whatever else, so therefore, where does this new technology truck go once it's filled? We still have to dispose of it.
The residents don't want to see double or triple the cost of having your tank pumped. We all have our own water and our own sewage. We're not fortunate, like in towns, you just flush the toilet and it's gone away. In rural areas - when it comes to putting something in your rural septic system, people are more cognizant of what they put in that because it's out there in your own septic bed, and if you put something in there that could foul up your system, you're looking at $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, whereas if somebody were to dump a litre of oil down a toilet in a town and it's gone, you'd never be able to track it. If we were to abuse our systems in the rural area, we live with what we put it into it and we pay for it. So, therefore, we're more safety conscious and cognizant of the fact that it could cost us money.
Given the fact, if that technology proves, or maybe it would be better if - I know you're talking about that truck that dewaters, that's great, we did that with the Baddeck sewage treatment system that we put in, we spent extra dollars on that when I was warden there and we dewatered that sludge before it was taken out to the landfill and put into the compost. So having been dewatered and put out there, is that what you're proposing we would do with the septic sludge, dewater it and then just put it into a pit, or put it into compost or - where does it go after it's dewatered?
MR. MORASH: At this point in time there are some options, but the most realistic one would be to compost the material, to get it somewhere and compost it to get it to be a product that was usable for whatever applications were needed at that point in time. We're also looking at creating some forums - we appreciate that we have some work to do and to inject the maximum amount of science and technology into this whole process as we move forward. It has been an industry that hasn't received nearly the attention that it deserves in the past. It's an industry that will demand more attention in the future. We appreciate that.
Our goal is to make sure that we give it more attention prior to the demand being there. We've looked at coming up with some forums in the community for these individuals you've talked about, and we certainly appreciate their co-operation. They have been wonderful to work with. We're hoping that there's a possibility of their relocating whatever they need to be able to remain in their business. We also announced, yesterday or the day before, a science forum on biosolids because, as I see here from one note, the septic pumping industry in Nova Scotia pumps about 15 million gallons per year. That's 15 million gallons of material that has to be taken care of in one way or another. Also, when we have the Halifax Harbour cleanup completed, there will be more material that has to be disposed of in a scientific and proper and safe manner.
[Page 172]
[4:30 p.m.]
So we are looking at having a science forum which would be the beginning, I believe, of a longer relationship, looking at new technologies and evolving science to make sure that we come up with the best possible solution for this in the Province of Nova Scotia. As I said, I think we've underestimated the importance of this industry. It's time for us to make sure that they get whatever support and attention the department can give them, so that they can move forward and take care of this material properly. We don't have all the answers right now. I think we've got a lot of the pieces in place to move forward, but there will still be some stumbling blocks, I'm sure, that we'll need everybody around this table, for sure, and many others to be involved in to come up with the best possible solution for the province.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I'll take another little diversion, or another topic, the Pitupaq Committee, Pitupaq is Mi'kmaq for the Bras d'Or Lakes. That's the organization that was formed when I was warden, we had five mayors and wardens and the five Chiefs of the First Nations. The total thrust of the organization was to remediate the raw sewage in the Bras d'Or Lakes.
There's a 1993 study done by the Department of Environment that I always refer to that has listed and numbered all the raw sewage outfalls around the Bras d'Or Lakes and where there's malfunctioning septic systems and whatnot. I was amazed that that was done in 1993 and here we are years and years later, in 2005. It's lack of enforcement. What I brought up at one of the meetings was the fact that we should choose a date - for example January 1, 2006 - and from that day forth, it would be illegal to put raw sewage into the Bras d'Or Lakes. Somebody said, well, it already is illegal. I said, I know but we may have to start with a new timeline. It's like when you go through the intersection, all week long, and it's legal, you don't get a ticket, but once they put a stop sign there, you get a ticket after that. Therefore, let's choose a date and from that date forth, enforcement is the thing. Are there any plans by the department to increase enforcement to disallow that?
I think the most negative impact is straight pipes going into the Bras d'Or Lakes, and being one of the backers of this committee, I believe you have to lead by example. What we did with our own family boat, rather than put in a tank and flush your toilet into the tank and then pay to have that tank pumped, we put in a compostable toilet, in the boat. It was a one-shot deal, we installed that, and you just put a little shovelful of peat moss in, and you only clean it out once a year, in the Fall, when the boat is hauled.
Is there any possibility of the department being proactive on the fact that we could remediate some of these straight pipes? I did suggest something like a program on the basis similar to the installation program in the 1970s, that you could go in and there would be financial assistance to remediate some of these systems, depending on the person's income. You can't go to an elderly lady in a farmhouse, where the pipe has been straight into the lake for the last 100 years and expect them to pay today's costs. Under a program of financial
[Page 173]
assistance, that could be done. Then when the licensed contractor installs a new septic system, they rip up 200 feet or 300 feet of the straight pipe with their excavator, and that's never to be used again. Is there any information that you could give to me that there's something through the department, that you're taking a proactive stance to help the committee out with that?
MR. MORASH: We have recently hired a Bras d'Or Lakes coordinator who you may know.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Yes, I know her well.
MR. MORASH: Certainly, one of her tasks is to work with the community to look at solutions. We appreciate that we want to stop any of the raw sewage from going into the Bras d'Or Lakes. I think everyone around this table also realizes that we're not going to snap our fingers and have it happen tomorrow. It's something where we need to work with the communities, and look at infrastructure funding through municipalities, through the federal and provincial governments, and pick the priorities and work towards that.
There is always funding available for infrastructure and sewage maintenance, there certainly isn't ever enough. I believe that having somebody to coordinate this, to look at the priorities, the worst possible systems, should be able to help us reach that goal. From the department's point of view, I guess I'd like to emphasize that the department is extremely committed to the Bras d'Or Lake cleanup and, as I understand, recently signed off on the 10 commitments.
The deputy minister has been involved, along with yourself, with some of the meetings that have been down there. Certainly I know the information he has brought back and shared with me has been very positive. It looks like a very good group of people who have rolled their sleeves up and are looking at making a difference. I think when you have people who have come to that point, I guess our job now will be to keep up with them. That's what we'll try to do, and we'll try to make sure that we access whatever resources are available through Municipal Relations and/or wherever else. We certainly have close ties with them, with regard to municipal waste water infrastructure. We will be trying to do everything we can. That's an important initiative and certainly one that we support. I look forward to following along with its progress.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, just to finish up on that topic, just to quote Elder Albert Marshall, he said the work we did in two years, it took us 750 years to get to the point where we signed those 10 commitments, and nobody ever dreamed that that would happen, but that's a very successful initiative.
