HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2014

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

10:25 A.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Lloyd Hines

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning everyone. I'd like to call the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply to order. I'd like to welcome the Minister of Environment to the table this morning and perhaps for purposes of Hansard we'll go around the table. We'll start with you, minister, and we can introduce ourselves.

 

[The subcommittee members introduced themselves.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now call the estimates of the Department of Environment.

 

Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $26,484,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment.

 

HON. RANDY DELOREY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It goes without saying that it is an honour to present the details of this year's budget for the Department of Environment. As mentioned earlier, here with me today is Mr. Jason Hollett, the Executive Director of Sustainability and Innovation for the department and Mr. Barry Burke, the Manager of Financial Services for the department.

 

In addition to these two fine gentlemen, there are 200-plus staff working in the Nova Scotia Department of Environment in communities across the province to protect the Nova Scotia environment, as is our mandate for this department.

 

The staff of the Nova Scotia Department of Environment take great pride in the work they do for Nova Scotians, they are true environmental stewards and I do thank them for their service and commitment to the province.

 

Mr. Chairman, the department's role is clearly outlined as being responsible to protect the province's land, air, and water and we do that by seven guiding pieces of legislation, 106 regulations and many, many more policies and guidelines within the department to help guide the work that we do. Each year the Environment staff carry out over 8,000 inspections and respond to spills and events that threaten our waterways, groundwater and other aspects of the environment to ensure that they are properly cleaned up.

 

On an ongoing basis, staff review our legislation, regulations, policies, guidelines, to help set standards for industry, municipalities and their citizens in the ongoing efforts to protect our air, land, and water.

 

Our Protected Areas staff are responsible to secure and maintain the ecologically significant lands in our wilderness areas and our natural or nature reserves. Each year Nova Scotia employees carry out research and policy development and respond to challenges and opportunities of our changing climate. Just recently there was an international report on just that topic that garnered significant media and political attention across the country and across the world, which just highlights the importance of the work that those members of the department working on climate change are doing. That's just the tip of the iceberg and represents only a portion of the work carried out by Nova Scotia Environment each and every day on behalf of Nova Scotians.

 

To say that our mandate is broad is an understatement. Since the election of our government and my appointment to this position as Minister of Environment about six months ago, I am pleased with the work we have done and what we've accomplished since that time. In December, about 40 days after assuming office, I introduced legislation into the House to stop the importation of hydraulic fracturing wastewater into our province from other jurisdictions. This legislation was very well received by the public, the citizens of Nova Scotia, as well as all three Parties and received unanimous support of the House. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Opposition Parties for recognizing the value and the importance of this piece of legislation.

 

The legislation passed in the House, as I mentioned, with unanimous support and is now in place to protect Nova Scotians from potential risk posed by fracking wastewater from other jurisdictions.

Our legislation banning the importation of hydraulic fracturing wastewater goes hand in hand with the current moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in Nova Scotia. The moratorium is in place as we await the results and recommendations of a panel report - commonly referred to as the Wheeler report, which is expected later this Spring or early summer - until that report is submitted to the government and we are able to review and make further considerations at that time.

 

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, our government is tackling the issue of wastewater that resulted from exploration through a fracturing process in Kennetcook six or seven years ago. Residents of Kennetcook, Noel, and Debert who have storage ponds filled with this wastewater have been living with this issue for far too long. In January and February I met with the residents of these communities to provide them with an update on this file, to outline the results of some additional testing that was done on the water, based on additional higher levels of treatment of the wastewater, as well as outlining some potential next steps for dealing with this outstanding issue. Those test results showed that when the wastewater was treated through two separate treatment processes - a carbon filtration process as well as reverse osmosis - that the output results indicated the water met both Health Canada and CCME - which is the Canadian Council for Ministers of Environment - standards for water release into a freshwater body.

 

I met with Colchester County residents again last night for about three hours to provide a further update to work on this particular issue. That update included discussions about a pilot project to dispose of a limited portion of wastewater through the kiln process, as a coolant at the Lafarge cement plant.

 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that other areas of our department's accomplishments since taking charge of this position just about six months ago, we worked together with our colleagues in the Department of Energy who have been leading front and centre to work in harvesting tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy. My department has a key role to play in reviewing other components of the provincial renewable energy portfolio and that is wind farms. In fact wind farms now represent about half of all environmental assessments that come through my office and it is a process that has been growing in recent years.

 

Since coming into office, and after careful consideration and the addition of terms and conditions to ensure the health and safety of Nova Scotians and their environment, there have been approximately 11 wind farms that have received environmental assessment approval since October 2013.

 

The work we do in the Nova Scotia Department of Environment in responding to projects such as these is to ensure that our environment is suitably protected and that any risks or potential risks are mitigated. The province's renewable energy options are expanded and economic development opportunities in our communities increase.

 

Another very important environmental assessment project that took place in my early time as minister, Mr. Chairman, one that I am well aware is very near and dear to your heart, is the appointment of an expert panel to review and make recommendations on the proposed liquefied natural gas plant in Goldboro, which would fall under your riding, as MLA. The results of that review and my decision, as minister, was again keeping the health of residents and their environment as a top priority. I did approve that project but I did so with several conditions, again following the mandate and the obligations of the department ensuring that any harmful effects are mitigated through the process, as best possible.

 

Mr. Chairman, again last month we also renewed a longstanding hydrometric agreement with our federal partners and Nova Scotia Power that ensures that all Canadians have access to water quantity data that supports many areas of research throughout the province and across the country.

 

Such good scientific data on water quantity is critical to understanding many of today's issues, such as climate change, flood management, and drought. Ray Ivany's Now or Never report refers to the green economy as a game-changer and that green economic activity can generate significant investment and job creation.

 

By developing activities that balance both the environmental protection and economic growth we can create jobs and foster resilient communities. This fiscal year, together with colleagues at Economic and Rural Development and Tourism, we will be releasing a strategy on how we, as a province, can grow these opportunities.

 

Mr. Chairman, the Nova Scotia Department of Environment is primarily a regulator and, as such, much of this budget for the department goes towards salaries. Obviously human resources are fundamental to this department's ability to meet our legislated mandates.

 

In this fiscal year provisions have been made in the department's budget estimates that enable the department to fill staffing vacancies that have been ongoing for far too long. Filling these vacancies and ensuring these resources are aligned in areas where the risk to our environment is greatest is key in fulfilling our mandate as a department.

 

Mr. Chairman, as the Premier has said many times, the government needs to take a close look at how and why we do things in this government. In the coming year we will continue our work to modernize the department's regulations, most notably watercourse alterations and onsite sewage programs. We'll advance this work among stakeholders and begin implementing it in the department.

Another significant activity that we anticipate taking on this year is continuing the designation of lands, as outlined in the Parks and Protected Areas Plan to fulfill our province's 2015 land protection goal outlined in the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, commonly referred to as EGSPA.

 

We're also working to finalize the province's equivalency agreement on greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector with the federal government, working with communities to help reduce the risk of flooding and updating the province's 2002 drinking water strategy.

 

Mr. Chairman, the staff and I at Nova Scotia Department of Environment look forward to the year ahead. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak and provide some background information on the department and to speak about the great work the staff are doing on behalf of all Nova Scotians. I am happy to take any questions now from my colleagues.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We'll start with the PC caucus.

 

The honourable member for Pictou West.

 

MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister, for your comments. Both being newbies to this environment, I have a number of questions and I'm going to start off first with the budget because it is foreign territory to me to look at the budget. I'm going to first ask what was the actual number increased in your department?

 

MR. DELOREY: Do you mean fiscal increase? Financial changes?

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Yes, fiscal.

 

MR. DELOREY: It was approximately $1.6 million. That is an increase over the 2013-14 budget.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, and where is this extra money going?

 

MR. DELOREY: Primarily the money is going to salaries and staffing. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, we are proceeding to fill several vacancies in the department that have been longstanding. Although positions have been allocated, we are trying to fill those positions and actually will result in monies going out of the department.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Can you be a little more specific in what areas is it going into - innovation or science or policy?

 

MR. DELOREY: There are a number of areas. There are salary increases, as mentioned by other colleagues. Some of it is salary increases as part of the cost of regular contract obligations that are coming in but the majority of the new positions or vacancies being filled are in compliance which are, as I mentioned before, boots on the ground, out in the field doing inspector compliance work.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So when we look at full-time employees and we've increased that number from 227 to 249, what would those new creations be? What jobs are they?

 

MR. DELOREY: Okay, when I say "compliance", compliance would be the compliance officers. Those would be the people who work out in the field. For example, you represent Pictou so we have a Pictou office. That office is primarily made up of compliance officers. They are the people who go out, do the inspections and assess, if there's a complaint that comes in to the office. They are the ones who go out in the field, work with people and/or proponents or companies, to review and assess and make decisions.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So that total number is about 20 more. I'm just wondering if you could perhaps give us a breakdown of where those 20 are divided. Is Pictou County getting two out of those 20?

 

MR. DELOREY: We haven't completed the review to say exactly where each of the positions are. Also, I want to clarify that they are not new positions, in terms of newly allocated. They are vacancies, they are positions that should have had people filled in that haven't been filled in the past years that we're trying to catch up and actually get the people filled in those vacancies. It does put cost pressures on the department to fill the vacancies that have been longstanding.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So would we be saying that the jobs were not able to be done without them, so that we have to increase staff to ensure that the department is . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: I think as I mentioned before, the work of the department is as a regulator and for managing files. What this does is, as I mentioned also earlier, the number of environmental assessments coming through and the work being done by our staff is increasing, so having these boots on the ground allows us to do a better job going forward.

 

Certainly the staff have been doing the best job they can with the resources that have previously been provided. What we're doing with the investment is making the commitment to fund these positions, these vacancies, to ensure that they'll do an even better job going forward.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: What kind of qualifications would these individuals need?

 

MR. DELOREY: It's basically science degrees, science backgrounds that they have. Then there's certainly training that takes place through the department as well for the specific roles they fill.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Does your department find that there's a lot of training involved to steer them in the right direction in this vocation or are they already pretty well prepared to take over their roles?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think a lot of the training that gets done is not training on the science behind it and the technical aspects, it's more on the provincial regulatory. It's the specifics of coming into this position so I think the inspectors, the compliance officers, would have again the science and the academic expertise but like entering any workforce, with a specific employer there are certain policies, guidelines - regulations in this case - that they have to follow and certainly some training would be required for a new employee.

 

As also mentioned during my introductory remarks, we do regularly review and update our policies, guidelines, regulations, so there's ongoing training for all our employees. Of course that is an important component of making sure that we, as a province, evolve as Nova Scotia Environment to adapt and change with - pardon the pun - the environment and I mean that in a broad sense, that we're operating in, the risks and the challenges posed to the Nova Scotia Environment do change over time as industries change, as technology changes so we change with that and of course that training goes along and gets rolled out to our staff in the field.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So when I look at Compliance under Supplementary Information and then I see Programs and Services, I'm just wondering, in the Northern Region, would this - or any of them that have increased, that is including extra staff for the increase in the budget?

 

MR. DELOREY: If you look at that one, that's on Page 9.4, that gives a breakdown. Essentially the dollar increases represent increased funding towards positions. Then you can look at the number of - if you look down at about the middle of the page, which has Funded Staff (# of FTEs), you can see the estimate isn't significantly changed relative to 2013-14 but the actual. So the 10 positions essentially that you see between what was estimated in 2013-14 and what actually we're looking at having filled, we only really funded the 126 as a department. We're looking at actually filling those vacancies and carrying out the full complement of staff of 135.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, so not all of these vacancies have yet been filled?

 

MR. DELOREY: No.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, but you anticipate before the year ends. Great, thank you.

 

Just going to move on, I may come back to the budget in a little bit but looking at the Auditor General's Report here that was delivered in January 2014, I just want to know - you probably have a better understanding and can clarify a little bit more on the liability for contaminated sites. I was glad to see that, obviously, and I'm just wondering what guidance or what discussions you have had around that?

 

MR. DELOREY: The contaminated sites, so you're wondering about the program of contaminated sites or the . . .

 

MS. MACFARLANE: No, I'm asking - obviously this was something new to anyone in government that the province now has to take on the liability for any contaminated sites in the province and I totally agree with that. I just want to know - it's pretty brief and I'm just wondering what steps, have there been any, you know, have you had any discussions on how you actually are going to move forward because as we all know, there are some contaminated sites and I'm going to get to one here shortly.

 

I guess more, you know, I don't know if you have it there but I can pass it down to you, it says that the liability for contaminated sites standard provides guidance on how to account for and report a liability associated with the remediation of contaminated sites and is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1^st. The management has advised no significant impact on future financial reporting is expected as a result of adopting this standard.

 

I find that last statement a little confusing, it's making it sound like we don't have any.

 

MR. DELOREY: Okay, I guess a couple of clarifications about the contaminated sites regulations and what the liabilities and obligations are. First, I think the statement you made was that the province is responsible for all contaminated sites. That is not accurate, as stated. We are responsible for any contaminated sites for properties owned by the province but any contaminated sites are really the responsibility of the owners, so whoever the owner is of any contaminated site, it is the owner's responsibility, not the province's. I want to be clear that all contaminated sites in the province are not the province's responsibility. It is strictly talking here about properties owned by Nova Scotia.

 

To that end, there are different departments within the Government of Nova Scotia that have properties that they own. Most notably would be formerly TIR but now I believe a lot of that would fall to Internal Services with the shift. There would be a couple of other departments, I'm not sure which - Education and Early Childhood Development might have a few and so on, but at the end of the day, Nova Scotia Environment doesn't have those departments so those liabilities wouldn't fall within our budgeting, forecasting, planning. Those would be questions to direct to those departments as to any forecasting or planning that they would do.

 

The role of Nova Scotia Environment, with respect to the work being done in the province as a whole, is working with those departments, as we would with any other individual or organization that has had and identified contaminated sites, is to work with them to identify the scope of the contamination, what work would need to be done to bring it up to standards to address the contamination through that process. That's our role as a regulator. There would be no liabilities or fiscal liability allocations or accrual set aside through my department.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, so would it be fair then to assume that the situation at Boat Harbour and it belonging to the province, that that is our financial responsibility to clean it up?

 

MR. DELOREY: With respect to properties, it is one that would be owned. I believe there are about 20 properties within Internal Services or TIR that they've identified thus far. I don't believe that is one that has been brought forward at this time but, as you can appreciate, there are many, many properties. These contaminated sites regulations just came into effect less than a year ago in the province so it does take some time, given the number of properties across this province. That's the status right now. We will double-check, though, certainly, and let you know probably off-line, as to whether or not Boat Harbour - but I haven't seen that Boat Harbour has been but we'll double-check to see if it has been registered officially.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: As a contaminated site.

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So if it is officially, I guess I'm wondering would the money be put in your budget to clean it up, or is it taken from what other department, would it be TIR?

 

MR. DELOREY: Well, I guess it shifts over to Internal Services and there's another group called Nova Scotia Lands, so if I was to look at this in the context of how - you know probably the most significant historical contaminated site we've had in this province, the Sydney tar ponds, which we've seen how the province can successfully move that file forward and clean up, with partnership and support from our federal partners, to address even extremely contaminated sites like that.

 

That was funded through essentially what was TIR, now I believe it would be Internal Services. We, as a department, again it's part of our ongoing, like any others, as an oversight, monitoring that they are following the processes and achieving the results that they are mandated to do to reclaim to appropriate standards.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I'm going to stay on the topic of Boat Harbour for a little bit. I understand that okay, so there has not been an official letter put forward that it's contaminated. I guess we can all say it has been on the radar for many, many years and just recently, as of this week, we're hearing lots about the situation there, as well as with extending the industrial permit to Northern Pulp.

 

I know, minister, you can appreciate the number of calls I get. We all know that when I campaigned and knocked on literally over 7,000 doors, there is no doubt, hands down, that every fourth to fifth door was, what are you going to do about the mill, what are you going to do about Boat Harbour?

 

Just to clarify for those in the room, the pulp mill, Northern Pulp, is in Pictou West in my constituency and Boat Harbour is in Pictou East. I would like a little bit of information and some feedback on how you feel or how did the department come to agree that they can extend the nine-month industrial permit when we know what's going on there?

 

MR. DELOREY: I guess when we go back to what the department's responsibilities are, there is a balancing act. I think the residents of Pictou recognize the economic as well as the environmental aspects of challenges that face the communities.

 

With respect to how that influences the decision to provide more time, an extension to the existing permit, industrial approval, that is primarily from my perspective to ensure that we get all the information that we can, as a department, to make the right decision with respect to any potential long-term operations of that facility. In particular, standard practice does not require public consultation and none had been planned as part of the industrial renewal.

 

An industrial approval, if a new operation of the mill was to come here today and try to open up, they would have to go through a brand new industrial approval. There is a requirement for public consultation but for renewals of an existing permit, there is no requirement for that explicitly. Part of the reason for extending is to ensure that that gets done, so part of the condition of extending is to allow for public consultation to help inform the decisions we make as a department on any considerations of the industrial approval going forward.

 

Rather than making a decision without public input, which, as the permit would be expiring shortly, we've made the decision to extend that and allow and require public consultation to take place so that we can make an informed decision when we make any considerations with respect to, again, a longer-term operating of that facility.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: A couple of A, B, C questions: (a) Have you been to the mill? (b) Was the nine-month extension the department's decision or was it a request from the mill to have nine months?

 

MR. DELOREY: Okay, I have not been to the mill or Boat Harbour. There was an invitation extended, I believe in the Fall, and the time didn't align. With respect to getting out there during the winter months, I was advised by people in the community that you don't really get the full effect in the winter so we've just deferred visiting until Spring/summer, so it hasn't been set but certainly the intent is to get out there and visit that area when it makes the most sense to get the full effect.

