HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

4:30 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Patricia Arab

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply. We have before us today the Minister of Environment with his department.

 

            Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $25,343,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the minister to begin by introducing himself and giving his opening remarks.

 

            HON. RANDY DELOREY: It is an honour for me to be here today, Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Department of Environment to present the details of the Department of Environment's budget. Here with me today on my right is Frances Martin, deputy minister, and on my left is Mr. Shawn McNutt, manager of Financial Services for the department.

 

            Madam Chairman, Nova Scotia Environment's role is to protect the province's land, air, and water. The department does this through five primary pieces of legislation: the Environment Act; the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, you may have heard that referred to as EGSPA; the Wilderness Areas Protection Act; the Special Places Protection Act; and the Water Resources Protection Act.

 

            There are also about 100 regulations and many more policies and guidelines that support those pieces of legislation and the other legislation governed by the Department of Environment. These are not all industry regulations, they include water and designated protected area regulations as well. To achieve our mandate we work with departments, governments, organizations, and individuals on programs and services that protect our air, land, and water.

 

Since I appeared at estimates last Spring the department has been advancing the government's and the department's priorities to protect our environment. I would like to tell you about some of the department's many successes during 2014-15 and some of the work that will continue into the future.

 

            One area that I am most pleased with is the department's efforts to increase the transparency of our processes and our accountability to the public, and to engage and consult with the public directly when we can. One example of this is how we have worked to address citizens' concerns about fracking waste water that resulted from fracking activities that took place in our province in 2007-08.

 

            Last winter the staff and I held public information sessions in Truro and Kennetcook to outline Nova Scotia Environment's regulatory role and to answer questions from community residents about the science and the department's processes. In a subsequent information session I also advised the community about a pending pilot project between Atlantic Industrial Services and the Lafarge cement plant. The project, which included using 2 million litres of water as a coolant in the Lafarge kiln in Brookfield, would see the water evaporated at 700 degrees Celsius. The pilot, which was implemented last April, proved to be a safe and viable way to dispose of the water.

 

            Last Fall we authorized a subsequent request from AIS to dispose of another 5 million litres of the twice-treated hydraulic fracturing waste water. In each and every instance we kept the public, particularly the residents of Debert and Kennetcook, informed so that they would know and understand what was being considered and later approved.

 

            Another example of the department's work to improve its transparency with the public and build community trust around a regulatory role and our processes has to do with Northern Pulp. Whether it's posting raw data from the mill's stack test results or ensuring the public has ample opportunity to comment on a draft industrial approval, we took all the steps the law would allow to ensure our regulatory role and processes were open and transparent to Nova Scotians.

 

            We also have a transparent process in place for environmental assessments, from the development of quarries, to wind farms, to liquefied natural gas facilities, to consultations on deciding new sites for wilderness areas and nature reserves, and we continue to work on these processes.

 

            During 2014-15 the department's environmental assessment branch had 12 projects registered for environmental assessments. Each one of the those environmental assessments are listed on the department's website. We had five new wind energy projects that were approved during 2014-15 and more are under review. These wind farms and tidal power are part of the story behind our success in building our renewable energy in Nova Scotia. We surpassed our goal of 18.5 per cent and will reach 25 per cent by the end of this year. We have new air quality requirements for the electricity sector; in January regulations came into effect that will improve air quality for Nova Scotians and offer potential savings on power rates for the next two years. Regulations will replace annual limits on Nova Scotia Power's generating stations with multi-year caps plus add annual limits on sulfur dioxide emissions in communities with generating stations. The limits will also require deeper reductions out to 2030.

 

            These changes are part of the government's strategy to transform the electricity sector to cleaner-burning renewable energy sources. The amendments will allow the province to improve air quality in a way that is more affordable to Nova Scotians.

 

            Madam Chairman, in other progress, the third Water Strategy Progress Report released last year outlines progress on water strategy implementation in 2013-14. The drinking water strategy is now being renewed as well. In May 2014, the Office of the Auditor General conducted an audit of Nova Scotia Environment's drinking water program. We are committed to and continue to implement the Auditor General's recommendations.