[Page 174]
Mr. Minister, I'll just ask you to change hats and go to your Labour portfolio. Something that I've been waiting to see as Transportation Critic, I believe it started around the Fall of 2003, I call it the operations manual for shutting down lanes. I was talking to Martin Delaney, and he gave me the proper name in an e-mail. To shut down a lane on the highway is taking in the vicinity of an hour by the time you put out the proper number of pylons and barrels, five minutes to fix the hole, and another hour to reopen the lane. I think the idea is to move to a truck with a light bar on the truck and maybe a person with a stop sign or something, and put some of the onus on the driver. If you can't see a truck with a light bar with numerous flashing lights and slow down - it's handcuffing the workers, the workers cannot go out and fill potholes and do a proper job when it takes forever to shut down a lane.
That was to be changed through the Department of Environment and Labour; in 2003 it started, and they said that by 2004 we should have that paragraph approved. Then it was pushed to 2005, and now I understand that's not going to be approved until 2006. It is an extremely large deterrent to the Department of Transportation and Public Works, and I know some of the guys, being conscientious and hearing complaints and hearing phone calls from myself, have gone out and tried to sneak some fill or something into a pothole, and got caught a couple of times by the Department of Environment and Labour inspectors and, for fear of being fired or hung out to dry or whatever, they're terrified now and definitely won't do it.
If it's going to take two and three years to make a decision on how to shut down a lane, and then I understand when this process comes into place they all have to be trained on that, and that's going to kill another year, well, no wonder the roads are in the situation they're in. I'd like to know if the minister and the deputy will push this forward to make a decision so that at least it could be approved this year, and the people could be trained in the Fall, and surely we could have the road crews go out and do the job that they're intended to do? Can you respond to that, Mr. Minister?
MR. MORASH: Yes, I can. I know you appreciate why the traffic control regulations came in . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Yes, because of the deaths.
MR. MORASH: . . . because of some accidents that had taken place. We certainly want to make sure that we protect people who are out doing the work. The other thing from our department's point of view or from everyone's point of view is we're looking at ensuring that the workers have a maximum level of safety while they do the work. The prescription as to how you get there is certainly something that we should always be looking at making as efficient as possible.
[Page 175]
We currently have one set of standards that are being used, and I guess I can commit to say that we will go back and I'll make sure that I'm up to date on that more than I am now and follow up on that. I can get back to you with any progress that we make. However, at this point in time, where I haven't been involved in the discussions and I don't know the issues or the reasons for the delay, I'm hesitant to say or put a date on things until I've had the chance to have a review of that.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, a comment from the workers is that their greatest fear of being struck with a vehicle is when they're trying to reopen the lanes again. They see that they're taking the barrels and the pylons away, and they don't give a damn, they just fly through and they'll cuss and swear, and some of them are even spitting on the flaggers - the motorists are very unco-operative. They figure they'll be a lot safer with a truck with a light bar, with less personnel on the road and more personnel filling in the holes.
MR. MORASH: If you don't mind, I know driving in I came in, on a regular basis, where the work is taking place on Highway No. 103. There are places where they put two overpasses in, and I noticed on a couple of occasions when I came in the people who are early in the morning, moving the barrels out into traffic to divert, and the same thing would be for the people who are removing the barrels at the end of the day. There are certain risks associated with that, which kind of concerned me as I was driving by, because not all drivers seemed to be as respectful as they should be for people who are doing that kind of work. When you have cars going 100 kilometres an hour, I'm not sure I would have wanted to be the one doing that work, it concerned me.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The rush to the coffee shop is on. Mr. Minister, I want to thank you, and now turn it over to my colourful colleague, the member for Digby-Annapolis, commonly referred to sometimes as Randolph Scott, where he was a sheriff in the old movies.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.
MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Minister, I'll be asking these questions on behalf of the member for Preston. He had to leave, he's sick, so he asked me to get these on the record. The question is about the Workers' Compensation Board. Is there $300,000 budgeted by the Department of Environment and Labour for the Workers' Compensation Board's chronic pain issue?
MR. MORASH: He did mention to me, before he left, about the $300,000. The one $300,000 that we did talk about from a budget point of view had to do with legal services for the department being exchanged from one place to the other. Currently from chronic pain, we did announce $168 million that would be set aside for chronic pain, after the Supreme Court decision. I think I'll get this information out, that will be what he was looking for.
[Page 176]
We did announce - I think it was last May - $168 million that would be set aside by the Workers' Compensation Board to compensate people who have chronic pain. The Supreme Court of Canada sort of suggested strongly that that was the way we would go. Just recently, at one of the later board meetings at the Workers' Compensation Board, they have committed to hire an additional 70 people at an approximate cost of $10.4 million over a number of years, two to three years, to assess these claims. We expected a smaller number, but currently we're at about 4,700 people who will need to be assessed for chronic pain prior to a cheque going out or them receiving any funding.
I was over to the Workers' Compensation Board for a tour, prior to that announcement. They impressed on me, with what looked like about 800 pounds of files over in one corner. Some individuals have had multiple injuries under different pieces of legislation and different sets of regulations. So somebody has to go through and assess what the benefits could be at the time, because of the date of the injury. We have committed the money to do this. There have been concerns about the amount of time that it is taking Workers' Compensation to get the paycheques out for people. That was part of the reason why the additional 70 people will be hired, and that announcement was made to try to clean up that number as quickly as possible. The $300,000, I think, was a bit of a mix-up. I'll apologize, I may have misspoken yesterday and didn't make that clear.
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. THERIAULT: So the Department of Environment and Labour is not going to be doing a study into Workers' Compensation?
MR. MORASH: There's ongoing discussion with stakeholders. The deputy minister and the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board have been working since shortly after the deputy minister came to the department. We volunteered him prior to his realizing. He and Louis have been working with stakeholders to try to look at some issues that the stakeholders had, to try to make sure that the Workers' Compensation Board can make some adjustments and be as efficient as possible as we move into the future. They have worked almost to a conclusion with those stakeholders, who seem to be agreeing with the direction and the board seems to be agreeing with the direction in the future. There will be some additional meetings. So there has been a study done - or consultation with stakeholders might be better terminology - internally by the Workers' Compensation Board and the Department of Environment and Labour.
MR. THERIAULT: So I'll be safe in asking, on behalf of the member for Preston, you will have this information for him soon?
[Page 177]
MR. MORASH: Yes. Actually he and I have discussed the possibility of a briefing or some additional information being brought forward to him to allow him to ask some questions of the people who are involved, as well as looking at what might transpire legislatively in the future.
MR. THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'd like to hand the rest of my time over to my colleague.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.