 

Now while I don't and haven't had the opportunity, certainly staff do get out and the staff who operate there actually the office is very close to the mill and so on in that area so they are quite familiar. Staff who actually do, again, on-the-ground work are there doing those assessments and so on.

 

The second part of your question was whether they asked for the extension. They asked for an extension to submit some documents but that wasn't nearly that length of time. I don't know how long they asked for. The actual time, though, of January 30^th, my discussion was with one of the senior engineers on that file, it was a combination of factors, ensuring we get the full information that we need but also balancing the workload of the staff on that file because we still have many other files that we're working on and it is fitting it into that workload and other deadlines that they have as well.

 

As far as going to - I think January 30^th is the extension - that is a combination of factors for picking that date. Actually there is another factor that came in when I talked about the extension for information, one of the other very important pieces of information I forgot to mention was First Nations consultation. So as part of the entire process there was some engagement with the First Nations and they provided, I believe, a written report. We do need time to review that but also to engage in more extensive consultations with the First Nations. Also, as I mentioned, that is for us to perform and then public consultation in the broad context that we require the company to perform as well.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, so actually I think you answered my next question; that is my understanding, that the First Nations need to be involved in addressing the extension, even though it is not a new industrial permit. But my understanding from the Chief and her latest release is that there was no consultation with them. So I'm just wondering, you said that there was and I'm wondering who with and when?

 

MR. DELOREY: I don't think I said there was consultation; I think I mentioned there was engagement. I believe we did receive a report back from them. I believe the report came in either late March or early April, I forget the exact date, it didn't come to my attention so I don't have an exact date on it. But it is about an 800-page report that came in from Pictou Landing First Nation expressing their input on this file. That is a lengthy report, as I said, that came in just a couple of weeks ago that requires extensive review to assess, and again, for staff to make a determination as to whether those concerns that they have brought up in that report are addressed as part of what we are planning or as far as any adjustments or amendments to the approval and what they may be, if any adjustments might be required to meet their concerns and issues that have been raised.

It's an 800-page document, it's going to take some time as well. So again, a number of variables and factors at play in fulfilling those obligations and coming to the decision to provide an extension of the existing one. Again, it really boils down to making the right decisions with respect to this particular file because we know it is one that has been longstanding, very complex in terms of the scope and the types of issues and concerns in the community. Again, we want to make sure that we do right by the people of Pictou County.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you, it's nice to hear that. Have you personally met Chief Andrea Paul and had discussions together?

 

MR. DELOREY: I have not personally met with the Chief but I am pleased to indicate that the Chief and I are in the process of scheduling a meeting to have discussions. It's just a matter of getting the date and I've offered to actually stop and meet in Pictou Landing First Nation community. It works out great for me because it's on my way home so I actually look forward to getting out of the city a little bit earlier that day.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I have a letter here from the Premier during election time that states that a Liberal Government will insist on aggressive monitoring of the emissions from the plant, that a system for reporting this information to the community be put in place and any further assistance to the plant be based on cleaning up the air emissions.

 

I know you are familiar with this letter so I guess I want to know what steps have been taken to ensure that there is aggressive monitoring because I'm not aware of any changes to date. I realize that maybe there are some that are in the works or are planned, so if you could first answer that question.

 

MR. DELOREY: Any changes I guess legally can only take place through the approval process that we have. Really the only opportunity to do that is through the industrial approval. That is where those requirements would be established, unless there was some significant event that would trigger a requirement to do so.

 

My ability or the department's ability to open up an existing, in-place approval and terms and conditions are legislatively restricted, so once it is approved there are very limited circumstances where we can go in and say oh, you are going to have to change and do this differently now, unless it comes up to the renewal time. Again, that's why I want to make sure those requirements are going to be spelled out in any renewal in updates to terms and conditions there.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So finishing off the statement here; and any further assistance to the plant be based on cleaning up their emissions. We know their emissions have not been cleaned up but there has been assistance in the way of giving some land for fibre. Do you consider that?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think providing the fibre allocation there, I believe as my colleague in Natural Resources at the time that this was announced, it was not really a decision that this government intended to make. It was fulfilling a commitment that was made by the previous government, that that volume of land allocation there and the fibre was committed to under the previous government to provide that. That was just fulfilling that government commitment as an organization, that the organization was operating under the expectation of that.

 

They did approach our government for significantly more fibre than that and we certainly did not entertain providing any additional fibre allocation or the fiscal request that was made of the government at the time.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I was at a meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources with the mill when they were requesting fibre. There was no indication at that meeting that it was based on the previous government making a commitment to them receiving fibre but perhaps I'll look further into that.

 

MR. DELOREY: Well actually there were questions brought up in the House. The Minister of Natural Resources made several comments and addressed that several times in the House. You can even look at Hansard to get some background on that. I believe it was also covered in the media as well, so there would be media reports with respect to that. Certainly the Minister of Natural Resources would have the fuller details; again, the specifics don't fall here. Certainly that has been public since the time of allocating.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Right. I'm going to finish up with Boat Harbour and the mill for a moment here. So being the MLA for that area, I'm just wondering, how do you foresee us going in the future with this? We've been told that there was $10 million set aside at one point in time to go towards the cleanup of Boat Harbour. I'd like to get it on the record so that my constituents know that I am asking these questions. I'd like to know where that $10 million has been put, if it has been switched over to another department. Are we able to attain that and maybe start something that we can move forward to cleaning up Boat Harbour and the mill?

 

MR. DELOREY: I guess the first thing is our department doesn't have the funding and again, as I commented before, even with respect to any contaminated sites or any type of work like that, that's not the type of funding that our department would get or be responsible for, so if it exists in the government, I would have to look to see what other departments may have for that. I would think perhaps Internal Services would be aware of where it would bet, if it had been set aside in the past. We can take a look and get back to you on that but it wouldn't be under our budget. This is something outside of our scope so I apologize, I don't have . . .

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I can appreciate that and I will look forward to you getting that information for me. I'm just wondering, though, you and your colleagues are aware of that $10 million, though?

 

MR. DELOREY: No, I can't speak to having it now. The other thing that I guess I want to clarify, too, is depending on the sources of information, what I am aware of is I am aware of some funds that came in through the federal government and some federal funds and some trusts there. I don't know the details of those funds but I am aware that there were some funds but not through us - through our government, through other partners with the federal government. I believe they may have some funds. I don't know if there's some overlap there or not but that might be something else to look into, whether the federal government had some at one point. I believe there were some comments about that at one point.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just wondering, so once again getting back to providing answers for my constituents, I'm hoping that perhaps we can set up an invitation for you to come maybe to a public meeting, obviously somewhere where we can facilitate it under the right conditions, and just have some of their questions answered, I think it would help them have a better understanding.

 

I respect and understand that it's very complex, no one is denying that. But as I stated the other day, we live and breathe it every single day. When I wake up in the morning and I go to my car and there's a film on my car and that's what I'm breathing in but, more importantly, that is what my children are breathing in. Someone who has grown up there and knows living right there, the first house directly across from the mill on the Pictou waterfront, as well as having a business there and as well as knowing that the tourism industry has suffered greatly because of this situation.

 

I've seen people get up and leave restaurants, not touching their meal, not paying for it. I've seen people leave their bed and breakfasts at night because they can't stand the smell and the owners lose out, right?

 

I understand that it's complex, I understand that it's going to take some time for us to figure out how we're going to clean this up. I know it may be an unfair question but you've stated publicly that it is a very active file for you and I'm just wondering, where do you see us a year from now on this file?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think the file is so complex, in fact, that it is really two files - not that you completely separate them but they are two linked files and this discussion highlights that. There were discussions about Boat Harbour, which is the water effluent aspect, and then there is the other piece which you talked about, the air quality and the air emissions. Those are, from an environmental perspective, the two main sources of concern, environmentally, if you talk about the broader file.

 

In terms of where we are in a year, certainly I look forward to having final decisions with respect to the industrial approval and with respect to any changes or adjustments to the terms and conditions of their operating approval which would stipulate any additional work they would have to do in their operating processes which could cover both air and water emission outputs.

 

Even with the deferral, the extension of the current approval, which again is just to provide the department the time to go through and make sure we properly assess all the information we have gathered and to gather additional information, which is the public consultation piece, to the broader community rather than limiting it to just the First Nations community. We will see that the organization - Northern - will have to continue to operate in its current standards, which also includes the installation of the precipitator which is one significant piece to help improve the air quality standards. Actually, I believe, just within the last few weeks they announced that they have fulfilled the RFP, that they have identified the vendor and the company tasked with providing and installing that piece of equipment.

 

From an industry perspective this is a new piece of equipment so it should be operating at modern, current standards for the treatment of air emissions. So we should see some significant improvements once that piece of equipment does get fully implemented.

 

In addition, I am aware of and part of the work and attention that I've been paying attention to is certainly concern around the notion of PM2.5 in the air emissions and so on, something that I don't think has been fully addressed but it's something that I've been certainly raising with staff to ensure that adequate consideration, in terms of any standards for monitoring and emission standards with respect to PM2.5 in the air emissions is being considered.

 

With respect to the Boat Harbour piece, looking at that we're looking at establishing - again this is a file that has basically been an issue since the facility opened up in the 1960s, so it's looking at the information that we contain internally, as a department, and across government. We've had discussions already and I will be having more with other stakeholders in the government, other departments, to make sure we're on the same page, that we can get the information that has been collected in the past, see where any gaps we have in terms of dealing with this issue and what options we may have.

 

Certainly it has been many years since it has really had an active profile in the government. There are needs to compare whether information is outdated, that with technology changes, regulatory changes, et cetera, we have to renew or update or other options that may not have been available five or six years ago when this file was last really being looked at. There may be new options so some of the information may be outdated. Certainly over the coming months that is an active part so we'll have a lot more of that information and that will help guide then, over that year or two years - certainly my mandate - where and how we proceed on the file.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you. You just mentioned that the precipitator would meet modern, current standards. Do you feel that Nova Scotia's regulations are modern, compared to the rest of Canada?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think the standards we have established - I don't have the Canadian ones offhand, that's not a piece I look at on an ongoing basis. So the standards that we do set and abide by are CCME - Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment - so they would be on par with our federal counterparts and I guess with the precipitator, what I meant was the equipment and I guess, as I mentioned in the Fall when I issued a directive with respect to TRS, the reports that have been coming in since then show that there have been significant improvements in the TRS to abide by or to meet those standards. Again, the precipitator just further adds to assist that operation, not just meeting on an ongoing but also when there are spikes or challenges, because it's newer equipment you'd see it doing a better job.

 

Again, it's just that point that when you have old equipment it breaks down sometimes so you have the spikes or the violations. It's not that the regulations change, it's the mill itself and so the air quality on a more consistent basis meets those standards because you'll have the new equipment. Again, that new equipment may potentially exceed those standards but we'll see when it gets installed.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Do you feel that the fines are low, compared to other provinces, when they are fined for not meeting specific regulations?

 

MR. DELOREY: In a number of cases of things that I have done I have asked for jurisdictional reviews. The question of fines, I haven't had a jurisdictional review so the information is where our fines fit relative to other jurisdictions, I haven't assessed that since coming into office.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, thank you. I may come back to that subject later but I'm just going to move on to actually wondering if the minister could provide an update on the government study on hydraulic fracturing, the Wheeler report and when we can expect to see that report.

 

MR. DELOREY: That's a report that's being commissioned out of the Department of Energy, not out of the Department of Environment.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay. So staying on the subject of hydraulic fracturing, I'm just wondering what your thoughts and comments are right now on where Nova Scotia is going with that.

 

MR. DELOREY: I've made comments in public several times and the comment will remain the same; this government, through the campaign trail and since forming government, has made a commitment that there would be an independent review of that issue. That review is being conducted by the Wheeler panel and I've indicated many times that I won't comment on that issue until we receive that panel's report.

 

The reason I've taken that stance is that given my position and responsibility for Nova Scotia Environment and certainly the role as a regulator, if I was to make any comment, either pro or against that particular industry and practice, it would have the potential to be perceived to influence or be a means of influencing the panel participants. By suggesting the direction that this government may choose to go, again either pro or con that particular industry practice, if there's public indication to which way we want to go, then it's not really an independent body and I'm genuinely committed to waiting to see what Wheeler presents and making the government decisions around that, assessing that information, determining then how that report has reported and we'll make decisions after that. To make public comments would have the potential risk of influencing, or at least being perceived as influencing, what should be an independent process.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Have you met the panel?

 

MR. DELOREY: I met with Dr. Wheeler before the panel was struck, for a personal introduction. I believe I met him at an event in Cape Breton in his role as the President of Cape Breton University. I have never met with the panel as a whole and I have never met to discuss since the panel was officially struck and began its work under Dr. Wheeler, nor do I intend to unless called upon by the panel to do so, again because I wait to see the information to help inform my decision making and the government as a whole.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Have you attended any anti-fracking or pro-fracking events or meetings?

 

MR. DELOREY: I have not attended any meetings organized by proponents for or against fracking where the meeting itself was that topic. I have held and Nova Scotia Environment has organized several community meetings to discuss the issue of hydraulic fracturing waste water. That is an ongoing concern, that is a longstanding concern from about six or seven years ago affecting the communities of Kennetcook, Noel and Debert.

 

At those meetings there were certainly people who were present to express their views, opinions and particular concerns around the practice of hydraulic fracturing but that was not the explicit intent of those meetings; they were on a particular issue which our department is responsible for, which is the regulation of waste water, various waste products but in this case waste water, and it was to provide updates and engage the community, to let them know what was going on in that particular file at that particular time. The most recent one of those meetings was just last night.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: That's right, which I'm going to lead into. My understanding is that you are comfortable with the transportation of moving it to Lafarge and I'm just wondering if you can give us an outline of what the steps are and what actually takes place.

 

MR. DELOREY: For this particular file, and I want to stress that this is a question of hydraulic fracturing waste water that came about from some hydraulically fractured test wells in about 2007-08 in the Kennetcook-Noel areas of the province. That water has been stored in storage ponds primarily and in the sites of the Kennetcook-Noel communities. Some of that water was transported to the AIS facility in Debert. AIS is a company that treats waste products, in particular waste water. They have taken responsibility for some of that water and their responsibility is to present their treatment proposals to Nova Scotia Environment. As a regulator, we would set the standards of what we expect that water to look like, depending on how they would like to dispose of it. We would provide that oversight and monitoring capacity there.

 

With respect to the pilot project that was identified, that has to do with the disposal, we've talked about the treatment of the water, which is two phases; it goes through a carbon filtration process as well as reverse osmosis. The output of the water from that point is essentially clean water, it meets the CCME and Health Canada Guidelines for both fresh water discharge and drinking water standards, which would be the national standards that we adopt in the Province of Nova Scotia. So the water that is being proposed to transport from the AIS facility in Debert to the Lafarge cement plant is essentially fresh water. So yes, I am definitely comfortable with the prospects of transporting that treated water from the AIS site to the Lafarge plant.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: It is essentially fresh water that we could drink, you mean?

 

MR. DELOREY: It is fresh water that meets the Health Canada Guidelines, after going through the reverse osmosis process. The full test results are provided of both the untreated, the treatment of water after both the first carbon filtration as well as again after the reverse osmosis, as well as a comparison of the water that is currently being used at Lafarge, which comes from Shortts Lake, has all been provided on Nova Scotia Environment's web site. Those are the actual test results, as well as some summary charts that we tried to consolidate but the official test results from the testing facilities are all online for anyone's review and assessment.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So just because this is very foreign to me, what goes to Lafarge? Is that put in cement then? I guess I just don't know what happens or takes place once it gets there.

 

MR. DELOREY: The proposal that came forward was to use that water as a coolant. Basically the cement process heats up - I believe it's limestone but that's neither here nor there. It heats up at very high temperatures. Water gets injected to that kiln process to reduce - manage, I guess - the temperature. Any organics in the fluid that would come in, if there was any, we have been advised by our scientists that it basically gets incinerated and then any inorganic materials would fall out into the clinker.

 

One of the requirements for this pilot - again I want to stress that this is a pilot, we're not providing a blanket approval to do this. We've learned, as we've spent much of our time discussing Boat Harbour, what happens when people don't provide appropriate oversight. We are only allowing a limited amount of fluid - it is 2 million litres - to be treated through this process. We're having a pre- and a post-clinker test to assess any inorganics that may have fallen out, any heavy metals, et cetera. Again, if you actually compare the water results of this treated water against what is currently going into the system, coming from Shortts Lake, which is already coming from our natural environment, the treated water that is being proposed to be used actually has less of any of those materials, except I believe chloride. There is a slightly higher amount of chloride in the water but even at the levels of chloride that is in the treated water, it meets fresh water discharge standards. And to put the 2 million litres into context, that works out to about two and a half to three weeks of water supply at three or four truckloads per day.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Right on, thank you very much. Does your department or government have any plans to update the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act?

 

MR. DELOREY: I believe EGSPA just went through a review and update and I believe it's a five-year process. It was just updated so at present it's a matter of looking at those updates and ensuring that we take the appropriate actions through there.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Do we have access, as a public, to go on the website and see what those updates are?

 

MR. DELOREY: Both the Nova Scotia Environment website and the Legislature website should have that because it is actually legislated. EGSPA is an actual legislative Act.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So that was a 2013 report that was released?

 

MR. DELOREY: It was a process; a review took place in 2012 and the updates were legislated, brought into the House in 2013. So if you look for the final document, it would be 2013.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So you are happy with those changes? Are you though personally looking at anything that you would like to change yourself or possibly down the road?

 

MR. DELOREY: Some of the stuff, as I mentioned in my opening statements, some of that is continuing the work on the protected lands piece and ensuring we meet our 9 per cent goal there but certainly the plan that was put in place was designed to exceed that. So yes, we're happy with moving forward on that and exceeding that.