 

            The department introduced an environmental complaints handling policy pilot in the western region earlier this year, or last year. The primary aim of the policy is to help Nova Scotians know what to do when they suspect an environmental law has been broken and what happens after they report it.

 

            Staff have incorporated the feedback we have received from employees and members of the public on the pilot policy and are now preparing communication materials to inform Nova Scotians. We expect to introduce the finalized policy across the province later this Spring.

 

            Nova Scotia Environment is doing its part to legally protect sites as wilderness areas or nature reserves that were identified in the province's Parks and Protected Areas Plan. This work entails developing management plans with partners and identifying opportunities for public resource use and ecological sites at risk. Last April we protected lands around the Brigadoon village and as of December there are 20 more new sites, which were identified through public consultations during the last few years. These sites are now protected as wilderness areas or nature reserves.

 

            Finally, after several years of negotiations and procedure, our equivalency agreement with Environment Canada on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity generation has received its final approval from the federal government this past December. It is the first agreement of its kind in Canada and will protect Nova Scotia ratepayers from unnecessary increases while still achieving deep greenhouse gas emission reductions in the electricity sector. The agreement officially takes effect starting this July.

 

            Before I go on, I would like to take a moment to recognize all Nova Scotia Department of Environment employees. I want to particularly point out their work at increasing employee engagement and of finding ways to break down silos that enable them to better serve Nova Scotians. They've been doing this through various planning and program management processes. They've been changing the way they work to be more dynamic and responsive.

 

            This year, the department merged two divisions into one to create the Sustainability and Applied Science Division. This division provides subject matter expertise, policy development, program leadership and support to the department and the province in several program areas such as industrial approvals, water resources, protected areas and ecosystems, climate change, air quality, contaminated sites, emergency response, waste water and solid waste.

 

            The team focuses on mitigating short-term environmental impacts in advancing the long-term environmental and economic sustainability of the province by promoting innovative and creative approaches towards environmental protection and sustainable development.

 

            Our Policy Division is responsible for building capacity for policy and planning within the department and managing the environmental assessment program. Policy is responsible for legislative review, policy development, research, and policy analysis for the department.

 

            In what is currently our Compliance Division, staff carry out more than 8,000 inspections annually. These inspections range from making sure our road is put in without damaging the environment to responding to spills that threaten our waterways and ground water. Nova Scotia Department of Environment staff review legislation, regulations and policies to set standards for an industry, municipalities and citizens as they work to protect our air, land and water.

 

            Protected Areas staff secure and maintain ecologically significant lands as wilderness areas and nature reserves. Our employees carry out research and policy development to respond to the challenges and opportunities of a changing climate. All of this work lays the foundation for creating a new division.

 

            As you may recall, government is combining environmental inspection and compliance functions within Nova Scotian Environment to create a more unified, coordinated approach to inspection. The aim is to improve protection of the public's health, our natural resources and our environment.

 

            The new division will enable staff to better access and share expertise and maximize opportunities such as training. Moving inspection and compliance responsibility from the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Department of Agriculture enables these departments to focus more on sector growth.

 

            Over the next three months we will work to build the new division that brings together employees from the Department of Environment, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Health and Wellness, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Government needs to transform the way it works within this province and the Department of Environment will be playing a big role in doing that.

           

            After consulting widely during 2014, the department is expected to develop new solid waste regulations that reflect opportunities for new programs, research and development and product stewardship. Nova Scotia's current solid waste management system was established in 1995. The regulations needed to be updated to ensure that programs are more sustainable and that our rules reflect changes in technology and the recycling markets that have taken place in the last 20 years.

 

            Between May and September 2014, the department engaged the public, municipalities, industry and associations in consultations on the proposed changes. A few weeks ago, we released a "What We Heard" report on the feedback.

 

            Draft amendments to the regulations are expected later this year. If approved, the changes made will be phased in over the next three- to five-year period.