MR. GARY HINES: I just want to make a couple of comments. Number one, I want to comment and applaud the minister on his participation and his department's participation in recognition of the Nova Scotia Wastewater initiative and going forward with new direction, a direction that is probably number one in the country in terms of dealing with the on-site sewage industry. I also applaud the direction that's being taken to bring the pumpers association under a similar umbrella that allows a more professional and a more uniform delivery of services in the on-site sewage industry and the septic pumping industry. I just wanted to make that comment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll now turn to the NDP caucus.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm really glad to have a few minutes to ask a couple of questions. My riding, as you probably know, lies just outside a large and growing city, and that, almost by definition, produces some significant environmental issues. It's an area that was a farming area for a long time, it's an area that has been sort of that urban poverty part, I used to call it garbage land. Unfortunately now I'm discovering it really, literally, is garbage land in many ways, it has been treated that way.
We have a growing number of issues around disposal. That mostly manifests itself in questions of drinking water. There are several places where at various times I've mentioned, but one of the things that's most concerning is an area that has been renowned for a long time as being the site of a number of dumps, we're talking probably 100 years' worth of dumps, and that's the Harrietsfield area. There are lots of lakes, watercourses, people do draw their water from wells for the most part, but there's an increasing population density.
There is, as I think everybody realizes, a lot of money involved in getting rid of contaminated materials. When it's necessary to get rid of things, it sometimes finds its way into areas where there is water being drunk by people. I guess one of the real questions that I would have is, is there any plan at all in the department for the tracking of contaminants? What happens in terms of labelling and so on of materials? I'm talking about soil that has
[Page 178]
been deemed contaminated and so on. What's the process you follow for making sure it gets where it needs to go?
MR. MORASH: If I might clarify, what's the process to ensure that contaminated soil ends up in an approved facility?
MS. RAYMOND: Yes.
MR. MORASH: I was just trying to look at some of the different scenarios, but if we were looking at a contaminated site, an example would be an oil spill, and there was remediation that was necessary and there was a consultant who came in, Environment and Labour would be involved as well. If the consultant determined that loads of this material had to be trucked away, the department would monitor where it was going, as well as the consultant, because they have a responsibility to ensure that the site is cleaned up and that they don't contaminate another site.
MS. RAYMOND: I guess that's really what my question was, how is that monitoring done? I know too many people who tell stories of ending up behind a dump truck which is removing stuff from a contaminated site and then accidentally following it home and discovering that it's going to the new building site next door or whatever. I've always said, why don't we number dump trucks? But I'm wondering what the procedure is, the actual detail. Maybe that's something you need to get back to me about.
MR. MORASH: That may be helpful, if you don't mind. We can run through that whole system, exactly what our part would be, what part the third-party consultant would play, and how that would go through.
MS. RAYMOND: That would be great.
MR. MORASH: Because I think there are some different scenarios, and I really wouldn't be able to cover them all here.
MS. RAYMOND: Yes, I was just wondering if there's a process, not so much tracking where it goes to as where it comes from, how it leaves. I probably have very little time here. One of the things that I have been wondering about is your jurisdiction around water, watercourses and so on, and infilling at watercourses, fresh watercourses. I realize that you don't have jurisdiction where there is salt water, Oceans has jurisdiction, but there are places at the edge of watercourses. There are a couple of places where in fact even Fisheries and Oceans claim not to have jurisdiction. That's a real issue around Nova Scotia, where we have these so-called pre-Confederation water lots. They're usually on salt water, but they're not always on salt water. They're in various watercourses around the province.
[Page 179]
What has been happening is that various landowners have been saying that they have the ability, because they have absolute ownership, to do whatever they want on that so-called water-covered land. I'm just wondering what plans does the Department of Environment and Labour have to deal with the obstruction and alteration of watercourses on so-called water-covered lands in the pre-Confederation situations?
MR. MORASH: I'll make some comments, and someone will kick me if I'm not correct. Currently, I know in some that I dealt with in my own area, anything that was a water lot had to go through DNR and through Crown land, because Crown land is responsible for doing the paperwork. In a particular case that I was involved with, it had to do with federal dredging, and there was a water lot where DNR turned over the water lots to the harbour authority prior to them being able to do the dredging. Part of the condition for that, from the federal government, was that they had the paperwork from DNR. I know with anything that we deal with, if it is a water lot, we would go through Crown land to make sure - there's almost like a central registry for these types of things, and that's what they do. We don't have expertise in our department with regard to water lots.
MS. RAYMOND: No, and I realize that. I guess this is my chance to say that I would perhaps encourage the department to develop some expertise in that area, because there are these cases of pre-Confederation where you can't even say that it's Crown land. People are claiming ownership, private ownership, and that's over private land, and whether water covered or not, certainly Environment and Labour does have a role to play. I'd just like to take this chance to encourage Environment and Labour.
MR. MORASH: I appreciate that, it's a very good comment, because if you look at what we do and the interjurisdictional concerns that people have with regard to DFO and Environment and Labour, and you add something else to the mix, it certainly would be helpful to have as clear information as possible for concerned citizens or citizens who are looking at pursuing that. I think that would be something that would be helpful. Thank you.
MS. RAYMOND: I have one last very small question. It comes right out of left field, I'm afraid, because this is probably not an area of pollution that you deal with very frequently, but at least it's colloquially referred to, and that's noise pollution. That is an issue, of course, in many labour standards situations, but one of the places that we've been hearing a lot about it is in the area of all-terrain vehicles. That's a huge issue. Now is that something that has been brought to the attention of the department as part of its monitoring, either in its Labour capacity or its Environment?
MR. MORASH: It's an issue that has come forward with regard to environment and all-terrain vehicles on occasion. I guess up to about a week ago I had someone back home who had concerns about the local airport, which is not a very busy airport, that has drag races on the weekend. They would be about eight miles away from the nearest residents; however, they're very noisy. He asked me what the rules of the road were on that, and I don't think I
[Page 180]
gave him a very satisfactory answer. He implied quite quickly that maybe we should see what we could do. In that particular case, it's a municipally-organized or maintained experience, I suppose.
MS. RAYMOND: Does the department own any decibel-metering equipment at all?
MR. MORASH: Yes, we have industrial hygienists who would have hand-held noise meters, dosemeters. We have something people could wear for a time over eight hours. However, everything that I'm aware of - and we may have more information, but what I'm aware of - would be for an industrial setting or a work-site setting, where you'd determine what the level of hearing protection would need to be. If we're talking about the noise that people would be directly exposed to, because if your work caused you to use an ATV, we could monitor that and tell you whether hearing protection was necessary and those types of things.
But as far as the general noise on the streets, and sometimes in this room when the trucks are going by, using their jake brakes which I'm not sure what the regulation is within town on that, this building will rattle a little bit. There is a fair amount of noise.