 

We are also looking at the green economy aspect, which I made reference to in the opening statements as well. So looking at what we do with the green economy and what steps we can do, so that is part of the steps that we're taking.

 

In addition, we're looking at reviews of our regulations and a number of the different divisions that operate in the department to focus on risk, so that we are assessing and addressing those activities that potentially have the greatest risk to our health and environment, as opposed to administration and paperwork in some situations. That all falls into part of the EGSPA recommendations.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nine minutes, Ms. MacFarlane.

 

MR. DELOREY: Only nine minutes? I thought we had been here longer than that.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I think we're going really fast.

 

MR. DELOREY: I just wanted to comment that that EGSPA update did receive all-Party support as well.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Yes. In the Budget Bulletin it states that $100,000 will be allocated to "Ensure provincial protected areas are safe for all to enjoy." I'm wondering if you can explain what specific actions the department will take on this.

 

MR. DELOREY: I believe it is mostly the liability. Just to put it in context, I know some of us are new here, certainly it's information that I learned coming into the portfolio; much of the land owned by the province, different Crown land, historically falls under the Department of Natural Resources. When this land is protected it gets transferred to Nova Scotia Environment. Those funds that we're talking about are liabilities on the land that gets transferred over for the protection, if these lands happen to have garbage or issues with culverts and things like that.

 

It is updating and monitoring because there's a wide variety, not all of the land has been untouched, some of it may have been used for other uses in the past so there may have been some development or work and so there may be some things that need to be addressed again for the safety perspective. It would be capital type of activities to clean up those things and it would be site specific. Again we're talking when we finish implementing the protection of lands we'll have around 13 per cent of the entire provincial lands protected. That's a lot of land that we have to take that activity on and it will be an ongoing process.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Is there an actual map on your site showing these, like the 13 per cent of protected and protected wetlands, is that correct, to combine the two?

 

MR. DELOREY: There are wetlands in the protected area as well.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Well that's what I mean, yes, so they are on this map as well?

 

MR. DELOREY: Do you mean are the wetlands identified on the physical map?

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Yes.

 

MR. DELOREY: It's not just a standard map on our website, it's actually an interactive map so you can actually flag on and off the features that you want to see. If you want to see the wetlands, you just check that option. It's an interactive map that you can see what features are on the lands.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: This $100,000 is new to the department, is it? Is this something that we'll perpetually or annually see?

 

MR. DELOREY: We do have a guarantee for the next two years and in terms of that, we would look at budgeting processes beyond that.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So would some of that $100,000 be put towards individuals being hired to go around to some of these wetlands and see what these areas need for assistance to ensure that they are clean and safe for people to enjoy? That's my understanding, that the money was put there to ensure that if my family goes down to a certain protected area to walk it or whatever, that it's safe.

 

MR. DELOREY: The operational side of bodies, that is part of our overall operational funding, so that would be part of what our staff do. The $100,000 is more towards kind of the capital side, if there's cost of equipment and getting things done, to do the work. So the bodies are part of our everyday obligations, the work that our staff does. The $100,000 is towards the actual . . .

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Equipment?

 

MR. DELOREY: It depends on what the issue is, right? So I mean if it's garbage, you have to dispose of the garbage, so there would be tipping fees and so on that would have to go with that. There would be costs, perhaps transportation, and the expenses basically. But staff, the bodies, are part of our standard operational complement because that is one of the responsibilities of the department.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, thank you very much. I think my time is just about up.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have five minutes.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Oh, I still have five minutes, great. I'm looking here that $700,000 is being earmarked to invest in infrastructure to prevent flooding. I'm just wondering which areas the department will be focusing on within the province. I know there has been more and more flooding happening throughout Nova Scotia. It's amazing, even in my area where I haven't seen it and all of a sudden this year there have been more people experiencing flooding situations, which is very unfortunate.

 

Some of the worst flooding happens obviously in the Spring and I'm just wondering, will any areas benefit from this infrastructure? Obviously I don't think it's going to help any this Spring but I'm wondering if you can name some of those communities that can expect help or funding in the future.

 

MR. DELOREY: That line item the $700,000 referred to, if you look at the budget closely you'll see that's not budget money in my department, so you're asking questions that fall under Municipal Relations and how that department is spending the monies would be best directed to that minister.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you, I wasn't sure, I appreciate that. So the Budget Bulletin indicates the department will "Help Nova Scotians drive less distance, move more actively and efficiently, using cleaner energy, and access a wider range of sustainable transportation options ($2 million)." I'm just wondering if the minister can explain what this will mean, in practical terms, and how the results will be measured?

MR. DELOREY: I cannot. If you look at the budget you will see that that money is earmarked to the Department of Energy, which has the responsibility for sustainable transportation practices. It doesn't fall under my mandate.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: It affects your department, though. Has there been any discussion around that? I understood there was but maybe I'm . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: At the staff level there have been discussions around some of that but as far as the monies being used and earmarked and utilized, that wouldn't fall under my mandate.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I would think that it would be somewhat of a concern. Have you spoken to the Energy Minister about this at all or do you anticipate to?

 

MR. DELOREY: I haven't had direct discussions on that particular file. We discuss many files but that one isn't one that we've touched on to date.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just going to be asking some questions of course on wind turbines. Right now we're having a lot of issues in our areas, as well as the rest of the province, I notice with distance. Right now we're struggling and in our area there's a group who are hoping to get the municipality's endorsement to move them approximately 2,000 metres. I'm just wondering if you have had a lot of complaints about that or where you stand on that.

 

MR. DELOREY: From a department perspective our regulations don't require any setback distance. We set standards based on health concerns which would be with respect to particular noise and flicker effects. So whatever that distance happens to be to meet those standards, as again identified by recommendations from Health Canada, is where those standards get set.

 

As you mentioned, it's municipalities that set the land use by-laws and would adopt any standards in that regard. There are several municipalities across the province that have adopted setback distances. Our department enforces or applies those standards in those municipalities, if they exist, as part of the terms and conditions for wind turbines that get implemented.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook -Salmon River.

 

MS. LENORE ZANN: Very interesting, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to finally sit down and have a little chat with you regarding all these various different topics under your portfolio. There's so much going on with the environment today and I don't know you well yet but it certainly sounds like you are very interested in it and you take your portfolio seriously and you seem to be doing your research and are quite well accomplished with what is going on in your department.

I have to say I really enjoyed my time with the department as Ministerial Assistant for Environment. I learned a lot as well about all the various things that you have to be keeping your hat on or tossing the balls constantly in the air.

First of all, I just want to ask you, I'm going to be getting into some various different areas - what is going on with the fracking waste water thing in Truro and Debert and all of that but I'm going to ask you some general ones first of all, regarding the budget and things like that since we are in Budget Estimates.

 

First of all, when the Liberal Party did campaign about reducing all government department budgets by about 1 per cent, excluding Health and Education, I'm always pleased to see money spent on environmental programming but is there any particular reason why the government broke its promise and increased the budget for your department? It was an increase of about $1.59 million.

 

MR. DELOREY: The commitment, and this has been answered by the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, I believe, several times in the Legislature. With respect to the 1 per cent, we took action to control our operating spending. The resulting increases that did take place in some departments outside of that mandate are primarily the result of cost pressures, particularly around salary increases, contractual obligations that we really didn't have control over.

 

With respect to that, we did take steps within our department to reduce our spending on a flat basis of 1 per cent. That $1.6 million comes on top because of those cost pressures. As earlier mentioned, it was filling vacancies that had not previously been filled so the actual dollars being spent in the past were not truly reflective of what the department should have been receiving anyway.

 

MS. ZANN: So you're saying they did cut 1 per cent to the department but added in the $1.6 million for salaries?

 

MR. DELOREY: For cost pressures, so salaries is a big part of that.

 

MS. ZANN: And how many jobs did you say that was?

 

MR. DELOREY: If you look at what we're forecasting as actual for the fiscal year just ended, we're looking at about - well 227 is the total. So what was actually filled and paid out - I mean it's forecast because we don't have the audited results yet - was about 227 employees last year, which was a vacancy of about 30 positions that weren't being filled from what was forecasted for last year. We're looking at having about 250 filled positions this year. Part of that is for me to work with staff and have staff work to actually fill those vacancies, so that we see those positions filled and those boots on the ground.

 

MS. ZANN: Now please forgive me if you've already answered this question but what types of positions are those going to be, the ones that you're adding in?

MR. DELOREY: Again we're not adding the positions, we're funding the positions. We're actually hiring people so the positions are already allocated to the department. We're just going to put bodies into those positions, so that's going to cost us money, so they are new people but not the position itself.

 

MS. ZANN: So what types of positions are they?

 

MR. DELOREY: Primarily compliance officers - again, boots on the ground.

 

MS. ZANN: So compliance officers to make sure that the regulations are being kept?

 

MR. DELOREY: Implemented. Now there are additional positions. I just say that's the biggest group I believe, having those positions filled.

 

MS. ZANN: Those compliance positions, those officers, will be right across the province will they?

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes, they're dispersed. So you're looking at field staff and it is across the province, at the various sites that we have.

 

MS. ZANN: So on Page 9.2 of the Estimates and Supplementary Detail document, it shows that the funding allotted for grants and contributions was actually decreased by over $350,000. Does that mean that fewer organizations will be receiving grants and contributions from the department or does it mean that the number of groups will stay the same but they're going to receive less?

 

MR. DELOREY: There will be a little bit of both, I think. Where you see the difference it is actually not as significant a difference as you cited, in terms of an estimated perspective. What I think happened was staff found some one-time opportunities last year to increase the spending on grants, so they were able to, just in their operations last year, fund some one-time supports.

 

MS. ZANN: Was any of that money allocated for helping with the flooding in the Colchester area?

 

MR. DELOREY: There are some funds allocated there. Sorry, let me just clarify, do you mean funding for the current or the past fiscal?

 

MS. ZANN: The past fiscal, yes.

 

MR. DELOREY: So in the past fiscal there were funds allocated to assess projects or to assess again, much like I said in the regulatory perspective where we helped proponents assess the work that they need to do, there was funding and there continues to be funding available for that type of support for overviewing and reviewing proposals.

I believe you asked questions in the House about this topic but you were asking questions about actual infrastructure programs and supports and that's not what our department funds or supports in the past or present. The member previously asked about the $700,000, those will be the infrastructure funds and that was through Service Nova Scotia, not through our department.

 

MS. ZANN: Actually in the House I think you must have mistook where I was going or where I was coming from, I didn't mean infrastructure. I know you don't do infrastructure but there was about $2 million that was allocated for flooding problems in the Colchester region, which included the oversight and studies and looking and monitoring and all these kinds of things.

 

MR. DELOREY: That $2 million was primarily infrastructure funds and that was primarily out of the Municipal Services. You cite that $2 million figure, that's not money that was in the department . . .

 

MS. ZANN: Right, but I know that there was some money from your department. I didn't mean the whole $2 million. Do you know approximately how much did come from your department?

 

MR. DELOREY: In 2013-14, about $300,000.

 

MS. ZANN: So about $300,000, yes, thank you. I knew the whole amount didn't come from the department but I knew that monies had come and I'm quite sure that you're going to continue to monitor the situation there and there's also work that is still to be done that monies have been given to the . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: And not just for Colchester. I mean, in the last fiscal it was - I don't want to use the term pilot, but it was a program that was launched there that seemed to be an area with a high need certainly experienced a significant - from a provincial perspective, but in this fiscal it's looking at expanding the programs as a provincial perspective across the province. So other municipalities can now apply for programs.

 

MS. ZANN: Right, and in fact, we were calling it a pilot project and we were calling it almost like a poster child. That was the idea behind the whole thing because we were in such need. I mean, it was obviously an emergency disaster situation. What we said at the time was, if this works in the Truro and Colchester areas, then it could be expanded right across the whole province and that there would be more money coming from the various departments to help all of Nova Scotia since we're obviously on a peninsula and the storms are getting larger, and we have global warming and rising seas.

 

MR. DELOREY: Not just here. I mean, since we're on the record, I'd like to acknowledge the challenges facing our neighbours in New Brunswick the last couple of days as well and wish them all the best.

 

MS. ZANN: I heartily agree with you. I've luckily seen some films and some videos that have been put together - some by the department; some by other people like the Nova Scotia Community College - about the challenges we're going to be facing in the next, well, 20 to 30 years with rising seas here in the Maritimes and particularly here in Nova Scotia. I think that the Department of Environment is going to be very busy and your role is going to be very important in the years to come.

 

MR. DELOREY: You bet. You made reference that you spent some time with the department so if you've met and know the staff particularly - well it falls under Jason's department - absolutely amazing staff. I'd really like to acknowledge him and highlight the fantastic work and the commitment they have - not just for climate change, but in all aspects of sustainability and innovation. Likewise for the staff in the field as well; they do great work - certainly committed to the cause and the work that they do.

 

MS. ZANN: Yes, I would totally agree with you. Jay Brenton, who is in my area, has been wonderful - very helpful to me over the years with any problems that come up with the environment and with flooding and everything else. I was very impressed with the department. You're in good hands there.

 

MR. DELOREY: I think you phrased that exactly appropriately - that I am in good hands. I think too often politicians phrase that the other way around.

 

MS. ZANN: I know. After you've been in government a little while you start to get it. One other thing I'm a little concerned about just looking at the budget was the decrease for sustainability and innovation. It appears - please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the budget document, the division is supposed to focus on "the long-term environmental and economic stability of the province and promotion of innovative and creative approaches to ensure environmental protection while supporting sustainable development." That's on Page 9.5.

 

We all know the importance of sustainable development, and you've said yourself that coming from a business background, in your opinion this is something that we need to focus more on. So why is the department now spending less on these initiatives this year?

 

MR. DELOREY: As I mentioned earlier with respect to the 1 per cent commitment, we did have to find 1 per cent in our operating budget, independent of uncontrolled cost pressures like those contractual salary obligations. With respect to vacancies, that department is nearly basically a full complement and what falls under them is grants and contributions, which we noted earlier was an area that received decreases and that's primarily funded through the sustainability group. So those are funds that, again, you see a decrease because they actually exceeded what the estimates would have been previously and also because some of those grants did get caught up in the fact that they don't directly fully necessarily meet our mandates.

 

We're obviously looking at the need to make reductions in the department. The direction I gave to staff was to look at things and prioritize monies to go to the programs and services people - the things that we are mandated to provide and do first, and work our way down the list there. So where those adjustments came from would be those things that, based on staff's assessment, didn't fully meet our mandates and objectives so those would be the ones that saw some reductions.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay, even though it does say that this division is supposed to focus on "the long-term environmental and economic sustainability of the province ?"

 

MR. DELOREY: And we have the staff and the people and we're not reducing them at all. Those staff and the people with the expertise and the resources are there and that is the work they do and that is the work that we do, as a department.

 

MS. ZANN: So it's not like the Harper Government where they're going through everything and taking out the word "sustainable", which is very sad.

 

MR. DELOREY: No comment. I think we could be here for a long time if we go down that road.

 

MS. ZANN: I think that's extremely concerning and should concern every Canadian, taking out, redacting the word "sustainable" in a lot of the documents and things, policies that the federal government is supposed to be looking after.

 

In an interview shortly after taking on the Environmental portfolio in the Fall, you did mention several times the need for education. I would agree with that completely. You mentioned the need for education specifically around climate change and around the intertwining of the economy and the environment and education about the preservation of our coastal areas. What forms of education are you actually proposing?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think the education part of it comes into messaging that we get out ourselves through our Web site, our social media. It's education not necessarily just in the formal sense, it's about changing the environment, the cultural and work environment that we're in so that we all take the opportunity, I mean myself, all employees.

 

Education takes place in many formats and it doesn't all have to cost dollars and cents, it is getting people to actually engage in the discussions, getting out there when I'm at public sessions making reference to it, drawing attention to it and educating in that context and encouraging people to have these discussions, not just in classrooms and not just in offices of my staff but at the dinner tables and at the Tim Hortons offices, so that it becomes part of our regular vocabulary and topics of discussion so that we become aware and engaged in that context. That's some of what I'm getting at.

 

Also, given my background, I certainly have a keen interest in academic work and research and education and supporting work with universities and researchers and some of that may be dollars and some of it may be in kind. I've already made several stops to universities in the province that have environmental programs, based upon requests to come and speak to classes or public session. I make myself available to again draw attention. It helps those people who are already there doing this work and helping educate again both formally and informally. They feel that having my presence there helps draw attention to get a wider audience.

 

I've already been and continue to be committed to assisting in those ways. Again, I don't want people to think that all education and programs like that require dollars or extensive dollars. I think in fact we can have a far bigger impact sometimes when we do get that culture shift, by getting it into the mainstream and everyday discussion so that we don't even realize that we're learning about it. That's the type of thing that my vision would be, to bring these issues forward in that context and like and that's kind of how I'm going about doing it.

 

MS. ZANN: Yes, I would agree that we need a cultural shift although sometimes we do need dollars and cents in order to get the message out.

 

MR. DELOREY: And we do provide grants to universities, both for research and education. In some instances I know of one example of a PhD student that I bumped into or an incoming PhD student looking for some funding, which again as noted, we don't have a lot but I was able to find a department, the project that they were working on worked and able to find some potential and line them up with other organizations even sometimes, to help them. So while the department may not have sometimes the contacts and connections that we ?. can help people out that way as well, which I think as MLAs and government representatives when we make contacts, I guess that's one of the advantages, we can help connect people and connect people across the province, all the while moving forward on these positive endeavours in the work that they're doing.

 

MS. ZANN: Yes, that makes sense. I know that in Europe they've been more ahead of the game really when it comes to the environment and getting the message out to the complete populations. For instance, in many places in Europe when you go to a stop light, you have to turn off your ignition. That's a small thing and some people here would say, why would I have to do that? Well, because you don't want cars idling and putting all that into the ozone layer. Even things like when you go to a hotel there, the showers - you have to turn on the electricity for the shower. A lot of people go in there from North America and think there's something wrong with the shower but no, it's just that you actually have to turn it on. Small things, but they add up, especially when there are a lot of people using these different items.