 

            Also in 2015-16 the department will implement provincial air management zones to align with the national air quality management system. This includes the use of more stringent Canadian ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone. According to Canada's Ecofiscal Commission, a group of distinguished economists from across the country, Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction target. The legislated goal is to reduce emissions to at least 10 per cent below 1990 levels. The province produced 19.1 tons that year. The projection by this group and Environment Canada is that we are on track to achieve 15 tons by 2020.

 

            I was at the climate change talks in Quebec recently. Our province supports strong action on climate change, including national approaches to reduce carbon emissions while preparing for the impacts of climate change. We can proudly say that we are doing our part, as Nova Scotians. The province, through Nova Scotia Environment, has taken strong action on reducing greenhouse gas by implementing hard caps on emissions from the electricity sector which is our greatest source of greenhouse gases. We have legislated targets of 20 per cent electricity from renewables in 2015 and we will achieve our targets. These actions will help us achieve our 2020 targets mentioned earlier.

 

            We will continue to implement and improve the 2013 contaminated sites regulations so that affected sites are remediated and put back into productive use, providing environmental and economic benefit to our communities.

 

            In 2015-16 we will also continue to collaborate with other Atlantic Provinces and industry partners on harmonized approaches to contaminated sites management. This past year, through the good work of round table members, the public was consulted on a draft strategy for guiding the greening of our economy. We are incorporating public feedback, as appropriate, and that is consistent with other actions and plans, such as the One Nova Scotia report. We will continue to partner with other departments on this. We will also be designating more lands as wilderness areas and nature reserves, as outlined in the Parks and Protected Areas Plan, fulfilling the province's commitment of moving towards the goals of the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act.

 

            Finally, I am pleased to report that my department has taken the recommendations to heart of the Tax and Regulatory Review to streamline regulations. The coming year we will continue our work to modernize the department's regulations, most notably the watercourse alteration and onsite programs, with a goal to be more efficient and effective regulators, reducing the burden to Nova Scotians while still achieving strong environmental outcomes. We'll advance this work among stakeholders and begin implementing it in the department.

 

            Madam Chairman, I and the staff at Environment look forward to the year ahead and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak about the great work the staff in the Department of Environment have been doing on behalf of all Nova Scotians. I'd be happy to proceed to taking questions at this time.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister Delorey. We will start with the Progressive Conservative caucus and Ms. MacFarlane.

 

            MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the minister and his staff. Another year forward and another busy year for you and your staff. You've done a lot of great things, there's no doubt about that, and there has been a lot of open consultation in different areas that I think the citizens of Nova Scotia are most grateful for so I applaud you on that.

 

            I think what I want to start off right away with is we're coming up on the unfortunate anniversary of the break of the pipe in Pictou East, with Boat Harbour. I'm wondering if perhaps you can tell me, what was your involvement in the piece of legislation that was just introduced the other day?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The legislation you are referring to, I assume you mean the Boat Harbour Act. That's a piece of legislation that was drafted by the Internal Services Department. As the regulator, we've been hands-off on that legislation.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Almost a year ago it was your suggestion, working with Chief Andrea Paul, to come up with something that would promise that we would move forward to cleaning up Boat Harbour, so this piece of legislation that was drafted, no one consulted you at all on how we move forward?

 

            MR. DELOREY: There were representatives from staff throughout the engagement process that were available to explain regulatory roles and responsibilities but the essence and the substance of the final piece of legislation were not part of Nova Scotia Environment.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Will your staff be working with Internal Services in the next number of years to move forward with this legislation? I know that right now there are not a lot of details within them and I would think they would need some of the expertise from the Department of Environment to move forward with that piece of legislation so I'm wondering if you can elaborate a little bit on what role, and perhaps how many of your employees will be assisting Internal Services as we move forward with this.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I can't comment, I just can't advise specifically the number of employees at this point in time but I can elaborate on what the role of Nova Scotia Environment would be as this project moves forward.