MS. RAYMOND: It was that one particular noise that has people concerned.
MR. MORASH: We do have industrial approvals for certain facilities, and in those industrial facilities we may specify what the noise levels are to be and that they have to do noise monitoring that they would report back and keep a log of, to try to at least maintain a reasonable level for who might be affected. But otherwise it would be a municipal issue, and the municipality would look into some of those things. It's a very difficult one to . . .
MS. RAYMOND: Yes, this is one of the aspects of approvals, I know, that has been around some sites. Thank you.
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, minister and staff. I appreciate an opportunity to ask some questions.
The first one uppermost in my mind is the proposed biowaste facility in Mount Uniacke. The residents there sent a pretty clear message last night that they definitely don't want it. Could the minister go through the process, please, if an application were to come to his department, what would happen through the department for approval of that?
[Page 181]
MR. MORASH: One of the issues that we always get in and then I think we're moving towards that now, is being the regulator, we regulate after somebody has a proposal that they want to move forward. Typically, I think people tend to try to make sure that we're in the mix prior to that stage which we try to avoid and they try and make sure that we're there.
Health has awarded that tender for the treatment and disposal. Just a bit of background - the biomedical waste in the province, I think about 80 per cent is generated in Halifax. Right now it's collected and shipped to CBRM to an incinerator that's there. The incinerator currently is in compliance, but CBRM has made the decision to look at shutting down that facility at the end of the year. The facility was, as well, reaching the end of its life expectancy. They have been able to go on for a period of time, but certainly not forever, that wasn't the way things were going to work with the shutdown of that incinerator.
We have material that has been trucked from Halifax - 80 per cent of it has been trucked from Halifax - to that incinerator on a regular basis and I think somewhere about $1.5 million worth of material a year has been going down there where it is incinerated and the material from the incinerator went out to a landfill. We're currently at a situation in the province where we have this material that is - I guess it goes with the department - going to continue to be made and we need to look at a viable process to make sure this can be looked at and treated safely.
There was a pilot that took place some time ago to see if this material could be shredded and treated with bleach and disinfected and would be acceptable to go to a landfill. That pilot was done some time ago and the Department of Health had assessed the health concerns with this and from our point of view we will look at the environmental assessment process and go through that. I'll get you some more information on that, but we do depend on the Department of Health to look at what is an acceptable standard and what will ensure that we treat this safely.
What we're doing here, if you look at the people who are actually running the machinery and doing the chipping or the shredding and doing the treating, they certainly would be at the highest risk of exposure or accident and/or whatever else, much more so than the people who would have concerns that the material was going to a landfill in their area. We have generated certainly a lot of concern, I understand, as of last night's meeting.
When the proponent comes up with a proposal that they see as viable and our job I guess, we really want them to cross the t's and dot the i's. We want a great level of detail in the information that they bring in to us and from there we would assess whether it meets all the recognized standards that we put any environmental assessment through. We would certainly take into consideration concerns of public consultation that has come about through the proponent and others. We would dissect the thing and ask for additional information if things weren't clear within the department which would take some period of time for them
[Page 182]
to do that. And at a point in time we would come up with a decision that there was approval that this facility could be located and operated safely with the terms and conditions they have either suggested or that we've imposed upon them or that we needed additional information, we'd go back to them and look for whatever it may be - scientific information - that we felt was lacking.
We would also have the option - with the recommendations from staff - to say, no, we can't be located there in a safe manner. That's kind of it in a nutshell, but if you're looking for more detail, the department can give you the detail. I think because of the process that we're on right now, it would be beneficial for everybody to possibly have a briefing at the department and make sure we've looked at the steps of the process and the procedures so that you won't be surprised with anything that happens and you could relay to some of the people that you represent what is going to happen next. That doesn't mean everybody is going to agree, but everybody would have the factual information.
MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think probably, maybe more appropriately, if that information could be done at a meeting in the community, rather than me trying to convey that, which was part of my request, if someone could come to the meeting, because they did have some questions. You mentioned, in a nutshell - I'm not sure if that was a big nut or what - I was kind of looking for more specifics. I know that him looking at the structure would be part of the assessment, and the process would be another part of the assessment, and there is a 25-day comment period.
MR. MORASH: Yes.
MR. MACDONELL: Is the 25 days the time for the department, like within 25 days the department would make a decision or is there a timeline for your department to make a decision or just 25 days for the public to make comment?
MR. MORASH: Well, the proponent would work with the department when they're getting ready to put something forward, historically they will work very closely with the department. The question they would ask is, why turn something in that's only going to be given back to you to say I need more operation? So they would work with the department staff to ensure they had all the information that we felt we needed and they felt we were looking for. Then they would send in a proposal for us to review and it would be 25 days, the clock would start ticking from the time that information was formally given to us and the request was made to do an environmental assessment.
In that point in time we may ask for additional information and if we did, the clock stops ticking until the proponent gets back to us with that information and then the clock would start again. If the application was in perfect form, it would be 25 days and a decision would be made.
[Page 183]
MR. MACDONELL: I'll move away from this only to say, I know the community doesn't want it and I would like to see some part of this process to maybe ask before all this starts, to consider their comments. I know a lot of people comment about not wanting a variety of things in their communities and it never seems to stop them, particularly easily, from getting there. I know it would make some sense, I think, if the department could actually have an information session in the community rather than answering the same question 15 times - I would think maybe 300 times - from the crowd that was there. So I'll just leave that for your consideration.
MR. MORASH: If you don't mind, typically it would be a group or a committee or a representative group that will form of a number of people. It would be easier, I expect, to go through the details with a dozen people than it would with 300, and that may be something that you and I can talk about as we go through this.
MR. MACDONELL: The community of Maitland on Highway No. 215 in my constituency, it's a heritage district. There are a number of old buildings, a number of ship captain's homes, and it's quite a spot, really. There is a building there, it was the old Cochrane Store, and in the 1930s it became the Canadian Order of Foresters Building, or something. There's the Mill Pond Brook that runs right beside it and it's tidal, obviously, it's right on the Minas Basin. That brook has eroded to the point where actually they're quite concerned.
I stopped on Saturday to have a look, when I took a blanket for an auction that was happening in the fire hall . . .
MR. MORASH: Wool?
MR. MACDONELL: Wool, yes. With no intention of trying to pull it over your eyes. I had some calls on this building and they're pretty concerned with the possibility of losing it, between the heavy rains that we've had and tidal action. I think at one point there was some rock dumped in there 25 years ago which actually held for a number of years and for whatever reason, that's not going to work. Does the department have any type of stream rehabilitation, any program for building any structure to reinforce streams, or some way to protect this building from washing away?