 

Even, to be honest, when you look at advertising. In North America you see all these great big trucks and SUVs and it's played out as being cool to own and drive these great big, powerful automobiles that are gas-guzzlers that put tons of stuff in the atmosphere. In Europe, the idea is to drive small cars and smart cars to try to protect the environment.

One would argue that there is a huge cultural shift that has to happen here in North America. It's almost like we've been existing and acting as if the world is our oyster and it's going to be there forever and we can use it and abuse it as much as we like and it's always going to be there. I think that the signs are now starting to appear to show everything is finite and our lifestyles have to change if we are going to be able to have a healthy planet for the generations to come. I see you nodding and I'm sure you would agree with that.

 

At this moment, how much of your budget for this coming year is actually allocated for education and awareness programs?

 

MR. DELOREY: We'll have to get the exact number back, but it's in the tens of thousands - we don't have the exact dollar figure.

 

MS. ZANN: So you do have a certain amount allocated.

 

MR. DELOREY: There is an amount allocated. Do you want us to get back to you with the exact dollar figure?

 

MS. ZANN: If you don't mind, I'd appreciate that. The other thing I'm wondering is, does anybody have an extra pen? My pen just died.

 

MR. DELOREY: Just while you take your note there, I'll just make one reference. You made reference to the turning off - I'll take this opportunity to again - one of the great things about being in the position and making connections, I don't know if you've heard of the IDLE-FREE Guy?

 

MS. ZANN: No. Who is the IDLE-FREE Guy?

 

MR. DELOREY: Ron Zima - and actually he's embarking on a cross-country tour where he'll be starting in Vancouver with his car and through social media in particular, he's driving this. He's got an indiegogo.com campaign to raise some funds to help support this drive across Canada. He'll be starting out West and travelling, finishing here in Nova Scotia. Basically it's promoting a mobile app for your phone, which basically you would track when you do stop - when it's safe to do so is essentially the campaign. Not necessarily in traffic at a stop light because sometimes, especially older cars may not start back up again, but if you're at the school dropping your kids off or what have you or waiting to pick them up that you turn them off, or perhaps in the drive-thru and things like that. So you track the time and his app will tell you exactly how many dollars you save and so on to help change that cultural thing.

 

He's getting a lot of attention. He has been at this campaign for actually a couple of years in communities. He goes into schools and gets children to really be ambassadors, to go home and engage their parents. It has been a very successful program and we've met with him and learned a lot about the program that he's engaged in. We've certainly advised that we'll be supporting promotion and getting the message out - pleased to be able to inform him and let him know we've got at least a few people here who are aware now. I do encourage you to check it out and reach out to him when he gets back into the province.

 

MS. ZANN: Where is he from?

 

MR. DELOREY: He's from metro.

 

MS. ZANN: He's from here, is he?

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes. Just an amazing, energetic - listen, you'll never forget him once you meet him. He's an amazing individual.

 

MS. ZANN: Well, these are the types of individuals we need and I think if governments can harness these types of people as well, and use that type of energy to get our messages out. I believe obviously the youth and the kids are - I mean seatbelt campaigns, all of those things, they had to start with kids and kids coming back to their parents and saying ah ha, buckle up. I remember my sister's kids, buckle up Aunt Lenore - oh yes, that's right. They suck all the information up and they care about what happens to our planet and if you get them young enough then it stays with them for life.

 

MR. DELOREY: I still remember in, I believe it was Grade 1 or Grade 2, when we were being introduced, as children in the school system, to acid rain. The reason for this memory - I mean you don't have lots of memories that stay clear but this one really stuck with me because I didn't fully understand it. Back at that time it was fairly new and coming out in terms of being engaged in the broader society. What freaked me out was I understood what acid was and I understood what rain was and I actually had this fear that it was going to be like acid literally coming out.

 

That drew my attention and got my awareness certainly for environment so that when other campaigns with respect to recycling and initiatives like that, now more recently around climate change and initiatives around conservation and stuff come up, they've always seemed to resonate with me. Again, it is because it started when I was quite young. I think a lot of members of society, actually if you take a look at the people sitting up here, relatively speaking, we are on the younger side, I think, of some government officials and I think that has to do in part with the interest that the staff in the Department of Environment grew up with and care passionately about.

 

I've made this comment publicly before, that I know in some professions there are people who go through the education system to get a job, not necessarily a job they love, they are just more concerned with getting a job. I've never met a single individual who works in the environment field who is not there for any reason other than the fact that they love and care about the environment. That makes it a joy to go to work with Nova Scotia Environment every single day because I know the people who are there are there because they want to be there.

MS. ZANN: I have to agree with you. It's interesting because there was a comment that the previous deputy minister made - she was there for only a short time, unfortunately, because when the Liberal Government came in they got rid of her but that's another story. But anyway, she was talking about the fact that previous governments had told the department that they needed to try and find ways to - and this would probably be before these gentlemen's time - actually make it easier for industry to do their business and skirt around the environment issues.

 

It made me feel really sad because it's something that as an outside person who is just a civilian, you wondered sometimes in Nova Scotia, are they working in cahoots with the industry? In fact to find out that they had been at different times was very sad, so it's nice to know again that hopefully the department is back on track and protecting the environment and looking out for what is best for Nova Scotians, rather than what is best for industry.

 

MR. DELOREY: I think as I said before, the proof is in the pudding. It does take time to effect change, particularly in government. We all know the expressions about how slow things operate. I'm actually quite pleased with how fast some of the things were able to be implemented. For example, in terms of addressing some of those concerns, I made reference to, you know if you read the article about the meeting in Truro last night about the notion of one of the important reasons for doing that meeting, which was the second in that community, not to mention having met with the community in the Kennetcook area for Kennetcook and Noel, met with both the East Hants and the Colchester councils independently, taking a lot of time to go out and meet and to stay until every question the people had was answered.

 

We also went further, we had the test results, which I know was on that file, very, very concerning for people because they did have the assumption that the department was in cahoots with industry around this. They felt that if you weren't, then why aren't the results made public?

 

Well I took steps now, there are legal reasons why those results couldn't be made public and that's the protection of FOIPOP legislation which does prevent us from disclosing company information without company permission. What I did was, amazingly, asked the company if I could disclose it - because that is an option, with the permission of the owners of that information we're allowed to disclose it. Not surprising to me, the company said yes. So why that information had never been disclosed before, but to your point, again the proof is in the pudding, I'm already taking steps to show and build a trust with the people of Nova Scotia that that's not what this department is.

 

We certainly are not in cahoots with anybody. We are out there based on a legislative mandate to regulate, to protect the health and safety of the Nova Scotian environment but, at the same time, we have to recognize that that same legislation, including EGSPA and the Environment Act, does also acknowledge our responsibilities to strike a balance in enforcing and setting standards and regulations, which essentially restricts us from saying no to industry. You can't just blanket "no, you can't have industry or you can't have this or you can't have that". It's about working with them to say these are the standards, this is the acceptable level. We talked about - and I'm sure we're going to be talking about it again shortly - Boat Harbour and the air emissions with Northern and that particular proponent and so on.

 

We can't just legally say you're not allowed to emit anything. There are standards, these are generally nationally accepted standards that we have to set and then work with the proponents in whatever file and see that they are able to achieve those standards. If they don't then our enforcement role comes into play, where we issue directives and potentially summary offence tickets and so on.

 

MS. ZANN: I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in the public, too, about what the role of the Department of Environment can and can't do. I have been receiving a lot of emails and phone calls about the fracking waste water issue and about the Lafarge issue. So since we're already on the topic, I might as well bring up a few concerns. For instance, last night somebody said that they were concerned that there appears to be some skating around some of the issues going on and that you had mentioned you were restricted to do certain things by the regulations, inferring that your hands were somewhat tied and suggesting something about legal issues if the regulations were stepped over.

 

We were just wondering, have you been advised about that, that there are some legal issues?

 

MR. DELOREY: I didn't mean necessarily that I looked at legal issues on this file particularly. What I indicated was in trying to understand my roles and responsibilities and understanding the extent to which my authority as a minister extends, that in a broad context there are indications that in terms of what the legislation and regulations are that first of all, I can't exceed them. Those are the rules and even elected officials are bound by those rules, but there are some other restrictions, concepts such as administrative fairness and things like that that are judicial precedents and rulings that exist wherein if there are substantial or - I guess targeted towards a particular organization or proponent whereby we hold one to a higher standard than we have any others, then there would be an unfairness element there and that legally that could be challenged as well.

 

So that's the element of saying where hands are tied, where some of the things being requested exceed what the rules allow for and to try to enforce or invoke or enact those standards or expectations could be challenged in courts and that there would again be limited to what and how far I could move that envelope.

 

I also indicated that even with respect to having the current initiative set up as a pilot, based on the standard that that water meets, which we discussed earlier meets the CCME and Health Canada Guidelines for both fresh water discharge and drinking water, that there's potential legal challenges that I may not have any legal authority to prevent that water through the proposed process at all but I've worked with the proponents to ensure that they would respect the directive to follow a pilot project and then, if there were any issues with the testing results that we've also asked for as part of this initiative, that then based on any new information from that, that may inform and, if there are issues that that would help build my authority to put further restrictions in place. If there are not, then it would again be limited in terms of the ability to prevent that process from taking place.

 

MS. ZANN: Apparently somebody asked if the DOE would be monitoring the stack emissions, and you mentioned at that time that you could be taken to court if you did that since it would be treated to federal standards of release for aquatic life?

 

MR. DELOREY: That is essentially what I just said a second ago as well. What it is, the current industrial approval that Lafarge has does have some requirements with respect to their stack testing and they do have some stack testing requirements. I don't have enough authority, I've investigated this on some other files- sorry, there are very limited circumstances wherein I have the authority to open up and adjust - and this goes back to earlier discussions around Boat Harbour, the Northern industrial approval - to actually open those approvals and require more than what the current terms and conditions are.

 

If the water proposed to go in through this pilot process did not meet those standards, we would have some authority to regulate further and make additional requirements. Again, if you compare the proposed water, the treated water, coming into that process against the current water that's already being used in their process, it exceeds on every level except, I think, chlorides, which still meets fresh water standards. It just happens that that lake has very little chloride in it that they're using, but for every other standard, certainly the components that may be of concern, there is significantly less and in most cases, non-detectable levels in the treated water, which exceeds not just the standards, but even the current fresh water coming from the Shortts Lake going into that process. So our ability to justify . . .

 

MS. ZANN: I think the difference might be, though, that - I think the citizens' concerns are that in the lake water it's not fracking waste water.

 

MR. DELOREY: I understand 100 per cent what the citizens' concerns are. Unfortunately - and this goes back to the legal side of things - whether or not judges make decisions based on concern or based on evidence. Unfortunately, those decisions generally get based on evidence, and the evidence is in this case, and any others that would come up, would be the scientific evidence. When presented with that, that's the context of saying that the hands would be essentially tied.

 

MS. ZANN: Did you find that there were a lot of people who were expressing concern about that answer?

 

MR. DELOREY: There were a number of people. I think there were probably more people expressing concern about potential implications in a broader context - not with this pilot; not with this particular water. Their concerns seem to span a bit broader with respect to concerns as to how this may influence or affect government decisions with respect to the broader issue of hydraulic fracturing in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

My response to those comments and concerns do remain that this is a long-standing issue in the Province of Nova Scotia that regardless of what may transpire down the road - whether an outright ban or if there are changes to the moratorium on the basis of the Wheeler report and the direction of this government after we've assessed and made decisions - whatever happens in that context, this water still exists and needs to be addressed.

 

Our department has an obligation when a proponent comes forward with a proposal to assess it, look at the science and the evidence on that file and what they're looking to do with that water at that time and cannot be influenced - nor should they be influenced - in that broader discussion because irrespective of that broader issue, this issue still remains and needs to be dealt with. It's an issue that has been very long-standing. We're taking the steps. I've taken the steps to do it in a step-based approach to see that there is additional treatment done to get the full result and go into the community with those full results, make them available as transparently as we can.

 

When we received that pilot proposal, I think March 28^th is when a letter came in asking for this proposal, to again make a commitment to go back to the community, have that discussion to let them know what it entailed, where it is at and so on and that's part of again, just letting people know where, why and how these decisions are being made which I think is as much as any concern raised by the public in those public meetings that I've had is again, this level of distrust because the transparency and the accessibility and the willingness of the government to come to the table and come to the community and have the discussion, hear the concerns and actually respond to the concerns.

 

I know there was reference to skating and that was in terms of around that legal piece because there's nothing I can do but skate around that because I don't control, nor should I. That is how politicians are controlled themselves, is through the judicial system and the government and the political processes, so my hands are tied to those rulings and guidelines.

 

MS. ZANN: Well I guess what the people that I'm hearing from are saying they are concerned is about is why shouldn't the Department of Environment be able to keep an eye on and monitor what the emissions are that are coming out of there, making sure that there aren't any changes to that. Also, since this is a pilot proposal - I mean this is a whole new thing - they are obviously concerned with the idea of fracking waste water being turned into something that they're going to put into bricks, that they're going to burn in an incinerator and there's going to be emissions coming out of the stacks . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: Can I address that? So with respect to that technical concern with respect to the bricks and the output from the kiln, that is some testing that we have required as part of this pilot because of any of the heavy metal components or inorganic components that may be of concern, despite the test results not showing any and actually showing less, I think there's only one, maybe two, heavy metal components. Again, they are within the regulatory amounts and even less than the amounts that are in the current fresh water sample.

 

They are, again, non-concerns as they stand by the test and the standards in place but those inorganics would, based on the science, I've been advised inorganics would basically fall out into this clinker component.

 

We do have a requirement, there is a pre-test and there will be a post-test of the clinker results. If there is any issue with the results of that post-test in the clinker, that residual would have to be treated as a waste product and not as part of their ongoing operations. If there is not an issue with the test results of the clinker output, then of course it could be moved forward as per normal, but we do have that requirement in as part of the proposal.

 

MS. ZANN: That's a good start. I agree with you that I think some people are concerned about the idea that if this AIS treatment is done in tandem with the Lafarge disposal that it might be considered for them disposing of this fomation water to be extracted to the surface in coalbed methane. People are concerned that if this indeed proves that oh, this is a good way of getting rid of this stuff, that it will then be used on a go forward basis to deal with fracking waste water, if indeed fracking starts to be allowed in Nova Scotia.

 

MR. DELOREY: And I have heard that concern loud and clear. Again, based on our roles and responsibilities and what we have to do, we cannot stick our heads in the sand as a regulator and ignore existing issues because of future . . .

 

MS. ZANN: You mean the standing water that's already there?

 

MR. DELOREY: . . . that's already there. Again, this has been an issue sitting there that hasn't been addressed for far too long. That is also something that I've heard from residents as well, that they are looking for a solution.

 

There are groups of individuals who are concerned, in fact an individual explicitly stated that he did not want us to have a solution to this. In fact he responded that a solution would be the absolute worst thing to happen because in the broader context, he would see that solution as - I think you might have used the term - opening the door to additional fracking in the province.

 

Again, from my perspective and a regulatory perspective, the two are mutually exclusive. Any regulations that would come into play - if there was any decision down the road based upon the review of the Wheeler report and the government's position on the broader issue, those decisions would be made based upon the evidence and the information we have for the question at hand, which is what regulations do we put in place pertaining to that practice if it was to go ahead? The question before us last night and in front of the department for that particular file for the standing waters legacy issue in Kennetcook, Noel and Debert - specifically last night talking about the waters in Debert - that is an independent issue that is long-standing from wells that are no longer operational that were operational in about 2007, 2008, six, seven years ago, and that's certainly in talking to people from Pictou County with respect to environmental concerns that they have. Sticking our heads in the sand is not the way to get to a solution.

 

From my perspective, I think stepping up to the plate, looking at these files and these issues that we have and dealing with them is the right way to move forward and not sticking our heads in the sand and waiting for the problem to go away or at least to stay out of the media.

 

MS. ZANN: Can you assure the public that this is not the first pilot step in a way of going forward and dealing with fracking waste water that may occur if there is fracking actually existing again in Nova Scotia?

 

MR. DELOREY: This application is restricted to just 2 million litres of the existing water that is sitting in the Debert ponds. We will be reviewing that and assessing tests - full stop. That's all that we have before our department today. Based upon those test results, should the proponents come forward with an application to dispose of the remaining approximately 8 million litres at the site in Debert, that would be another application request or notification that would be coming into our department from the proponents, we would review and assess. Certainly our assessment of any application such as that would be informed by any additional information we get through test results of this particular pilot step.

 

MS. ZANN: So you said there's 2 million that we're talking about right now, but is there another 8 million of it already in Debert?

 

MR. DELOREY: I believe it is approximately.

 

MS. ZANN: So there's 10 million all together.

 

MR. DELOREY: Approximately, yes - across two ponds.

 

MS. ZANN: Right, and there is still other waste water elsewhere in Nova Scotia that you'd have to truck in, I take it?

 

MR. DELOREY: Again, that would be another application that they would have to consider putting forward. If they saw opportunity, they would apply, but now we're getting into hypotheticals before us and what we've authorized to date is strictly 2 million litres to evaluate. The reason for that volume is we needed an adequate volume to ensure that if there is anything in the water that would fall out into the clinker that might be of concern, we'd have to have sufficient volume - not just of water, but of the materials. Based on the testing results, there is such a small amount of any potential material - again, those heavy metals, there are two of them, I believe, that have a traceable amount, well within . . .

 

MS. ZANN: Which two are they?