 

            Essentially Nova Scotia Environment's role is as a regulator, and in fact it's one of the reasons for maintaining that separation from the legislation. The work that would be done, many of the activities, given the nature of the substances that are expected to be part of the remediation process, would require environmental oversight and in many ways trigger environmental approvals.

 

            My staff, the Department of Environment's role would be reviewing, assessing, and establishing the terms and conditions that would have to be adhered to in the process. So the proposed remediation processes and the work that's done would have to be reviewed by Nova Scotia Environment, and again that's one of the important reasons for maintaining a separation between the department and the actual drafting of the legislation other than in a consultative role to understand what the regulations and rules are and on a go-forward basis we'll continue to maintain our role as regulator. We would not be providing the work on the ground, that would be the responsibility of Internal Services to do that work on the ground or to procure the necessary resources to do that work on the ground.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: At the end of the day, when 2020 comes are you comfortable in believing that this piece of legislation can be achieved within the next five years?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I believe our government has shown time and time again that our commitments are what we're moving forward on, so yes I do.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Will your department be working at all with any federal counterparts in moving forward with this piece of legislation?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The role between the different jurisdictions that will come into play, as appropriate, we certainly would. There is the potential, I don't have the details on the remediation plan, I believe any plan or proposal - application I should say - no application has been submitted to date to the department but the applications as they come in and the description of the actual remediation work would come through our office and one of the first things we do is assess the jurisdictional responsibilities based on the work being done and the potential impacts, and so it would be at that time we would identify the federal department. 

 

But clearly if you consider the location of the facility and its proximity to the Strait, the Norththumberland Strait that is, that would be very close proximity to the federal jurisdiction waters, so I would expect that there will be but I can't say with absolute certainty but I certainly expect there would be some federal collaboration with the regulatory side, and we do that quite frequently on projects throughout the province where there are cross-jurisdictional responsibilities, we collaborate and work quite closely with our federal counterparts.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Just for clarification, my understanding is that once that effluent hits the waterline, it then becomes a federal issue. My concern is - I am very pleased to see this piece of legislation and happy that it was honoured. My concern is that we are going to be substituting cleaning up Boat Harbour, building potentially a new facility and that we will, as Pictou residents, see the effluent run right into Pictou Harbour.

 

            Of course there's a lot of speculation that well, you know it will be a much better facility, therefore what is running into the harbour with a new facility might be water that is clean enough to drink. I'm just wondering if you can help me understand and sort of maybe if you have any details that you could help me provide my constituents and reassure them that if, in 2020 that is the case and it is running into Pictou Harbour, that it's not what we see that is running into the Northumberland Strait right now.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I think your comment, preamble, hit the nail on the head. I think there's a lot of speculation right now and I don't anticipate contributing to the speculation. As far as the approach, types of progress moving forward, that's not something that's going to be established or set by this department. That is something you would have to direct towards Internal Services, that's where the designs and the proposed solutions will be established.

 

            What the Department of Environment's role will be is when a proposal, an application comes forward for activities that fall within our mandate, that we will review and assess and establish the appropriate set of terms and conditions to mitigate and manage environmental impacts at that time.

 

            As far as you indicated, this question of potential outflow points, where it would - all of that would be work that would be done by Internal Services, not Nova Scotia Environment.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So just finishing up on that, in the future is it safe to say then that there would be no collaborative work between or discussions held between First Nations, your department, Internal Services, mill management, in order to ensure that everyone knows they are on the same page?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I believe that your question was - because of the negative context - that there will be no engagement and that's not what I'm suggesting. Certainly there will be engagement, Nova Scotia Environment when working on applications that are being reviewed, the two main ones being environmental assessments and industrial approvals, that review, assess, and set terms and conditions for activities that may have an impact on the environment that fall within our legislated mandate, primarily outlined in the Environment Act, there is often discourse and engagement between the department and the stakeholders moving forward and proposing the activity, the work.