MR. MORASH: We'll find out but if you don't mind, just from a clarification point of view, when you first mentioned this to me I was thinking it was more or less like a rock or in my mind's eye I was thinking a rock foundation or something that was holding this up that was washing out, but this is just eroding into the actual foundation of the building over time?
[Page 184]
MR. MACDONELL: What I saw actually was they had it blocked up on the side closest to the stream and it was on top of sod, but I suppose at one corner there was about this much ground to the corner of the building that was left. I didn't notice a foundation wall, now maybe there was and the blocking hid it from me because I doubt that it was sitting right on the sod.
MR. MORASH: The department currently doesn't have a stream stabilization program any longer, there used to be one but it apparently hasn't existed for a while. We don't have anything other than, I suppose, some expertise and advice, I think. There may have been some contact with your office as to what the options are, and I'm assuming by this question that there weren't too many options.
MR. MACDONELL: That was my impression, so I guess I'm just asking to give you an opportunity to propose one. I'm more concerned with the idea that it's a heritage district and it has more value than just being a building.
MR. MORASH: Is this a heritage building?
MR. MACDONELL: As far as I know.
MR. MORASH: That's something I'll talk with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Heritage about because they tend to have possibly some areas that we can explore. If it's okay with you what I'll do is, between staff and Tourism, we will have some discussions and see what might be available and then get back to you or to the owners of the facility.
[5:15 p.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: I would appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I'll talk to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Heritage myself, to see whether they have a program that might be helpful.
MR. MORASH: I thought I would mention it because it was just pointed out to me that Agriculture and Fisheries is looking at a new program to restore freshwater fish habitats, so possibly there could be some restoration that might be beneficial to the fish end of it.
MR. MACDONELL: I'll talk to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as well. Thank you very much. I'll hand my remaining time over to the honourable member for Dartmouth East.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth East.
MS. MASSEY: Mr. Minister, excuse me if I ask you questions that have been asked to you previously throughout the many hours you have been sitting here.
[Page 185]
MR. MORASH: It just means I have some practice with a couple of the answers.
MS. MASSEY: It should be a good answer this time. I mean that in the best possible way.
MR. MORASH: We know you do.
MS. MASSEY: The issue around Greenwood - and I know something has been done since I asked the question in the other room, but just to remind anybody who might ever read Hansard for what we're asking here today- people believe that whole issue began back in 1995, when that dry cleaners burned down and contaminated the soil with the chemical prep that they use in that process. I believe your department did tests in 2001, that actually did confirm that, but yet the department actually missed that in the documentation, so it was overlooked, in fact, if I have my facts right.
Right now there are around 20 wells that have come back with high levels of perchloroethyene showing up in them, and it could be higher than that. So we've actually had someone from the Department of Health saying that this is not a healthy thing for this community. People are wondering how could this have been overlooked? What's going to be done? What has been done since?
I believe the day the question was asked in here, there was a citizen from that area in the gallery and he had brought up some other issues that, I have to say, I was not aware of and I don't really know if it's true, but I don't see why he would have any reason to lead me in the wrong direction.
He brought up the issue that there are schools in that area and was wondering if the Health Department was going to look at - and I know that's not your department but I'm just wondering where it sort of crosses over if there has been any talk - testing people in that area for any build-up effects, because it was there since 1995, and, in fact, people were consuming water that was actually contaminated, so there's that whole history now that people are concerned about there.
Also, he had mentioned that that contaminate had actually crossed underneath the river, I'm not sure of the actual location of that. He was talking also about concerns that there are some unsold lots, I believe, in that area and the concern was that people may be coming into that area, moving in there, not knowing that this contaminate actually is there, and purchasing lots.
I know there are a lot of issues all rolled up into one there, municipality, health and what have you, so I guess to start off and to go back, I would ask if that was overlooked, as it appears to be in 2001, how could that have been overlooked and what has happened since that that would not occur again in that department?
[Page 186]
MR. MORASH: Sorry, I should have been making more notes. I guess we'll start with the first one. There was a report submitted from Jacques Whitford and it had to do with a car wash that had an oil spill, if my memory serves me, so a consultant was brought in to take a look at the oil contamination on a site. On the report that came into the Department of Environment and Labour, of course, all the emphasis was on the contaminated site looking for oil as part of the review on the second page - I think it was a one-page report - there was trace amounts of perchloroethylene and it was missed by the people who were looking at the report. A lot of it has to do with - no different than any of us - what they were actually called in to do, what they were called in to look for, why they called in and what the concern was by the people who, I believe, wanted to perhaps sell the car wash, and they wanted to make sure there was the clean bill of health that went along with that.
The other thing is that the consultant, Jacques Whitford, had sent a follow-up letter saying that they should have flagged it to the department. Of course, the department - we appreciate - should have picked that up as well. That was something that we certainly have set some procedures in place to make sure that these things are gone over with a fine-tooth comb by additional people in the future.
The second, on the school. We did testing of all the areas, and we weren't aware of any school in the area. I don't know that we did any testing for a particular school. If you could get any details or any information on that, we'd certainly look into that. It would be nice to know if there is a school in the area, what their water tests have shown.
MS. MASSEY: It could actually be where this gentleman was saying that they believe this has spread farther afield, that perhaps it's a school. I don't know, and I only spoke to him briefly when he was in here, and to tell you the truth, I don't have his name. It's just somebody who came in because he knew that questions were being asked that day, from the community. I guess you're on your own on that one. I appreciate the honesty in your saying that this report came and, you're right, it was an oil spill. So that would never have even been done if there hadn't been an oil spill. People would probably be drinking the water today not knowing there was perc in it. So it all goes back to our water quality in Nova Scotia.
As people were saying earlier, the cost of testing well water is becoming more expensive. You have to wonder when 40 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia are drinking well water, how many people are getting it tested on a regular basis, and what's really in it. It can be a scary proposition. I would think that when you are looking at tests, you're right, when test results come back, you can't just look for the one thing, because I'm sure doctors don't do that either when they send out for tests. If somebody is presenting symptoms of one thing, when the test results come back they don't just look at the test results as it applies to that, they're going to look, oh, well, this is here, too, and now we have to deal with that.
I'm just hoping that with some of the money - I think you have some extra money in the budget this year - that you're going to apply some of that to upholding the regulations that
[Page 187]
are there and maybe getting more staff in the areas that you really need them. I'm looking forward to that money being well spent.
MR. MORASH: There was also the issue with regard to the wells. In talking with - I'm not sure exactly who I was talking with, but they said the municipality has put a moratorium on any wells being drilled in that area. So the well drillers have to get approval before they can drill in the area. They have flagged that as a place where no new wells will be drilled. So it would be hook up to the municipal infrastructure, or no water, so that protects the people.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions. I'm glad I was able to catch the minister today. I understand this will probably be his last day here. A couple of questions I wanted to go to, and they are primarily around our Labour Standards Code and provisions for annual leave and holidays. I would like to start with holidays if I could.