 

MR. DELOREY: I don't have those results with me today because I was talking budget. I have numbers in front of me. The results are on the website. If you go to the Department of Environment website, the comparison between the treated water and the lake water that is currently going in, you can see the two - but again, well within the standards for fresh water release and drinking water. There is no scientific anticipation of issues, but we needed sufficient volume of water to ensure that if there was anything that fell out that would be of concern it would show up in the test results.

 

MS. ZANN: In the clinker.

 

MR. DELOREY: Exactly.

 

MS. ZANN: You feel completely confident that the emissions that are coming from the smokestacks aren't going to have anything in them that are going to be harmful to people, animals, forestry?

 

MR. DELOREY: Based on the scientific analysis by the professionals in the department, that is what I've been advised - that any inorganic components that may be in the water would be incinerated and destroyed at the 700 degree temperature and that any inorganic materials would essentially fall out into the clinker. So essentially the steam of H2O that would be going up the stack is what you would see. In addition to that, given the limited volume, certainly there would be no long-term effects because of that as well.

 

MS. ZANN: Moving again back to budget questions - how much is being spent this year to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions and how is that being tracked?

 

MR. DELOREY: With respect to greenhouse gas emissions and programs within the province as a whole and the government as a whole, it would be - well, formerly TIR and Internal Services - because the capital assets that would be producing, whether they be buildings, producing energy consumption or vehicles, which I guess still would remain under TIR - they would have the larger fleet of vehicles. Between those two would be probably our primary greenhouse gas producers. They, as I understand, have some funding towards that project.

 

MS. ZANN: You mean the different departments?

 

MR. DELOREY: And for anything that's being built within the province. It gets built to the high energy standards. I believe there is even a project taking place here in the city with some window replacements and so on - one of the government buildings that is being used that they're investing in and so on. They're taking the steps to address those.

 

MS. ZANN: Does your department have any say in that? Do you have any money yourselves or do you have a program like a "Cool Nova Scotia" program or one of those kinds of things?

 

MR. DELOREY: We don't have a particular program allocated, but again, as part of our ongoing operations it falls within the general broad mandate so it's just part of our daily operational where staff - particularly in the sustainability innovation side - would have input in terms of standards. So when TIR is looking to build, for example, our staff would have the opportunity to provide input on - these are what the standards would be that you should be striving towards to reach those energy efficient - for example, like LEED certification and so on because we would have the expertise in saying, what are the standards? What value do those standards have? But there would be no special allocation of resources because really that's what we do on a daily basis anyway and have that expertise to allocate so it just fits in our standard operating costs.

 

MS. ZANN: On a go-forward basis then, you're saying that any kinds of new buildings that the government is building are held up to a particular standard?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think that question would be best directed to Internal Services or TIR, wherever that falls right now. I believe Internal Services would be building new buildings, but certainly - because they would be the ones making sure, but certainly my understanding is that it is to LEED standards for any new ones. How formally that's established within the department would be best directed to that department.

 

MS. ZANN: I do have a number of other questions, which I'll save for later, but I was going to say - the third and latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spotlighted the dramatic challenges that the world will face as a result of ongoing climate change. One of these effects is rising sea levels, as we've discussed before, which the IPCC predicts that at current rates will be half a metre higher by the end of the century than they presently are.

 

These are of course caused by melting ice - melting sea ice and the melting of massive bodies of ice such as the Greenland ice cap. The Canadian Arctic may also be ice-free in the summer in as little as a decade. Such higher sea levels will affect many coastal properties and transportation routes, wharves, ports, other coastal infrastructure. What plans does the Department of Environment have right now and what are you doing to investigate what the impacts of such higher sea levels will be on Nova Scotia? Also, if you could include in your answer, please, what you plan to do to work with the coastal communities to address or remediate these impacts.

 

MR. DELOREY: I guess the first thing is - this goes back and we talked a little bit about it with respect to that municipal funding and the flooding side of things. That would equally apply in that context. There's certainly, as mentioned, some resources provincially. Our role in our department is working with those municipalities and stakeholders in helping review and assess with the planning work they do and the proposals they would be bringing forward.

 

To your point about helping them with basically the infrastructures, that's not the piece that would come through us, that would be through predominantly, I would assume again, from the lands and the way that the government structure would be, predominantly through municipal governments and through municipal programs that would be in place.

 

We do provide a lot of research that, again, the innovation team primarily provides for projecting. I know within our department we've been doing some work in adopting the information we do have and creating some interactive tools to help with planning. The technical piece, so some LiDAR data and doing some mapping and tools that help project and predict and can do scenario-based assessments and so on. So doing the research and collecting data, that's what our contribution often is in our department is through the use of data and the research aspect of things.

 

In this space we aren't as engaged and involved in kind of the boots on the ground piece of infrastructure improvements, that falls to other departments in the government and other levels of government as well.

 

MS. ZANN: So obviously then you're saying the department is committed to coastline conservation. So is there any money actually allocated in this year's budget for that?

 

MR. DELOREY: The flood money would certainly, any flooding would predominantly be around the coastal areas so all of that funding could arguably be said that it would be towards that end purpose as well, or most of that money.

 

MS. ZANN: We had announced that flooding money was $15 million for the whole province and I believe $2 million of that was allocated to the Colchester area. Is that still the case?

 

MR. DELOREY: Again, most of those resources were going to other departments. I don't know what the total amount is collective on that initiative.

 

MS. ZANN: Do you know what it is from your department?

 

MR. DELOREY: About $150,000 and again, that's on that supporting for research and assessing municipal proposals that come forward.

 

MS. ZANN: I see, so of the $15 million then that was announced for the flooding protection to protect for the future, that's coming from mainly other departments?

 

MR. DELOREY: Again, as I said, I think Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations would be the primary one because most of these programs, I'm believing as it was announced originally, was to be delivered through the municipalities, so it is Municipal Relations is where that would predominantly, likely fall to. There may be some funds in the infrastructure as well, TIR, Internal Services, because of some road work and upgrades and things as well because some of that capital funding as well but again, those are questions best answered I think by those departments that would have the specifics, the total amount and exactly how they're going to execute.

 

MS. ZANN: The dredging of the rivers, like the North River and Salmon River, TIR?

 

MR. DELOREY: For that specific example, I'm being informed, the municipalities already have those funds transferred over to them because that was based on last year's initiatives.

 

MS. ZANN: Excellent. I also noticed that the science line item has increased by $400,000 but there isn't really much information there describing this in the budget documents. Would you mind please explaining what the division is responsible for and where the $400,000 increase is being spent?

 

MR. DELOREY: As far as the background on what the science division does, a lot of the science division is around bigger industrial types of work, as well as doing research for - I guess the scientific research that helped inform the department broadly speaking, and water as well. That $400,000 would predominantly be, I believe, salary-related pressures.

 

You are also I guess just looking at that Page 9.4 is where you're looking at that? Just if you look at that, going budget to budget, it's almost dollar for dollar the same. The increase of $400,000 is that last year they underspent their budget and, if you look at the last line on that page, the funded FTEs, you can see that they had several underfunded FTEs so the reason they underspent was because they didn't hire people for positions.

 

MS. ZANN: So the $400,000 under science . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: Was underspent in the last fiscal.

 

MS. ZANN: And you're saying that's salaries?

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes, this predominantly, and you can see that in the FTE numbers. If you look at the budgeted for 2013-14, there were about 30 FTEs but they only filled about 25 or 26 of them, so that would equate to about the $400,000, predominantly salaries and other benefits, total compensation there for the FTEs.

 

If you look at the estimate for this year, we're back up to over 30 employees in there forecasted, which basically puts it on par for the total departmental budget. Again, it really is explained by staff and I do have the intent of working hard to ensure we fill our vacancies this year. Again, having those people will ensure we can do a better job at delivering the programs and services and the work that we do. Having bums in the seats or boots on the ground is how we're going to deliver those programs and services most effectively.

 

MS. ZANN: I think the rest of my questions are probably going to take a little longer to answer so perhaps I should wait until the next round.

 

MR. DELOREY: Can I take a quick recess, Mr. Chairman?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will recess for five minutes.

 

[12:36 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[12:42 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will now come to order. Ms. MacFarlane for the PC caucus you have the floor.

 

MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Minister, I'm just going to go back to the budget for a couple of moments. I'm looking at, under Departmental Expenses, Grants and Contributions. I'm just wondering what that means and if there's money out there for organizations or school children to tap into if they're looking to do a project or some type of survey or anything.

 

MR. DELOREY: There's a variety of different ones. Some of them are programs and partnerships that have been established and some of those directly with organizations. Some of them are application-based, where applications come in and are assessed. Adaptation is a fund that we do have some dollars allocated to that can be open applications that gives us that flexibility, depending on what is being asked for.

 

Again, I mentioned earlier about education and we provide some funding when we sometimes get academic research proposals that come in and stuff that we're able to fund. I believe this year we also have a couple of conferences. There's an international and national conference that we're going to be hosting in Nova Scotia, in Halifax. There are some funds through there to offset the costs or cover the costs of hosting these events that are important to, again, the education and getting messaging out on various issues.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Great, thanks. Under Ordinary Recoveries, I just don't know what it is, is it something that is phasing out? I see there's a blank for this year and I don't know what it is.

 

MR. DELOREY: Ordinary Recoveries predominantly has to do with - it's an accounting issue, first of all. It's an accounting change adjustment and it predominantly relates to the RFB board and how those monies are accounted for in accounting. I think there have been a number of jokes about the number of CAs in your caucus.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: There has been but I'm not one of them.

 

MR. DELOREY: Basically the RFB historically there's a portion of revenue funds that they generate that gets allocated to the government. Historically it had been identified as Nova Scotia Environment funds but that's inconsistent with practice for other revenues that come into the province. It gets classified as ordinary revenue so you just see this as general revenue now in the province.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So we won't expect, like in next year's budget once again it will be blank, so it's not that . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: It's in general revenue and it just becomes part of our overall. It just removes some of the confusion and challenges there. It's just an accounting change of where money comes in and comes down.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, right on, thanks for that clarification.

 

MR. DELOREY: I believe that was done in part to be consistent with other programs of a similar - so it's a Department of Finance and Treasury Board rule change in how they account for that.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay. I'm going to get back a little bit to air emissions and monitoring, something I should have probably followed up on when I was speaking earlier about the mill and Boat Harbour. Maybe I'm wrong and I know you'll correct me, can the provincial government be sued by Northern Pulp or any other industry or business conducting business I guess in the province, because of enforcing regulations and standards that maybe they don't agree with?

 

I think this has something maybe to do with the federal government, too, but I'm just not sure how that works with our provincial.

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes, actually the questions from the NDP member with respect to the waste water and the Lafarge proposal, we had a fairly lengthy discussion around that. That is one of the problems, that we are restricted when standards and things are set, if we try to hold a particular organization to something different or higher than what other organizations may be expected to meet or abide by, that it would be deemed - I don't know the formal legal term but it would be a legal fairness assessment that could be called into question and open to the courts to rule on that.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: That must be very difficult for your department, to know that that's there I would think.

 

MR. DELOREY: Not just for the department but for myself. Like I said, I was in Truro last night for three hours, having a discussion with community members who, again, I very clearly heard their concerns and issues that were brought forward. But again, based on the evidence and the information before us, there are very limited options that are available legally.

 

Now that said, the question is how do we manage in light of that? Some people may choose to shirk that responsibility, stick their heads in the sand and just avoid the issues because they are uncomfortable. That's not the way that I want to approach them, I think it's far better to shed light on, be as open as possible and work towards - if there are challenges and issues that we work to try to address them. Those types of challenges and issues become not things that happen and can be changed overnight, they're things that have to be evaluated, researched, and we have to make the case for where changes and things might come. Those changes then wouldn't be on a company by company basis, they would be on a bigger industry kind of basis.

 

We do, as I mentioned in my introductory statements, as a department, take reviews of regulations and legislation seriously and update to stay on top and try to ensure that we are adopting standards and holding organizations to the appropriate standards, to ensure the health and safety of our environment and our people.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you. I'm just wondering with regard to specifically, I guess, in my area, if you can tell me how many monitoring stations there are in Pictou County?

 

MR. DELOREY: In Pictou County itself, one air monitoring station, I believe that the province has one.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: The province has one, and where is that?

 

MR. DELOREY: We'll have to get back to you, we'll have to look that up and get back to you.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I have a couple of other questions because I am curious to know, I've done a little bit of research in monitoring and I'm just wondering where the location is and what type of monitoring system it is.

 

MR. DELOREY: The actual technology?

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Yes. I guess like the brand, the type of measurement. Is your department comfortable with it? Is it accurate measuring, do you feel? How often is it reported to you - monthly?

MR. DELOREY: I don't get it, so when you say, reported to me . . .

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Your department, sorry.

 

MR. DELOREY: The system monitors continuously. The data comes in in real time. It's a real time system so the department has access to that data in a real time system.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So it's not like someone actually has to go physically to the monitoring station?

 

MR. DELOREY: We do have the map up here now - Mr. Chairman, I hope we are allowed to have electronic devices in this one - there is one in Pictou County and in Granton, which is nearby. They are both real time data that comes in to assess the air quality.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So it's located in Granton. That's the provincial one and then I believe . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: We have two. One is in Granton and one is in Pictou itself - the Municipality of Pictou. I guess it's a town.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Okay, so it's Pictou County, the municipality, but it's actually in the Town of Pictou? Is that located maybe by the Department of Fisheries pool?

 

MR. DELOREY: We'll have to grab the actual physical location.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: So are those monitoring as well as the emissions coming from the pulp mill?

 

MR. DELOREY: They would monitor the broad air at that site, so where the site, that's what it would be picking.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: There are no other monitoring systems that just go to the department right there in Granton for the mill?

 

MR. DELOREY: No, those two are broad because the nature of air, everything would mingle up to the point of the actual . . .

 

MS. MACFARLANE: I was just wondering if there were other smaller ones. I know some individuals have bought smaller - I don't know how great they are at gauging, but I know some individuals who have bought their own. I was just wondering if maybe the office in Granton put some other ones in different areas or one over in Boat Harbour or anything.

 

MR. DELOREY: Not that the department has. The ones that we do have are integrated. I made reference in my opening speech about an agreement that we made with our counterparts with respect to ground monitoring, water monitoring stations. This would be similar to that where these are part of a network of air monitoring that we have as part of a national network of systems. Again, so that real time nature you asked about - the standards would be consistent with those national standards being integrated there and would be similar to what you would be tracking and reporting in other parts of not just the province, but the country.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: As we all know, PM2.5 is a huge concern. We know that the U.S. EPA has been most aggressive in administering and keeping track of these PM2.5 targets. I'm just wondering, as a province, where do we stand in comparison to that?

 

MR. DELOREY: I just wanted to verify so I didn't misspeak because this is a file that, again as I mentioned, is active and was concerned. One of the things that I did do is reach out and - because of concerns around PM2.5 look to see, not just our department, but broader provincially, what we are doing in regard to this in informing ourselves.

 

With respect to your specific question about what we do in our department for PM2.5, it becomes part of the standards for each industrial approval for each site and the standards and requirements would be managed at that level as part of those approvals.

 

With respect to what I've been looking at and having staff dig into is actually reaching out to the Department of Health and Wellness and so there are still discussions ongoing there, to work with Health and Wellness to become better informed with respect to health effects and concerns around PM2.5. Those discussions as to what work we may be able to deliver in that regard between our departments is still ongoing, we haven't finalized that.

 

In addition, and these were again comments I made in response to the discussion with the NDP critic earlier. Again, the great thing about networks and in particular I think the fact that I connect back to the academic institutions - I became aware of a new academic that joined Dalhousie University that has some expertise in this area and through our networks became aware that this individual came here. We've reached out to the individual to see if the research they do would be consistent with the type of information that could help inform us, as a government, and our department. Again, discussions are ongoing.

 

This shows how we are connecting from a government perspective and my colleague in Labour and Advanced Education is looking at how we can leverage our academic institutions. It's a win-win type of situation where an academic researcher is looking to further their career, create publications but at the same time that work is being directly applicable and contributing in this context back to the government and the people of Nova Scotia in a big way.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Well I'm glad to hear that. I know that your department over the years, and long before either myself or you got involved in politics, they stated on different occasions and in articles I read that they were not necessarily where they want to be with concerns to PM2.5. I'm sure you're all aware that WHO, the World Health Organization, has announced and has gone out there and put it out there that it is directly related to cancer. I don't think anyone can deny that anymore and it's for certain that Pictou County can't deny it when we are known to have the highest rate of cancer, to have the highest rate of asthma, to have the highest rate of MS, next to Sydney. It speaks volumes.

 

It is a no-brainer. No one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out what has to be done here. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to act. I know you guys have stated - I think this is the mission, that "Nova Scotia Environment provides leadership through science based decision making and regulation to ensure that our environment is valued, protected and improved." I do think there is a lack of stringent standards.

 

I hope that in your tenure of four years and hopefully beyond, that we will see a difference in this because we really are way, way behind.

 

MR. DELOREY: Well not to be flippant but I appreciate your encouragement that you want me to be in this position for more than four years. Again, a very serious issue that you brought up and as my first response indicated, I am taking it seriously, I am engaging. I am aware of that study that came out - I believe it was in the Fall, it might have been in the late summer when that report came out. It is about making science-based information decisions.

 

Again, the science and the expertise within Nova Scotia Environment is not health-related, that is why we are reaching out to the Department of Health and Wellness to help us review and interpret and get engaged on fully understanding those, so that we can make those decisions in terms of how do we then respond and adopt. Certainly you're going to see in my tenure, as long as I have time to do it, movement in that front. Certainly residents of Pictou County can congratulate themselves because my awareness has been significantly informed by people in that community, their activism and their work to bring these issues to the attention of the government.