As the minister knows, I had proposed earlier that we have a new statutory holiday. Currently in Nova Scotia we have five statutory holidays with some special provision around Remembrance Day as well, so that would make it sort of five and a half, maybe we could say. Other provinces, three out West have nine statutory holidays, the three Territories all have nine statutory holidays, and our closest neighbours, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have six and seven, respectively.
I'm wondering, could the minister let me know if he has asked anybody in the department to review that, to see what their opinion is about how we fare competitively with our neighbours and the rest of Canada?
MR. MORASH: Yes, I have asked the department to take a review of the general holidays in the Labour Standards Code. I think we've had some discussions with regard to the issues that we'd be looking at. We had done the comparison, similar to yourself, with regard to the rest of Canada, other provinces. We are still in the process of looking into costs associated with it. Our challenge or our goal is to ensure that we gather as much information as possible prior to any decisions being made. The department is certainly looking into all aspects of the general holiday as proposed that you put before the House.
MS. WHALEN: Are there any preliminary findings yet that you could refer to today that might lead us to get some sense of whether or not that is seen as a priority?
MR. MORASH: That review is still underway, we're still gathering information. There certainly haven't been any final decisions made at this point in time.
[Page 188]
MS. WHALEN: When we talk about the cost, is it cost to government, or are you talking about a broader cost?
MR. MORASH: I guess it would be the broader cost more so than the cost to government. The cost to government would be something that we could find out or is readily available. Looking at the costs to the province as a whole, looking at the whole picture as to what it means, we appreciate what it means for families to have an additional holiday. Also, in our position, we have to appreciate what it means to industry and economic development within the province for the cost of an additional holiday. Again, the department is neither in favour nor against the additional holiday, we're just going through what our responsibilities are, and that's gathering the information to take a look at what it means and what impacts there are.
MS. WHALEN: If I could just ask the minister, in terms of some of the other government strategies and policies, I don't think we've actually called it a population strategy, but at the same time the government has signalled concern about a declining population, people leaving our province for other places, the retention of our youth not just here in Halifax which is our biggest urban centre, but right across the province. Things of that nature, I think, are influenced by the climate that we have for work in our province. Part of that climate would be reflected by the number of holidays that we provide.
I think it's worth noting we also have the very lowest in terms of the annual leave provisions. In doing some research for the holiday, I had looked, as well, at leave and how we stack up against other provinces. We're really at the bottom of the barrel, again. I think after 15 years we're entitled to three weeks. That makes us a little better than one or two other provinces that just leave it at two weeks and don't ever specify when it goes to three. But provinces out West, some of them have you at three and four weeks within five and 10 years. I don't think there could be much argument that they are less competitive out West than we are here, within our own Canadian context.
If you look abroad and go to places like Germany, Australia, a lot of European countries, Germany has five or six weeks a year of annual leave, and they're still productive countries, they produce a lot of goods and so on. So there's a great link, and it becomes a little bit nebulous. So I guess I'm wanting the minister to consider this, and the department as well, but the link between productivity is not always that clear. I believe that when people are well rested, when people have an opportunity to recharge, they do better.
Nova Scotians are in fact notorious for not taking the leave they're given already. You might be ready to tell me that. I think that's not a good sign. If you're a manager or an owner of a company, you want people to take their leave because that makes them better employees and better able to do their work. I guess I'd like to ask your opinion on the productivity side of that, and do you believe there is a positive correlation between some time off and good productivity?
[Page 189]
MR. MORASH: Yes, I certainly do believe there is a correlation. I think everybody appreciates, in this province, that we have, I believe, an exceptional work ethic. We are noted for that work ethic, and I believe it's been instrumental in companies coming to Nova Scotia, and certainly in companies that are staying in Nova Scotia and to family businesses that have grown and expanded within the Province of Nova Scotia. I think we can compete with any other place in the world. That makes us very fortunate, as a province, because that's an enviable position for us to be in.
[5:30 p.m.]
With regard to leave, we are, through labour standards, continually looking at upgrades or requests that come in. There are a number of requests that would come in throughout the year or throughout the years, and staff assess those, make note of those, if there are changes to be made at some point in time, and to the Labour Standards Code and things like that. We are continually monitoring what takes place, but leave has not been something that has been discussed recently within the department that I'm aware of.
MS. WHALEN: I think there is a link. As I say, my major interest is in extending our number of statutory holidays. I believe we're really not competitive by being at the bottom end of this. The other thing that I think bears looking at is the fact that many of us work for employers who give us more time off. You and I, if we worked for the government, or any of the government employees who are here get extra holidays because the government is a good employer. If you work for a bank or a university, you get a lot more time off. But we're talking about basic minimum standards that really guide the lives of so many other people. Those standards come up short when you examine them. That's why I think it's really important to raise the bar up for our labour laws and standards, because there are many people who just don't have that benefit, who are going to be working for employers in retail or restaurants, perhaps, and they don't have the benefits that some other professional people have, working for bigger employers, bigger corporations and that sort of thing.
MR. MORASH: One of the issues that you're certainly aware of is the minimum wage that has been discussed recently. The committee that had worked for a considerable amount of time and certainly did a lot of good work and listened to a lot of submissions with regard to what the minimum wage should be, what the proposed increases should be, and what the timings of those would be, that certainly has been a focus within the department, simply because it's an important issue and the first time we've had a committee that has been struck to take a look at this, representing labour and representing businesses.
I think they're certainly to be commended for the work that they have produced, they seemed to have come up with a very well-balanced recommendation. A decision on that will be made at some point in time, but that has been, from a labour code point of view, one issue that we've been very involved with as we've moved along. So that's certainly one of the
[Page 190]
issues that we have been looking at. Then again, we are constantly reviewing and taking a look at what improvements can be made and the comparison with other jurisdictions.
MS. WHALEN: On the case of minimum wage, perhaps you could tell me, we're not currently at the bottom of the heap on that one, are we?
MR. MORASH: No, we are not. We are not at the bottom of the heap. A comparison is usually kept within Atlantic Canada. We try to make sure, from our point of view, that we are not at the bottom of the heap and that we are competitive. Yet, we try to have a fair minimum wage within the region.
MS. WHALEN: I think that's a good thing to look at, definitely. I know you've had a committee looking at it, and we need to keep in the right range and keep in the middle range there. Again, talking to the business committee, they've told me that they would prefer the government - I notice our Deputy Minister of Finance just left - to change our threshold for the personal exemption on the income tax, which would be a way that government would be taking less income from the low-wage earners, and that would in fact have a bigger impact on the lowest-wage earners in the province. That is what the business community is saying, perhaps you've heard that as well. I don't know if you'd like to comment on that.
MR. MORASH: It sounds like you're getting warmed up for the Minister of Finance, so maybe I'll let him answer that one.
MS. WHALEN: Well, as I say, I think the minimum wage increase is a positive thing, because that certainly helps some people, too. But I wouldn't want you to lose sight of the fact that in the holidays section, we are at the bottom of the Canadian figures. We and Newfoundland and Labrador have that distinction. I think we would want to pull ourselves out of that position. The Government of Alberta is the only province that recognizes a February holiday, which I'm rather interested in. I think that would be a very progressive move for Nova Scotia, to join them. Alberta did that in 1989, and has continued to hold that holiday. It's highly valued, and the people of Alberta are very thankful to their government for doing that.
I think we can all recognize the need in the middle of the Winter for a break, as well. I'll leave that with you, I hope you are going to work at that. I'd like to hear that there was a timeline for examining it, but I don't think you're able to tell me. Is there a timeline?
MR. MORASH: Well, we certainly are looking, through this legislative session, because of the bill that has been brought before the House.
MS. WHALEN: Just two other things on the labour standards. Last year when the bill was opened and was discussed here - it was opened in light of the Sunday shopping debate and was discussed at the Law Amendments Committee - there were two amendments that
[Page 191]
were suggested by the Liberal caucus and were not passed at the Law Amendments Committee. I'd just like to bring them to your attention in case you might not have been aware of them. I think they both had a lot of merit.
One of them is that if you work five consecutive hours, you would be entitled to a 30-minute break. That was voted down by members of government and the NDP caucus, surprisingly, because it wasn't part of the deal that was going forward at the time. So it was not supported. It's a very valid thing, that if you work a full five hours, you get a 30-minute break. I think most employers, again, would recognize that as an important thing to do, but as I say, it wasn't able to pass through the Law Amendments Committee.
The second one was, I think currently the legislation says that you get 24 hours off in a seven-day cycle. In the amendment we suggested that it be 36 hours off, because you could actually be working every day of the week, with 24 hours off. You might finish work at midnight on Saturday night and go back to work at midnight at Sunday night, and you would have had your 24 hours off. We suggested that 36 consecutive hours would allow you to go home, sleep and have a day of rest before you returned to work. That is a reality for some people who work in our province. I'd like to ask your opinion on those two possible amendments to the Labour Standards Code.
MR. MORASH: At the time, I believe a number of us were quite busy, so I didn't recall those amendments, and I do appreciate you bringing them forward. Well, they're interesting, and certainly if they were amendments that came forward, the department would have taken those back for consideration. They would be in the mix in regard to a review of the Labour Standards Code and any possible changes for the future that might be made. They are back with the department. At this point in time, we aren't looking at making additional changes to the Labour Standards Code, so it would be at some point and time in the future when they could be reconsidered.
MS. WHALEN: Well, I certainly wanted to make you aware of them personally, because I know that at the Law Amendments Committee - and I know a number of the members from the Law Amendments Committee are here today, at least one - often things happen very quickly. They would never have been considered by the department, I don't think, at that time, because amendments are proposed here at the table, and things happen in the backrooms, I think, before they ever get here. They're either on or they're off, and then they disappear from sight.
I think it is important, because both of those are fairly innocuous changes and yet would make a difference to people's lives. By your being aware of them, perhaps you could personally have a look and see whether or not they're being considered somewhere in the grander scheme of that Act. I appreciate that, and with that, that's the end of my questions.
[Page 192]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll resist wading in on the Sunday shopping issue. (Interruptions) We'll turn to the member for Annapolis, who has the right to do it when I don't.
The honourable member for Annapolis.
MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: On the statutory holiday talk, it would be interesting to have you comment on November 11th, Remembrance Day, and what your department is doing about a statutory holiday to honour those who should be honoured first and foremost in our province. I will also remind you there's a bill in front of the Legislature regarding that.
MR. MORASH: Actually that was what I was going to start with, saying that with any of the bills that go before the Legislature, certainly if they are the responsibility of the department, our job is to go back and assess the bill and take a look at all aspects of the bill, and gather as much information as possible to assist in the decisions that will be made as we move forward. With that bill, some time ago, there certainly has been a lot of discussion around it, as well as your colleague's bill, as to what the options are, what is available and what isn't available. At this point in time, there certainly hasn't been a decision made. We have gathered information on both of those bills to have it readily available for those who may want to look at it.
MR. MACNEIL: On the topic of holidays, one of the complaints that I would have as a business owner in the province is that there are a number of holidays which are not uniform across the province, and the one that comes to mind is Natal Day. It's a holiday in metro, basically. It's actually a holiday in part of my constituency, around Annapolis Royal, a good portion of the community shuts down, and the remainder of it is not. From a business perspective, is your department looking at - and by the way another day off would be great for all Nova Scotians, I'm not implying that, but in terms of doing business - those holidays, first of all, being uniform within our province, and then, in relationship to outside, in Atlantic Canada? For example - let me pick an arbitrary date - let me pick March 10th, and the other provinces don't have that day off, that is actually a cost to business, because their holiday will be offsetting us. Do you see what I'm saying? Is your department looking at that factor?
MR. MORASH: I guess we're always monitoring and looking at these issues, but the holiday that you're referring to would sort of be municipal, it depends on whether the municipalities wish to observe that holiday or not. With regard to the five statutory holidays that we've talked about, and Remembrance Day, which has a Statute but is not in the same league as the other statutory holidays, those certainly are the ones that we're responsible for. We're also responsible under labour standards to make sure that people get paid appropriately and consistently throughout the province if they have to work those holidays. So from the municipal point of view . . .
MR. MACNEIL: Thank you for that. You're really helping me, Mr. Minister, it's just like Question Period. (Interruptions) You can't work with these guys, that's what I've been
[Page 193]
trying to tell you. We try to tell Nova Scotians that. If you open the Estimates Book to Page 8.2 (Interruptions) On Page 8.2, in Administration there's an increase of . . .
MR. MORASH: It's such a change to actually open the Estimates Book. (Laughter)
MR. MACNEIL: Well, listen, I'm just trying to help you out, really, I'm with you. There's an increase there of a little over $600,000, $650,000. What is that for?
MR. MORASH: I covered this yesterday, and I'll cover it again. Yesterday there was a concern that I talked too long, but I don't think that's going to be a problem with this one. There has been a significant increase in the budget of the office, it has grown, and some of the areas that we can explain, there's a $300,000 expense that is shown, and it's simply a change on how we show the Legal Services budget for the department, it used to be a separate item in the administrative budget for the department. Now, in 2005-06, we showed this expenditure to Justice for the Legal Services as being within the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister. So it would be an accounting change, that we moved it, that makes it appear there, so that would be $300,000 of that. We also have a $500,000 expenditure, and that was a request that we made and was granted to the budget.