 

While they may not have been satisfied in the past that their voices have been heard, again I assure you, your colleagues from Pictou Centre and Pictou East, you can go back and let the residents know. I am hearing it is not the type of thing that you can see the fruits of that labour instantaneously. These are longstanding, challenging issues. We need to make sure that we go about it in the right way but certainly I am working to make sure we do see progress.

 

Again, the great thing when looking for bright lights in complex files and challenging files is that as we get informed, although it is this file, this challenging issue in your community that brings this information to our attention, by being informed at the provincial level, all residents of Nova Scotia will serve to benefit because as we become a regulator and we apply standards and adopt standards, it would be to the benefit of all Nova Scotians. I see that as a very tremendous contribution from the people of Pictou.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you very much. I know I've asked a lot of questions about my area, and I certainly care about the whole province, but I look forward to having an open, honest and sincere dialogue. I think Nova Scotians do realize that Boat Harbour and the pulp mill in Pictou West are a number one priority for this province. It has been long overdue.

 

I have just one quick question and I think you can answer it pretty quickly before I turn it over to the member for Pictou East.

 

MR. DELOREY: You have a lot of faith in me and my quick answers. I thought I demonstrated I don't respond to anything quickly.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Well this one is fairly quick because it's fresh in your mind and mine. I know you met the other day with Sean Kirby and Mr. Chandler, as well as I did. I found their information quite interesting and something that's very workable. I know that Mr. Chandler has been investing a lot of time and effort into moving forward here in the province with recycling. I find his proposal quite fascinating and actually doable. I'm just wondering if you have had a chance to take the information as well and make any judgment yet on his delivery.

 

MR. DELOREY: I did have that meeting. I received and I reviewed the proposal and there are some interesting things and some things that I think we're going to be looking to work with them on. I think what is not necessarily highlighted in there, though, are some of the fantastic things that our department and our province are already doing with respect to recycling and waste management.

 

In fact you may not be aware that Nova Scotia is the leading province, by leaps and bounds, in waste reduction and diversion from our landfills and we are continuing to work towards our EGSPA goal of reducing our landfill output to 300 kilograms per person. We're currently at about - I think in the last update it was 377 kilograms, so we've got about 77 kilograms to go. The recycling of bottles and how we can get that in public spaces are certainly some great initiatives.

 

In the context of the way we already do business, which is a proven mechanism and approach, clearly the results speak for themselves. Some of what that proposal includes, though, would have potentially adverse effects on some of the existing programs and recommends some changes in how we currently do things. So short of being able to turn around and say we're going to execute, we have to evaluate and consider whether the net effects - because that's what we're most concerned with - are going to be positive to the Province of Nova Scotia. That's part of why it takes a bit of time.

 

If we were to adopt it just as a province and take that as policy and the way that we approach things, it would have ripple effects throughout other waste management initiatives within the province, based on the current configuration, so it's not one that I'm going to be willing to sit here and say we'll adopt wholly but certainly one that has some interesting elements to it, one that my staff are looking at. They see some things they do like and certainly we'll continue to look at that and see what aspects we can take from it to enhance, but we'll only be looking at things that will enhance our ability to continue towards our waste diversion targets and goals.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Great, thank you so very much. I'll pass it over.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome, Mr. Houston.

 

MR. TIM HOUSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was an incredibly short answer. If the minister was a comedian, he would not be the king of one-liners.

 

It's a pleasure to be here today. I guess before we start, I think I've got about a half hour left in our time, I don't know if the minister would like a quick break.

 

MR. DELOREY: No, I had one before the last one and there's only a little bit of water left in the jug.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Okay, good stuff. Well I'm sure you will not be surprised by the subjects that I will ask questions on today.

 

MR. DELOREY: You mean the budget? The accountant asking questions about the budget, not surprised at all.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Before we get there, I do have a couple of questions about Boat Harbour. We know the Liberal Party passed a resolution that called for the immediate cleanup of Boat Harbour and I think we all know why they would have done that, because what's happening there is not fair; it's not acceptable to Nova Scotians. We have the resolution that went through and yet just a couple of short weeks later we have your department preparing to extend the existing permit. Those are a couple of things that are a little bit difficult to reconcile in my mind and I'm sure that's something you're probably struggling with as well. I know there would be a number of factors that go into your decision.

 

It's not an easy decision but I just wonder - I guess my direct question would be, when the new permit is issued or when the extension is issued, however the terminology goes, are there any new stipulations or requirements or is it just kind of business as it was?

 

MR. DELOREY: To clarify, an extension would be business as usual, so to speak. So the extension is to maintain the current operating parameters, to ensure that as part of our renewal application we are making informed decisions as to what changes, if any, to the terms and conditions would be.

 

This question had come up earlier in the discussion so essentially there are a number of factors, as you indicated, that influenced that decision. Some of it is we did engage, through the process, with the First Nations community at Pictou Landing and they provided an 800-page document outlining their concerns or their position with respect to the proposed continuation of the operation.

 

That 800-page document takes some time to review. We received it just a couple of weeks ago, so to review that and see how it fits within the context of what they're looking for or asking to be considered and how it may inform the decision, we didn't have enough time, given when we received that input and when the deadline was for basically that the existing industrial approval would run out.

 

If we didn't extend it - so we have kind of two decision points, then; you either don't extend it and they're no longer allowed to operate and we have that situation, or we extend it and allow us to assess the information, to make informed decisions, or we renew it but we can't really make fully-informed decisions because we'd have to rush through the material and have limited opportunity to see how it can best be addressed in the renewal.

 

So instead, in light of that and some other factors, for example we would like to extend the notion of consultation to the broader community. That's not standard practice with renewal applications for industrial approvals although it is part of a requirement for new industrial approvals. So in part, an effort to again make the best informed decision and part of the extension requirements is to have the proponent engage in public consultation so that we can have all voices represented in considering how the government proceeds in reviewing and assessing the renewal application for that industrial approval, to allow for adequate time, both for us to assess the information, to allow for meaningful consultation to take place and then to review the results of that additional information again, on top of the other projects that our staff are having deadlines that will come in approximately that same time frame is where we ended up picking the January 30^th date for extending the existing to allow for sufficient time to ensure we've properly assessed, evaluated, all of the information given adequate time to ensure all voices can be heard on this.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Thank you very much. I'm glad you referred to the people of the Pictou Landing First Nations because obviously they are constituents of mine but also friends of mine. I live very close to Boat Harbour, very close to the First Nations. These are people who my kids chum around with and go to school with and play sports with and stuff.

 

The people of the Pictou Landing First Nations feel that even the extension is contrary to the agreement that it had reached with the government way back in 1995, which was a Liberal Government at the time. That was an agreement that required Boat Harbour to be closed by a certain date, which then got extended and we are where we are today.

 

It was also at that time back in 1995 that the government of the day assumed financial responsibility for Boat Harbour. That was a separate agreement that was reached with the mill owners at the time - the Liberal Government reached an agreement with the mill owners that the province would assume responsibility for Boat Harbour. So I don't think there's any doubt that the province has a responsibility to consult with the First Nations and I think you've been pretty clear that that's going to happen but that consultation has to take place.

 

I guess what I'm curious about is a couple of things; if there wasn't time to have maybe a proper consultation before the extension was granted, that seems like somebody might have dropped the ball there, that maybe the process should have been started quite a bit earlier to get the consultation in.

 

I guess my question is kind of two-fold; maybe you can comment on that and then maybe just a little more, you can maybe describe to us what the term "consult" actually means in your mind.

 

MR. DELOREY: Okay, you made several references to the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party basically setting up the stage for the province's liability with respect to Boat Harbour. I want to clarify the record for the fact that the liability for Boat Harbour was always, right from day one, when the Progressive Conservative Government of the day brought this mill to the Province of Nova Scotia and the community of Pictou.

 

At that time the province was the owner and operator of the Boat Harbour facility. What happened in the 1990s was that the operation of the Boat Harbour facility was transferred to the mill owners; that is, the operation of the facility was no longer being conducted by the government. As part of that, the government of the day acknowledged and maintained liability for the facility but that liability was already pre-existing. What they did was transferred responsibility for the day-to-day operation of that facility to the mill owner. As part of reaching that agreement they documented and accepted the liability - that's that indemnity thing - but that is simply accepting the liability and responsibility that the province always held since the Progressive Conservative Government of the day brought this mill to the province.

 

I would appreciate that again, not wanting to politicize this particular issue, that you don't - it serves no valuable purpose on this file to be going back and trying to hash out and score political points with respect to whose responsibility the various stages of this challenging file presents the province and the people of Pictou, Pictou Landing and the broader Pictou community - Pictou First Nations and Pictou community at large.

 

I do hope as we go forward with this file that we can put those assertions aside, whether they be here or in the House when questions are raised because I personally find it serves no productive purpose and I did just need to clarify that because there were several comments about which, if left on record uncorrected, would lead people to assume that it was a Liberal Government's responsibility or they somehow were giving some special deal to the mill back in the 1990s when that operating agreement was reached.

 

With respect to the notion of consultation and allowing the time, again with respect to the Pictou Landing First Nations community, as part of standard operating practice they reached out to us, as part of the renewal process, and asked for input. That input was provided to us but it was provided very near to the deadline and it was a very substantive document that was provided, as I said, an 800-page document.

 

To have sufficient time for us to review that document and make informed decisions, based upon the concerns and wishes and input and feedback provided by that community through that process, we did need more time. We wouldn't have been able to have an informed decision with respect to making a renewal decision by the deadline, which is today, I believe, the 17^th. Based on when we received that document, we didn't have time and therein lies one of the many variables for extending the existing industrial approval to allow us to make sure we do properly review and assess and take into consideration that input and feedback through that process with Pictou Landing First Nation.

 

With respect to the broader consultation, you made reference to dropping the ball. Where that process comes into play is that it's not standard operating practice and industrial approvals are managed by staff directly. What I have looked at is when looking at the possibility - sorry, I said the 17^th, that renewal deadline is actually the 19^th of April, just to clarify that, it's in two days, the 19^th is the deadline, not the 17^th.

 

MR. HOUSTON: While we're on that then, if you could, so the deadline is the 19^th. Presumably there was a deadline before that, which was to submit information and that's what you're referring to, the 800-page document that came in close to that?

 

MR. DELOREY: No, the 19^th, just like two weeks ago, I believe it was two weeks ago, roughly, that we received the document, so we've had it for about two weeks.

 

MR. HOUSTON: You've had it for two weeks but that wasn't enough time. Was there information given out to the community that if you want to provide information on this, you had better provide it by a certain date?

 

MR. DELOREY: Again, that consultation, that information is the Pictou Landing First Nation aspect of engagement and consultation with specifically the Pictou Landing First Nation and through them.

 

With respect to - and this is what I was just getting to before making that clarification - with respect to broader public consultation, that is not part of the standard renewal process and renewals of industrial approvals are done by the local office staff out in the field that are assigned these files for an industrial approval and staff follow the guidelines and traditionally have never been asked to do - and this is standard practice - a public consultation piece with renewals and industrial approvals.

 

When it looked like we were going to have to extend, I thought it only appropriate, given this particular file, because at that point it came to my attention in terms of staff not being prepared or ready to make a decision on this file for the renewal. I want to be clear, industrial approvals and the decision of the approval is not mine, it does not come to my desk, it gets handled in the field office. But the decision to extend, I was made aware of and it was at that point that I asked to look into the possibility - well the fact that it came to my attention that the broader public consultation was not part of the renewal process, I felt it was appropriate to incorporate it and that resulted in looking at an extension that would go beyond just the time needed to look at that 800-page document but to provide opportunity for consultation with the broader public at large.

 

You asked the question, what does that mean and what does that look like? The practice within government and within the department, with respect to consultation in our department anyway, is much like many of the aspects of our department, were not prescriptive. We do not dictate explicitly what it entails but the proponent is responsible to provide a proposal, a report of what their consultation would look like and then we would sign off on that as being an acceptable or unacceptable means of consultation.

 

So as far as reaching out and having the proponent engage in consultation, the first step would be then that they come back with a proposal as to what they are suggesting they will perform for consultation and we will evaluate, to determine if we think that would be acceptable or not. So at this point what that consultation may or may not look like is not defined.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Okay, thank you very much. Just before we leave Boat Harbour I guess I would say that neither you nor I or any of the members around this table, or possibly anyone in this room was really involved in this file back in 1995.

 

MR. DELOREY: Or in 1967.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Or in 1960s. But that being said that doesn't give us the opportunity to rewrite history and the only reason that I feel that history is important on this file, because tomorrow is more important than yesterday on this file, but there is a lot of yesterdays on this file and there has been a lot of expectations that have been set up and there is a lot of disappointment experienced by people in Pictou County and including the First Nations.

 

Unfortunately for the minister he has inherited a lot of that disappointment and it's now kind of riding on your shoulders and it is in the minds of people in the surrounding areas. It's more of "Well, a political Party told us this then and we haven't seen anything." Now lo and behold that same political Party is back in power and they're saying things, so this is what we have to deal with and I agree this is not about scoring points for me this is about looking for a solution and we will be holding you to a high standard on the solution that comes forward.

 

In the same vein, just before we leave that, I think we can do political talk as much as we want but to have a consultation with people, to consult with people is a very simple thing, and it means talking to people. Unfortunately we have the situation here where we have a group of people that says they weren't consulted on something that they should have been consulted on.

 

Now you have a response to that as well, you provided your document too late in the process for us to have time, I think that's an unfortunate response. I wish consult will actually be sit down and talk about it and if you want to follow that up - I mean these are all things that impact people's point of view and the member for Pictou West can kind of stay on this one and so can I because we are living in that area.

 

MR. DELOREY: Listen, I encourage you, and encourage both of you to stay on this file, and like I said, to ask the questions of the House and to look for updates and to make sure that the department and I are staying true to our word that this is an active file. What I was noting was that it's not serving any of us any value in trying to politicize that and scoring those points in history.

 

The references to what was promised, I guess I'll just ask you to clarify again what specifically you said, that this Party, the Liberal Party, was in power when a promise was made about the facility. Can you just explicitly state what that promise was that was not fulfilled by a previous iteration of the Liberal Government.

 

MR. HOUSTON: I think the agreement in 1995 between the province and the people of Pictou and the First Nations was that Boat Harbour would be closed by 2005, and then that was extended and stuff like that. But that's neither here nor there for today, I mean that's really - I don't want to use up, you know where we're at and I'm getting a sense of where you're at and I respect where you're at.

 

MR. DELOREY: Again, in terms of the Pictou Landing First Nation and the notion of consultation, you know sitting down, that that would be a preferred approach. In terms of the engagement and how we go about engaging the First Nations community through consultation, the relationship for government is generally coordinated through the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. So through our department they reach out through that department to engage and advise the First Nations communities. Again, this would be a similar process to any other file.

 

The response we received was just that document, so in terms of sitting down, you said if you'd sit down and have the conversation, had that been the response that was brought to our attention, that that was what the community wanted to do, that would have been the approach we would have taken.

 

Indeed, just recently I did receive an invitation from Chief Paul from the Pictou Landing First Nation to have a meeting. When I saw that invitation, within hours I responded in the affirmative and it's just a matter of finding the mutually acceptable time that fits both of our schedules that is set up to have that meeting face-to-face. Again, I would see that as part of the consultation process going forward.

 

MR. HOUSTON: I appreciate that and I certainly take you at your word on that. I have no doubt you'll do that.

 

Just to move on from Boat Harbour, I'd like to talk about the Nova Scotia Power generating plant in Trenton. We talked to people in the community of Hillside, I think you're probably familiar with the Hillside coalition. They are concerned about the number of - to use a technical term from an accountant talking about environment - blowouts from some of these and the fly ash blowouts.

 

I guess my question to you would be, is any blowout acceptable? Is a blowout just a fact of life in that business?

 

MR. DELOREY: There are in this context, in terms of technically from an operating perspective, older facilities with older equipment, just like our cars, if you have an older vehicle you can have more difficult times, at times, so you'll have more issues that have to be dealt with. In this case, those blowouts that may occur would be a result of, again, older equipment that you would expect, over time, to see happen more frequently than a brand new facility with brand new equipment.

 

So relatively, yes, it would be an operating perspective, something you would expect. From a standards perspective, what we look at are the standards and the guidelines for emissions that come out and what those thresholds would be and whether those blowouts would exceed the standards for the approval for that particular type of operation and so on is what gets monitored and assessed and again, corrective action gets taken by the inspectors through a variety of channels, depending on the incident that takes place.

 

With respect to how a community can respond, if they feel or at any time they have concerns that they don't think Nova Scotia Environment may be aware or if they have concerns that they don't believe that the company is adequately or appropriately reporting, if they see or believe that there has been an event - and this would apply to that facility or any facility or any incident in the province that has adverse effects to the environment that they are concerned about, to notify the local office and then an inspector would go out, assess the situation and make determinations and take appropriate action at the time.

 

If that's not happening, then certainly that's the type of information that I need brought to the attention of the managers and myself, so we can see if we're falling down somewhere, that we need to pick up our socks.

 

MR. HOUSTON: So does Nova Scotia Power report the events to the department?

MR. DELOREY: Yes, through standard reporting, the emissions and problems would come up so that should be reported as part of that process.

 

MR. HOUSTON: And is there a time frame that they have to report it by - like within a certain number of hours?

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes, I'd have to look at that level of technical . . .

 

MR. HOUSTON: My question that I was kind of trying to lead up to was, what's the most recent event that was reported there?

 

MR. DELOREY: Those are managed at the site office, in particular. I haven't seen a specific one, we'll have to get back to you with that information but we will.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Okay, so the most recent event and maybe the number of events over the last two years, something like that.

 

What I'm trying to get my head around is, if we were to look at a number of events at that facility over the last two years, is there some number that we would say well, there's only X number of events and that's just the way it is, or we could say well there was Y number and that's too many, so we need to take some action here. I can't really get my mind around what is the action.

 

MR. DELOREY: So would you like to see as well then what the standard of the acceptable levels would be so that you know what the standard is and where that trigger would be where they would fall into non-compliance to know what that standard is? Along with the number of events and you can see where they have or have not fallen into non-compliance over that period of time?

 

MR. HOUSTON: Yes, that would be helpful and I appreciate that. I know from talking to people in the community that they have - I think they've spoken to you but if not they've spoken to the Minister of Energy as well and probably even both of you, and I think you are due to come up there and I look forward to joining that. One of the things they've taken a bit of comfort in is that they have been informed that kind of addressing this situation is a priority of the government. I'm just trying to manage my own expectations for that as well as manage their expectations a little bit.

 

When somebody hears that something is a priority, that means something to them in terms of timeline and the way they interpret it may be unrealistic or it may be completely realistic - it's just hard to say on different things. Assuming it was your office that they heard from that this is a priority, what does priority mean to you in this sense? Would it be that this is something that there would be fewer events by the time we get to the end of your mandate?

 

MR. DELOREY: It is one of many important files that we have in our department. The meeting - and I think it contributes in some part to the awareness of being a priority - was very early in our mandate that three ministers met with a group of concerned citizens there which included Health and Wellness and taking the concerns very seriously. All three of us indicated we would be looking at it.

 

As far as dealing with the particular site from an environmental perspective is looking at and assessing and determining again what the standards are, what is the potential environmental risk through the process when there is non-compliance or they exceed those standards. As well as requiring Nova Scotia Power which is actually the proponent or the owner-operator of the facility to continue working with the community on the file and moving this forward.

 

What does that end game look like? That's still a little bit up in the air because, like many things, these facilities exist because they serve a purpose. They came into existence to fulfill a purpose and what are the effects if that facility were to close down and whether it's going in pulp or the Trenton power plant. There are other effects at play there as well.

 

From my department's perspective, our primary - although we have to do some balance with economic factors - our primary concern is health and environmental effects to the broader environment and people.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Thank you. I believe there's a concept of test-burn permits which the department will sometimes issue to facilities that will allow them to burn material for investigative purposes. Is there any test-burn permits issued to any companies in Pictou County at the moment?

 

MR. DELOREY: To my knowledge, that test-burn permit approach no longer is the practice. Any industrial burn types of activities, as I understand it, would fall under industrial approvals and so the standards that would be set and the monitoring conditions, the terms and conditions around it would be outlined through the industrial approval for their operations.

 

MR. HOUSTON: So there are none? There are no test burns going on in Pictou County?

 

MR. DELOREY: To my knowledge, on a test or a temporary or a pilot basis, they would have to apply for it. If they have an existing industrial approval, they would have to apply for an amendment to allow a change in what they are doing.

 

MR. HOUSTON: I'm going to switch up. There is a concept of field fertilizer produced by the company Enviro which is human waste which has kind of been spun and cleansed and is then applied to fields. Are there any places in the province that you're aware of where raw human sewage is applied to fields?

 

MR. DELOREY: I'm not aware of any although I can say that I was in Truro, coincidentally enough, just a week and a half ago, at a Waste Water Nova Scotia event. There was an owner of a biowaste operation who approached me to discuss that they have some interest in pursuing an activity like that, but to my knowledge there are none active and this individual was just expressing some interest in exploring the potential in that, doing something like that in their space. But as far as I'm aware, there is no raw sewage in agriculture use.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Okay, presumably you are aware of the Maritime Steel operation in Pictou County and some of the challenges that company has had in trying to get proper financing and getting back up and running, so to speak. One of the things that has been kind of stopping them from getting up and running and, to be fair, there's probably a couple of things, but one of them is certainly the lack of environmental permits and permitting from that.

 

It's my understanding that one of the permits that's really kind of slowing down the whole process is a permit that they can only obtain after they are in operation, so it's a bit of chicken and egg. I mean you might not be as intimately familiar with that file and I have to confess that I'm not either, but just a general question of, are you aware of what permits they may be waiting for and is there anything we can do to kind of help them?

 

MR. DELOREY: I guess we'd have to get back to you on the specifics. You caught me by a big surprise with the suggestion that there would be an environmental permit that they could only obtain after they are already operating because really from an approval process in Nova Scotia Environment, there are really two main categories; one is your industrial approval, which is evaluated and decisions are made by the staff in the field offices that are assigned the file, in this case an industrial file; and then environmental assessments.

 

The legislation regulations outline what types of activities would trigger an environmental assessment, which is a bit of a bigger process. Even within environmental assessments there are Class A and B or Class 1 and 2 environmental assessments, depending on the nature and size and scope of the potential adverse effects of certain activities.

 

On the basis of that, both the industrial approval and environmental assessments are approvals that would be required before operations take place, so the notion of something that might need to be required, once they are operating, doesn't really fit with what our mandate is so there might be some confusion and misunderstanding there.

 

With respect to any outstanding applications that may be before the department, we can reach out to the field office and we'll get back to you on that.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Okay, thanks. That's actually helpful, I appreciate that.

 

In terms of asbestos disposal, presumably there are a number of asbestos disposal sites around the province? I don't know if you can tell me how many there might be.

 

MR. DELOREY: Asbestos, by the nature of that product, the Province of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Environment, regulates storage of asbestos but the federal government regulates and manages disposal of it, so that would be something to defer to the federal department.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Well would it be safe to say that it gets disposed of to a storage facility and stays there?

 

MR. DELOREY: If it goes to a storage facility, that's not disposal. Disposal would be basically the end result and it ceases to be.

 

MR. HOUSTON: That's an important question.

 

MR. DELOREY: Distinction.

 

MR. HOUSTON: Thank you for that. How many asbestos storage facilities might there be around the province?

 

MR. DELOREY: We'd have to look at up. I don't know but we will get that back to you.

 

I do want to clarify, too, in terms of if there was a new asbestos storage facility, and when they come into existence, that would be one of those activities that would require an environmental assessment level of review before coming into operation, so it goes through a more stringent review process.

 

Did you see the hockey game last night? Do you want to work through your two minutes? How happy were you with those results?

 

MR. HOUSTON: I'm perfecting my ability to talk out a clock, as you saw. But I don't see the need to practise that right now. I would say that I appreciate your comments today, you have the task - unfortunate or otherwise - of dealing with files that every single one of them is very sensitive to the people in those communities. That's not an enviable task and I sympathize with you but I will say that I have been impressed with your responsiveness. Don't take my stating of political facts from the odd time to heart, it is not meant to be and I appreciate the job you're doing and I thank you for your answers today.

 

MR. DELOREY: Thank you very much and just to note, you're right. In some ways it's not an enviable task because it is so complicated and concerning with people that are touched by all of these issues. We've talked about some specific ones and there are many more files and they're not all large ones that affect entire communities, sometimes they are small ones that affect an individual home owner or person in the province.

I take each and every one of them to heart, I really do. While it's a challenging process in that context, the enviable piece is when we're able to see progress, when we're able to move some of these files forward, when we're able to see that we're doing it and I see that we're establishing and re-establishing trust with people, that we're doing things the right way and hearing from you that we're on the right track. I don't expect you to stop keeping my feet to the fire on those files that are important to you. I appreciate that.

 

MR. HOUSTON: We're done with questions to the minister.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We'll turn it over to Ms. Zann from the NDP caucus.

 

MS. LENORE ZANN: I'm going to start with Otter Lake. We've heard conflicting things - have you already answered this question today?

 

MR. DELOREY: No, I have a colleague who wanted to ask questions about the same topic, potentially, so I think he's going to be quite happy that you're asking them for him.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay. We have heard conflicting things from your government around the Otter Lake waste processing facility. On the one hand the Premier has said that he'd respect any decision by HRM that they made but on the other hand it appears to me that you've said that you stand by the previous NDP Environment Minister's decision that the facility's permits would not be amended before they expire in 2020. Could you just clarify this for us? Will you respect the HRM's decision even if it means the site is closed or have you directed staff not to accept any amendments to the current permits?

 

MR. DELOREY: We don't have any application before us, so that's the first part, so in terms of directing staff on anything for the file, it's not applicable because until we see an actual request - and this would go for any file, any proponent - there's no action for staff to consider.

 

With respect to my comments about not entertaining changes to, or amending the existing industrial approval, that remains but I don't see that as mutually exclusive of respecting the authority and the rights of the HRM to review, debate and make decisions that they choose. It would be their decision to request the department to look at amendments or to choose not to request the department. I believe the Premier and I both continue to respect their authority to make those decisions on behalf of their constituents themselves.

 

What happens with the actions they take, based upon the decisions they make and have the authority to do, would then influence what actions and steps get taken by our department if any applications were to come forward at that time.

 

MS. ZANN: So you're saying that you have not received any requests at all?

 

MR. DELOREY: There is no application for any amendments to that facility.

 

MS. ZANN: So no applications yet. Do you foresee any at any time soon? Anything that you've heard?

 

MR. DELOREY: Those types of things would be at the discretion of the proponent, in this case HRM as the facility owner, I believe HRM would be making that application if they were so inclined to do so, but I've not been advised. As far as anything I know about that file, to be perfectly honest, in terms of HRM making any decisions is what I read about in the media just like many other people in the province. When it's before council there is certainly some discussion. When you ask if I've heard anything about it - certainly a lot of discussion about it in the Fall, a little bit early in the New Year, but again, at those times, no actual applications ever came forward to our office or my department and since then either. It sits where it is and it sits with HRM and again respect their decision whatever they choose to do or not do on the file.

 

MS. ZANN: So, is your colleague - which colleague is it?

 

MR. DELOREY: Mr. Rankin.

 

MS. ZANN: Are you satisfied with that answer or would you like to ask another question about that particular issue?

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rankin.

 

MR. IAIN RANKIN: I guess I'm fine with where we're at right now because he is correct in saying that HRM has not made that application so the province really doesn't have any channel of stopping them from having meetings and exploring changes to Otter Lake and so I respect that. We have to watch where our jurisdiction starts and ends. Certainly as the person who represents the community, I don't agree with any of the changes that are being put forward. We'll have to see what they decide, which is coming up next month in May and then react appropriately. I don't have any questions for the minister today.

 

MS. ZANN: Just wanted to give you that opportunity in case you needed it. Speaking of another issue that also is a little bit convoluted because it involves HRM's bylaws is of course the fact that Halifax is considering repealing the redundant pesticide bylaw.

 

Last week HRM council apparently took the first step towards repealing the municipality's pesticide regulations and it has a lot of citizen groups very concerned, as you know. The repeal would bring HRM's bylaws in line with the current practice. City staff stopped administering the P-800 bylaw in 2011 when provincial legislation on the sale of domestic pesticides came into effect. The new provincial law was considered to make the HRM bylaw redundant, but proponents of HRM's bylaw say that's not the case.

So the Pesticide-Free Nova Scotia group has written to the Halifax mayor and council asking them not to repeal the pesticide bylaw because it offers important protections not covered by provincial law. I have a letter that was written to the mayor sent March 30, 2014. It says:

 

Dear Mayor,

 

I'm writing you today because of a staff recommendation regarding pesticides. The recommendation in question, as you no doubt already know, suggests that the municipal bylaws around pesticide use are the same as the provincial legislation, and therefore superfluous. As you also already know, such redundancy is an absolutely false claim. The municipal bylaw offers far more protection from pesticide exposure than the provincial legislation.

 

You will hear from many people over the next few days and hours about this issue, so I won't repeat all of the important information about how our current bylaw has benefited the citizens of the HRM. Rather, I would like to ask you an earnest question and I sincerely hope you can take the time to reply. I really want to hear your thoughts as to why this change would be suggested? We know that if (sic) was offered to council as simply clearing up a redundancy. We also know that the bylaw is not at all redundant. All that being true - which it is -, why would staff have framed this change in this way? Was it simply by mistake? If so, obviously that is an oversight that amounts to gross negligence and puts the public at risk. If this is the case, should we not investigate? Even more concerning is the possibility that this was purposefully presented in a misleading manner. If so, what is the real motivation for changing our rules governing pesticides? Do you believe that it's possible that someone was trying to intentionally mislead others regarding these changes? If so, that too is incredibly concerning and warrants an investigation. Do you see another possibility? I would truly appreciate if you could offer your thoughts as to why you believe this was proposed.

 

As for my own point of view, I think we should reject these proposed changes and keep the rules we now have in place. As far as I know, I don't suffer from any immediate negative effects from pesticides. Do you? Does someone you know? While I don't suffer, I know others do. The restrictions we've placed on pesticides have made the HRM a safe place for many people who are effected (sic) by these chemicals. People have no doubt moved here and otherwise contributed to the region because we made a safe place for them. Along with the many effected (sic) individuals that now call this their home, we should be cognizant that people care about environmental issues in general. When we are trying to attract people to our city, we shouldn't remove one of our greatest selling-points.

 

Thank you for reading this letter and I look forward to receiving your reply.

 

What exactly is the state of province versus HRM laws around pesticides and cosmetic pesticide use?

 

MR. DELOREY: I guess that's the first thing and the biggest thing to highlight there. As the letter outlines, HRM as a municipal body, has the authority to implement bylaws and enact and manage those bylaws as they see fit. Per the comments around Otter Lake, I would stand by the point that certainly we, as a government, and I, as an individual, respect their autonomy and authority they have to operate that way. So in the space in regard to what they do or don't do with their bylaws, that is their jurisdiction to do as, again, they have the authority to.

 

With respect to the final part of the question as to what is the status between the two, they were separate. They are independent pieces of - well ours is legislation and there's a bylaw and they were different, in terms of some aspects of them. As far as the intent behind them, I think a lot of similarities in terms of the intent to control and contain and restrict basically what was formerly essentially uncontrolled use of pesticides.

 

What staff are doing within Nova Scotia Environment now is, while still respecting the HRM's authority in making their decision around this file, they are working with HRM staff to understand what aspects and issues or concerns and what the effects of any changes, if they were so inclined to make to their bylaw, would have and whether or not that may result in recommendations internally within the province's perspective that we may see worthy of adopting changes. That would all be too early to speculate. I haven't seen any recommendations from staff, staff are still busy gathering information and reviewing.

 

Again, I go back to my opening statements where I indicate part of our everyday operating, ongoing activities, that staff are there evaluating and updating information and knowledge so that they can then make recommendations with respect to our policies, guidelines and regulations and legislation that can come forward so that we can continue to do what we are legislated to do, as a regulatory body.

 

MS. ZANN: Thank you for that answer. So we know that in May 2010 the province passed the pesticide Act and provisions of this Act were phased in and came into full effect on April 1, 2012. The Act prohibits the use and sale of some pesticides while allowing certain pesticides to be used and sold. The list of allowed pesticides under the Environment Act and Pesticide Regulations is now the same as those permitted under Bylaw P-800 and Administrative Order 23.

 

So HRM's Bylaw P-800 and Administrative Order 23 were subsequently superseded by provincial legislation and are now redundant, supposedly, and these matters are now dealt with by the province. This is the answer that this gentleman received from a Brenda Murphy Jollimore, Communications Liaison Coordinator for Halifax Regional Municipality, so would you agree with that assessment?

 

MR. DELOREY: In terms of the list? Like I said, we don't have - and certainly not here - the exact list of what's in their bylaw. That's not something we do on a regular basis, reviewing that, because it is under the purview of the HRM staff. That's not something that we've directly assessed to do a comparative like that so we're unable to actually answer that.

 

MS. ZANN: It sounds like she's saying, the Office of the Mayor is saying, that the provisions of our provincial Act were phased in and came into full effect on April 1, 2012 and that the Act prohibits the use and sale of some pesticides while allowing certain pesticides be used and sold. It says that the list of allowed pesticides under the Pesticides Act and Regulations is now the same as those permitted under Bylaw P-800 and Administrative Order 23. So she's saying they're now the same and that both of those were subsequently superseded by provincial legislation and are now redundant, and that these matters are now dealt with by the province. That's what the mayor's office is saying.

 

My next question is, apparently this Pesticide-Free Nova Scotia reported that they conducted a survey of 21 retailers in Nova Scotia in late 2013 and they found that only three were in full compliance with the province's rules. They said 14 stores had controlled pesticides available directly to consumers without trained staff consultation, and the 2013 audit that they did showed that compliance with provincial pesticide regulations had actually gotten worse since the law first came into effect in 2011.

 

The HRM bylaw, however, has seen more success. Over eight years that the pesticide bylaw program ran, the number of approved applications for controlled pesticide use dropped dramatically from 3,505 in 2003 to just 43 in 2010. The number of public complaints under the bylaw also dropped significantly down from 400 in 2001 to just 19 in 2010, but they say that doesn't mean we should stop enforcing the bylaw and that's what some long-time anti-pesticide activists are saying, including one lady named Florence Senay. She says, "It's like a stop sign. You don't say, well, we might as well take it away because no one has been hit by a car in a long time." She is calling for HRM to not only leave P-800 on the books, but to start enforcing it again.

 

HRM's pesticide program cost about $150,000 per year until 2010 when costs dropped to roughly $30,000. So far councillors have passed the first reading of the bylaw that will repeal P-800, and Councillor Jennifer Watts voted in favour of first reading but then expressed concern about the inclusion of the pesticide bylaw. She says, "That was a very important piece of legislative work done by HRM. I would like to see this come to the Environment and Sustainability Committee."

 

The Pesticide-Free Nova Scotia Coalition includes the Ecology Action Centre, the Canadian Cancer Society and Real Alternates to Toxins in the Environment, among others. My question is, are you - with the extra staff that you're going to be hiring - going to now be able to check on and do a survey of your own about these different retailers in Nova Scotia who apparently only three were in full compliance with the province's rules?