We're launching an initiative in 2005-06 to establish a competitiveness and compliance office, which will work across the department to ensure a balanced approach that will safeguard and improve public protection while enhancing the competitiveness of the Nova Scotia economy. We're anticipating that we would hire three additional employees. They would work out of this office. This would be the beginning of a multi-year effort that would build on the work of the Red Tape Reduction Task Force and respond directly to the recommendations that that committee had made, and also try to work and a build on a culture of continuous regulatory reform.
We looked at the consistency and the ability for our inspectors to be able to do their jobs better, and we have realized there are some deficiencies in there, because they aren't getting the level of support that they really deserve to get. So our intention with this money is to make sure that we have some people in place and some processes in place to give them the kind of assistance that they need, so that we can have a consistent compliance from one end of the province to the other, and everywhere in between. We have very good people. I don't think we have supported them as well as we should have in the past, and that's something we're trying to remedy.
[5:45 p.m.]
We're also planning to work with other departments and governments to see if we can harmonize some regulations. The term "smart regulations" has come up on a number of occasions from the federal government, and we in no way want to diminish the amount of regulation that we have, but I think all of us have some examples as to duplication and things
[Page 194]
that are inefficient but don't necessarily accomplish the goals. So that's one of the challenges that we have, and we'd like to remove as much of that unnecessary duplication that we can possibly have because it's really quite a burden to individuals and to businesses.
It takes a lot of time and energy of the department to explain why you have to go to two places to get one thing done, or why you have to shop around to two or three departments. We actually had some discussion around this table with regard to DFO versus the Department of Environment and Labour, freshwater, salt water, water lots, when does everybody get involved. It's a real challenge to these individuals, but it's the right start because there are going to be so many things, I believe, that they'll be able to start working on, and making sure there's good discussion within the departments.
It's time. We've had a lot of these things that have built up over time, and we never seem to take away a rule, we just add another one, or another one to another department. Some of these things really have grown without a great deal of thought.
MR. MACNEIL: You're doing really well. I just have one other question for you - I could have a couple more for you. On the same page, if you look at the Environmental and Natural Areas Management in 2003, your estimate was $4.312 million; it dropped off substantially in 2004-05 to $3.857 million; and now you're back up again this year in your estimate of $4.257 million. Why is the variance there?
MR. MORASH: There's the $412,000 that's there, and most of it is salaries. We are looking at two specialists for air emissions.
MR. MACNEIL: Which number are you talking about?
MR. MORASH: The $412,000. (Interruptions)
MR. MACNEIL: It's Environmental and Natural Areas Management, Page 8.2. Which page are you on?
MR. MORASH: Page 8.13. Should I move back?
MR. MACNEIL: No, that's great.
MR. MORASH: We have an increase of the $412,000, and we have - I guess it's salaries - the replacement of a director, we have two specialists for air emissions and they are new positions in our program. We also have an administration officer in air emissions who has been reclassified, a drafting and illustration tech to an enforcement coordinator. We've had salary adjustments for eight MCP positions at 5.8 per cent. We've had a planner, a difference between the current person doing that job and the former one. We've had incremental increases for full-time positions. We've had a new term position for program
[Page 195]
administrator and we've also had staff budget adjustments, fringe benefits and casual funding.
MR. MCNEIL: On that same page, Page 8.13, your Grants and Contributions have always been underestimated by quite a bit. In 2003-04 you had estimated $22,000 and it was $100,000, for 2004-05 it was $10,000 and it was $131,000, and you only estimated $65,000 this year. How come?
MR. MORASH: There is a $55,000 difference there that is associated with adjustments to the fund anticipated by Clean Nova Scotia billings. That money would go out to the youth core through Clean Nova Scotia, so that's where that money would be spent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. WHALEN: I have a couple of questions on the Environment side of your portfolio. I wanted to bring to your attention, last year we had spoken about the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes area and I know they are not yet under your control in any way. Could you tell me what percentage of Crown lands are under the management of the Department of Environment and Labour through special places, wilderness areas, whatever other designations we have?
MR. MORASH: What springs to mind is 21 per cent. It would be approximately 20 per cent or 21 per cent.
MS. WHALEN: And the difference is all with the Department of Natural Resources? The other 79 per cent, is that right, of Crown lands?
MR. MORASH: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: So it is just between the two departments. That's very good. I wanted to commend your department for asking for the focus report this year when there was an environmental review being done of Highway No. 113. You did go back and ask for the input of the municipality and I think that is fairly unprecedented. I think the municipality has been very pleased to have been asked officially what their response is to that highway and the needs, and I think it's worthwhile mentioning today that their draft regional plan right now has identified Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes area as a regional park.
The entire area has been earmarked for discussion as a regional park, which has been coming up on the agenda since the 1970s. People tell me as early as 1972 it was talked about as a park. So anyway, I thought that was of interest right now. Your focus report is not back yet but the regional plan is being discussed in the wider public so I thought that was very positive but I also thought it was really good of you to go further. Usually, Crown lands, the municipalities feel they have no say in them, that no matter what they say, they are just
[Page 196]
whistling in the wind, and this time you actually asked their opinion and I think that should be commended.
What I would like to know is, do you have any programs - this is a separate issue again - within the Department of Environment and Labour that looks after sites that are unsightly but not necessarily dangerous, anything that does beautification? That's my last question.
MR. MORASH: We do have the youth corp programs which have looked at community projects and we have been able to supply them with some people who have been able to clean up some areas and do joint programs that Clean Nova Scotia and the department and communities have determined to be priorities in those areas.
MS. WHALEN: So an individual MLA like myself could perhaps find out from them what kind of criteria they have and maybe get a project included?
MR. MORASH: Certainly we can commit to get that information to you.
MS. WHALEN: That's great. I just thought there might be something that I was unaware of and that gives me one avenue. Thank you very much and I believe you need to close off.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I call upon the minister for his closing statement, you have three minutes.
MR. MORASH: I would like to take the opportunity just to thank everybody for their comments. It's been an interesting session, as usual. I hope we've been able to get some information to you and certainly the department is always available for any questions or requests that you have and I'm sure they would look forward to entertaining those.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E6 stand?
Resolution E6 stands.
Resolution E22 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,654,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Securities Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E23 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $3,087,000 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 the resolutions carry?
[Page 197]
The resolutions are carried.
I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We stand adjourned.
[The subcommittee rose at 5:57 p.m.]