 

MR. DELOREY: I guess a couple of things - I'm aware of that study. I became aware of it. That group brought it to my attention themselves when they completed their study. I actually had a meeting with the group as well in person to discuss the results. In addition, staff also reached out and worked with them. As I understand it, the results - and I'm not attempting to suggest intentionally, but there may be some errors in the results as reported. I believe the data you cited was that only three were fully compliant - I think for some of the standards that they were holding in some of those instances, the report back from staff was that the standard by which that group performing the independent audit or survey was not fully in line with the standards that are in place. So the information they are claiming in some instances to be non-compliant would not be non-compliant, based upon the actual rules. So there would be some issue with potentially the interpretation and the application in some of those instances so the results are a little bit off. We've had some discussions and staff reached out to help inform.

 

When I met with that group, it was in the early days of the budgeting but I did assure them that for me one of the priorities in those early days of the budgeting process was to ensure that when I prioritize with staff where our funding is supposed to go, it is to those areas that directly and explicitly meet our mandate pieces, so boots on the ground and inspections and not just, in this case for this particular piece, but on all we've had lengthy discussions about industrial pieces; there are other non-industrial environments and applications and having more boots on the ground will help, should help with that.

 

Finally, this group or any individual, whether it is for this particular set of rules and regulations or any other environmental concern, they are certainly encouraged to contact their local office, Nova Scotia Environment. They can either find it in the phone book or I would assume calling 211 would be able to direct them to the appropriate contact information for the local office and, as well, on our website. They can report any concerns of any environmental issues that they think are in violation of our regulations and legislation and our staff of compliance inspectors do get out and investigate.

 

MS. ZANN: So the Ecology Action Centre, the Canadian Cancer Society both have very good reputations I would imagine in these kinds of things. The Real Alternates to Toxins in the Environment, they sound like they obviously care about what is going on and what is being sold across the counter, so for them to say there are 14 stores that had controlled pesticides available directly to consumers without trained staff consultation it does concern me.

MR. DELOREY: Again, I think that is one of the areas where what they interpreted or expected, in terms of level of training and staff consultation piece, I think that is one of those areas where there's some disagreement as to the level of information requirement and where that threshold is. I believe staff have already been engaged and had those discussions with those groups.

 

When I met with the group that wasn't one of the issues, they didn't dispute the information and the discussions that staff had about the results. We were discussing more about going forward and again that notion of, you know, if we can do better in terms of our ability to assess, and again, my hope and direction is that we do better in all accounts as we have more of our vacancies filled, we have more staff, the same level of expertise, quality staff with good rules in place, good direction from their colleagues, senior staff, that by having more bodies we can certainly get more inspections done.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay, you would say that these people now you feel they are quite happy with the results of the meetings with your department?

 

MR. DELOREY: I didn't say happy, they haven't explicitly stated - I don't believe I received any direct feedback from them on that meeting. What I said was they hadn't indicated any concern with the discussions they had with staff, which preceded the meeting with me with respect to those issues, so any concerns with that dialogue I am not aware of.

 

MS. ZANN: Obviously I think a good point that has been noted is the double custody of backup municipal bylaw to our provincial legislation is quite pertinent to keep the bylaw on the HRM books. I would imagine, in fact I know, that this has come up in other jurisdictions as well, the fact that there are bylaws and there are the provincial laws as well. It would be interesting for us to be able to try and bring them in line with each other. Is there any talk about trying to do that?

 

MR. DELOREY: As I mentioned earlier when you first introduced this topic, staff are in discussions with HRM to kind of understand what directions they're thinking about going and the rationale for it.

 

MS. ZANN: I just mean with the rest of the province as well, not just HRM.

 

MR. DELOREY: I think that would be a first step in terms of seeing what their bylaw is and what that stands on. I think we'll assess what we learn from that experience. We've talked a bit about pilots and initiatives so we'll take a look at that first and see what we learn and what the outcomes of it are and then consider if it fits into a broader context and tweaks or changes to our broader legislation as well.

 

MS. ZANN: Like waste water management, for instance, is it direct right across the board what the laws are provincially? Is it the same in all jurisdictions across the province?

 

MR. DELOREY: Waste water standards are provincial standards so that is something that gets established and applied to organizations; what the standards may be for any particular disposal method of waste water would vary based upon the disposal method proposed. So a different mechanism of disposal would have different criteria for that type of discharge or disposal. If there are instances where company A and company B have the same type of waste water, company A is allowed to do X and company B is allowed to do Y as far as actual treatment, but they may be disposing of it in different ways so the standard is in part where they attempt to dispose of.

 

An earlier question from a solid waste side of things was, you know, agricultural disposal of human sewage - that's not something that is currently undertaken. There would be certain standards that whatever component would be used in an agricultural context, that they must meet those standards. It's the same sort of idea when applied to water.

 

MS. ZANN: I suppose different communities have different types of waste water management programs in place. I know that Colchester has one of the best ones.

 

MR. DELOREY: I was talking waste water in the broadest sense possible; here you're talking about municipal waste water.

 

MS. ZANN: Yes.

 

MR. DELOREY: I'll narrow it back in again - given the earlier topic of the other waste water that we discussed. From a municipal perspective, yes, that waste water from a municipal system has the standards that have to be met and different municipalities would have different systems in place. Some of it would be based upon when the systems were put in place, et cetera. As well, even at the time if two communities were putting them in, they may have different standards based upon a wide variety of factors - how much is coming in, what the quality would be like, the input and what that discharge point is and where it would be going.

 

MS. ZANN: We know it's all probably going out to the sea anyway.

 

MR. DELOREY: Most discharge points, post treatment, would be to the environment.

 

MS. ZANN: That's why I think our ecosystem is very reliant on how good our waste water management is.

 

MR. DELOREY: Sorry, I just want to clarify something on a technical note. Can you repeat that last statement?

 

MS. ZANN: It was just a statement that I think our ecosystem is very much reliant, the health of it is reliant on our waste water management, how it is treated and how we do release it out back into nature again.

MR. DELOREY: It is, and parts of the regulation in the space, the federal government has some interest here and they have some new regulations coming on line, holding communities to higher standards. That is coming on line over the next coming years. The date isn't set, but they are working towards setting new federal standards and so on, looking at enhancing - recognizing that you're in a community that has already made those investments that there is work being done to see those standards, seeing newer systems.

 

MS. ZANN: I know it's expensive too so I know that probably some communities are struggling with that. I would just note that obviously it would be nice for you to be able to keep an eye on that and monitor that. It would be nice if they were the same right across the board actually, keeping it to a high standard.

 

Getting back to toxins in the environment and pesticide use and things like that, I personally think that we should be supporting - you know when you talk about education - the development of more landscapes of organic gardens and community gardens and horticulture, both commercial and for homeowners, and also for communities that will support better soil health and ecosystems, especially in urban areas. Is this anything that you're interested in trying to help make happen as well?

 

MR. DELOREY: I think, as I mentioned earlier in terms of that notion of educating - and I kind of highlighted some of the areas. I'll just back up a little bit. If you look at our budget, predominantly the budget is focused on our regulatory and so on, so getting into this space gets a little bit out of our explicit mandate so we're left with very little in terms of discretionary funding to put towards that, but in terms of essentially - myself personally and as I mentioned how I can get engaged in ways to help support and contribute that aren't always necessarily financial.

 

If there is a group that has an organic garden or some form of initiative or whether it's some other aspect - like Mr. Zima with the Idle-Free Guy - we hung out together. We had the picture with him; we got the big tweet out - the big thumbs up - and really getting out there to support.

 

I guess that's one of the things where I can leverage my position and the attention and awareness of my position to help build awareness of work that other groups are doing, which may in some cases help reach out and tap into funding opportunities that may be coming from other sources. So those types of things and groups just have to reach out to let me know if I can help in any way or the department.

 

As far as actual dollars going in that direction, again, we do have as a province some very challenging fiscal situations that have been highlighted a great deal, especially through the introduction of this budget. There isn't a lot of money to free-flow to projects that fall outside of the direct mandated scope of this department.

 

MS. ZANN: So right now you would say there are no programs for those kinds of things like community gardens and getting milkweed that would attract butterflies and those kinds of things?

 

MR. DELOREY: There would be limited in ours. We made reference earlier that through our grants program there are some grants that people can apply to. With respect to specifically gardens, I think the Department of Agriculture - I know, in fact, actually the Department of Agriculture has programs where, particularly around community groups and particularly schools, and this is my awareness of it, small community schools that often apply to do a little community garden to help the students get engaged. So those types of things - I think the Department of Agriculture because it has an agricultural piece would have some funding to support those types of initiatives.

 

As a government there would be more, but again, those programs and dollars to go out to those things, government-wide we would have them but again, we're a regulatory body so we have very little within our mandate to provide those types of programs and services.

 

MS. ZANN: The other thing, speaking of gardens and things like this, too, obviously a number of people including myself are concerned about bees and our bee population. They under threat globally and it's inconceivable to imagine that the problems aren't associated with toxins in the atmosphere and chemical pollution, which would also include birds, insects and other accumulations up and down the food chain. So the timeline of an advent of transgenic GMO crops that carry DNA of bacteria, pesticides, potatoes, tomatoes, corn, soybean, et cetera seems to me like there's some evidence there to draw a correlation. Do you have any particular stance on GMOs and how you feel about that? I know it's more of a federal issue.

 

MR. DELOREY: Yes, and I'd want to, again, much like respecting our municipal counterparts and their authority for their regulations, I would do the same. If I wasn't in this position where what I say can have effects to those counterparts who really have the authority, then I could have that discussion with you on personal beliefs, but in this role representing the government, I do have to respect the jurisdictional authority of my counterparts.

 

MS. ZANN: I understand, believe me, but I also think that perhaps the province should start to think about this question seriously, about GMOs and their effect on all of us and on the environment and on our health because as I just stated, all those different parts make up a whole and we are a little ecosystem.

 

It is rather concerning when you hear all of the evidence pointing towards the correlations between GMOs and certain health issues that are going on.

 

MR. DELOREY: I think you want to be careful too, though, for example, the information that you presented there, the first one that you spent a significant amount of time talking about the bees and the effects, their research also shows that climate change is also a contributing factor there, so the way information is presented sometimes suggests that the cause and effects of certain observations in our environment are attributed to a particular source to try to draw more attention to a particular source or cause of concern. I just wanted to clarify that point, to be careful that we're trying . . .

 

MS. ZANN: But I'm taking that into consideration, too. When you do read all of the information that is out there, it certainly seems like the toxins in the atmosphere have an effect on the bee population as well.

 

I'd like to see more teeth actually in Nova Scotia regulations. I think it would be a great university student job where you could get some students working in expertise for permitting and testing approvals and creating public awareness of the regulations and the importance of protecting the environment and how our families and parks and playgrounds and backyards of Nova Scotia.

 

MR. DELOREY: You know one of the great things when you make reference to the university it doesn't even necessarily have to be a job, it can start - many universities have various levels of programming and projects. I know when I was teaching at St. F.X. a colleague of mine had class projects around environment sustainability and different programs and things where those undergraduate students took it as part of their educational process, not just as an employment process so there are lots of opportunities where people can get engaged on this and we are certainly happy to see our universities step up and engage in our students to do so as well.

 

MS. ZANN: I know there's a lot of research being done too, at the Dalhousie Agricultural Campus in Perennia, of course, in my riding. I like to see research being done into natural elements that will help to reduce pests and things like this. For instance, they did some experiments with sunflower seeds and they showed that sunflower seeds have a natural insect repellent in them. They were doing some work with a company in Scotland, trying to develop a product that could be sold where the farmers in Nova Scotia can grow sunflowers and instead of just selling the seeds, which they make very little money from, they could go into a value-added product that could be like a natural insect repellent that you hang in your kitchen and it keeps away the fruit flies and things like this.

 

MR. DELOREY: That type of initiative and research-based innovation and contributing to our economy is exactly the type of innovative programs and initiatives that my colleagues at rural development agriculture and those responsible for those types of industries and initiatives are exactly talking about. Minister Churchill announced a $1.12 million towards forestry innovation, looking into these initiatives. That's exactly the type of sector transformation that this government is looking to encourage.

 

As you said, it is the farmers who have to make the decisions to want to do that, but also then the other industries that would have interest but highlight and recognize that there's absolutely no reason why the Province of Nova Scotia - we certainly have the brain power, we have the manpower, the womanpower, the peoplepower to get the work done. We have a great facility down in the Guysborough riding in Mulgrave that does a lot of work with omega 3 products and so on - and actually recently was bought up by a multi-national company - but does a lot of great work and innovative and research-based work to create products from fish oil which again, capitalizes on one of our natural resources, the fish by-product there to create other products that go out. That's the kind of innovation and change that the future of this province is . . .

 

MS. ZANN: I completely agree. To be absolutely honest, our government started doing that kind of work as well and put money into all those kinds of things. One of the very first meetings that we had at the agriculture campus when it was still part of the Agricultural College was this very topic and how we were going to start to do this kind of thing. We actually built the Perennia Centre and we totally believe in this way forward for our province and looking for ways that our farmers and our fishers and our forestry people can use the products that the natural resources but in a healthy, eco-friendly manner, rather than clear-cutting, the way they used to do years ago, which destroyed everything and really hurt our province in many ways.

 

I think we really need to have eyes in the backs of our heads, as well as in the front, to know what have we done in the past that has been very hurtful and which way are we going to move forward to create a very healthy and sustainable environmental province?

 

Thank you for those answers.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may, just a little time check here. We've got about eight minutes left and I just would like to confirm whether we're wrapping today or whether you'll need to extend into tomorrow and if we need to allow a few moments for closing comments.

 

MS. ZANN: What I'd like to suggest is that I'm going to ask another few questions - you said we've got about eight minutes, right? I'm going to let you off the hook and let you go, so how long would you like for your closing statement?

 

MR. DELOREY: I will only use whatever time is left.

 

MS. ZANN: I have just another couple of questions and then we'll finish up. I was going to say that we were talking a little earlier today about acid rain. You know I, like you, heard about acid rain many years ago when I was a kid. I never really had a direct experience with it personally, that I knew of, until I moved home to Nova Scotia. I have a small swimming pool and one day I looked out and it was raining in the pool and the next thing when I looked it was lime green. I had some people come who are experts at that kind of thing and they went oh yes, that's the effluent acid rain from the rain that has come up from the United States. We do get it and it does do this to pools from time to time. I was disgusted, I was shocked, I couldn't believe that you could see it right there in front of your eyes.

One of the other things that the report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is that it highlights ocean acidification. They say that as more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere, more is also absorbed into the world's oceans, causing their acidity to increase. This increased acidity causes stress to shellfish, such as mussels, clams and scallops, that have to work harder to maintain their calcium shells. It also affects the hatching success of many species of fin fish.

 

As the Minister of the Department of Environment, is your department doing anything to assess the impacts that rising ocean acidity will have on our lives here in Nova Scotia, including marine resources? Are you planning any processes to safeguard our marine resources and fisheries and the continuing viability of our fishing communities?

 

MR. DELOREY: In that context, I know that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Aquaculture is aware of some of the concerns and the effects in his mandate under the fishing side of things. As far as the actual responsibility for our oceans and our waterways, it really falls to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government so it would really be there for those types of issues.

 

One of the interesting things is - I've got friends with some background in that area and so in terms of being aware of the effects on water and oceans what the current states are I'm cognizant of, but it falls out of the jurisdictional authority of the department.

 

MS. ZANN: Of the federal . . .

 

MR. DELOREY: It falls out of our department, but it would fall to the DFO, the federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

 

MS. ZANN: Not our provincial one.

 

MR. DELOREY: No, because our department provincially would be more engaged with the fishing industry as opposed to the oceans and the waters themselves.

 

MS. ZANN: What about the lakes and rivers then? Apparently they have already been affected for decades by acid rain and the acid rain is of course coming from industrial and commercial enterprises and transportation emissions from New England and from central Canada both. Nova Scotia is like the exhaust stream of both regions so it does impact the health of our fresh water ecosystems. Does the department have any jurisdiction over that - making assessments, doing any monitoring?

 

MR. DELOREY: We don't have the authority to prevent - again, one of the problems there is it does fall on streams and it moves but what we do is take ownership of our own emissions and I believe our greenhouse gases right now are the lowest they've been in about two decades. Right now we continue to work to continue to improve that. I made reference in my opening remarks about greenhouse gas equivalency agreement with the federal government to set status that way. We continue to be concerned and because that's one of the impacts going in.

 

MS. ZANN: Are you saying then that the department doesn't monitor lakes and rivers at all?

 

MR. DELOREY: We do monitor water quality in a broader sense. I'm must talking about specifically for this acid piece and I am just cognizant of the Chair, for time to read the resolution.

 

MS. ZANN: How many more minutes do we have?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute; I would like to give you two minutes to wrap up and then we will have our motion.

 

MS. ZANN: Thank you very much and I really appreciate you answering my questions.

 

MR. DELOREY: Thank you very much and thank you for your interest in the environment. Clearly, as your comments brought forward here you're obviously involved and engaged in the file and you and all citizens, I look forward to continuing to promote the proper stewardship of our environment.

 

MS. ZANN: Absolutely, thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Delorey - your final comments, please.

 

MR. DELOREY: I know we're tight on time here. So short of saying thank you to everyone for the participation and engagement, thank you to my staff - both for their support and engagement. We were on call for a couple of days that staff were ready to come over here. That led to some extended hours so I really do want to thank them - who both helped prepare and come over here and support me in this session, but I want to thank all of the staff in the Department of Environment for the work they do day in and day out on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia. As mentioned in my opening statements - and actually as the member here commented in her opening remarks, I'm in good hands, and I really do believe that because of the staff I have behind me.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. Delorey.

 

Shall Resolution E7 stand?

 

The resolution stands.

 

I would like to thank Mr. Delorey and all of his staff who came out today to answer these questions and we'll see you after the long weekend. Please enjoy your weekend. Thank you.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 2:20 p.m.]