 

            Certainly in many respects we have a legal duty, as the Crown, to engage First Nations so certainly that would be an expected portion if there was going to be activity that may trigger that particular requirement. As far as any other stakeholders that may be engaged, certainly it is hard to do work in isolation but I wouldn't anticipate us being the lead on that, except for in the area of the regulatory pieces. If you are suggesting in terms of the technical and other aspects, again the lead for the project and the work would, from a government perspective, be Internal Services. Nova Scotia Environment's role would be from a regulatory perspective so the project would be developed, designed for the work being proposed. They would come to Nova Scotia Environment to receive the necessary environmental review and approvals, based on the projects being submitted.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Will the terms in this current industrial approval have any impact on the cleanup of Boat Harbour? How is it linked together?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I don't see that they are linked together. The industrial approval is an operating environmental approval that was established, that is one of the regulatory roles of Nova Scotia Environment, and that work was done by the department to establish the operating parameters for Northern Pulp as a facility and the legislation that was brought forward was work that was done by Internal Services, so the two aren't related.

           

            MS. MACFARLANE: Can you give us a little update of what's happening right now with the industrial appeal, how many people or organizations actually appealed.

 

            MR. DELOREY: The deadline for receiving appeal for Northern Pulp industrial approval was on April 9^th, by that date we had received three appeals; we received appeals from the Pictou Landing First Nation community, an appeal from Clean Pictou Air group, which is a community group, and the Northern Pulp mill itself. As far as the appeal process, the only update I can provide there is the process is that once an appeal is received I have 60 days to review and make a decision, so that would mean 60 days from the receipt of those appeals and all three of them were received between April 8^th and 9^th, so 60 days from then when I've completed my review and made my decision with respect to the submissions, that will be made known.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So June 9^th will be the deadline, will these organizations, companies that have appealed, will they hear from you before the public does on your decision?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I haven't made a decision on that, there is a lot of information that needs to be reviewed so that information would have to assessed and a decision would have to be made and I have to look at what kind of time frame I have but certainly the response to an appeal will go to the appellants themselves.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: While you're going through the appeals and investigating them, reading them, would you conduct any interviews or will you be in correspondence back and forth to ask questions with regard to their appeals or will they expect any dialogue with you before June 9^th.

 

            MR. DELOREY: The process for appeals is to assess the appeals based on the record.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: With regard to the industrial approval was this formulated solely within your department or was there anyone hired outside your department to help develop the IA?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I believe this was a question asked just a couple of weeks ago in the Legislature. The department, to my knowledge, did not hire any expertise outside of Nova Scotia Environment to build this, although Nova Scotia Environment as far as sources of information, we did collect information certainly from the proponent themselves who made submissions, we made the draft IA public so we received submissions from, essentially could have come from any source and so we received lots of correspondence and input through those processes as well as the research and expertise of staff, which includes assessment of standards in other jurisdictions and industry.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Were any of the employees at the Granton location involved in developing the IA?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Yes.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: To what extent were they involved? I know that I tried on various occasions to have meetings with them and every time I called I was told that they were steeped in IA, which I could appreciate but I did try over numerous months so I would expect that they were quite heavily involved in designing the IA.

 

            MR. DELOREY: There was actually a team in place. I can't comment - I don't have the information on hand that can say explicitly how much time each individual employee within that team would have spent working on it, but I do assure you that it was an extensive process. There was a lot of information - particularly when you consider the volume of information that was submitted to the department through the public piece, which also required additional review and consideration before the final IA was released at the end of January.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just wondering, were there any shared scientific findings to support the development of the IA with Northern Pulp?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I'm not sure what you mean by shared scientific findings. Do you mean did they share scientific information with us? Did we share information with them? I can say if that's what you mean, certainly there was a dialogue between particularly staff members and staff members of Northern Pulp, the proponent, throughout the process, which is not unique to this process - to this particular one - that's a process that takes place when there are questions that staff feel they require clarification. If they don't understand a perspective or have insights they do request additional information and engage.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I want to thank the minister for clarifying that because my understanding from Northern Pulp is that they haven't been able to communicate with your department or meet and so it's very important for me to know that they have been actually in communication, so thank you for clarifying that. Did you ever have any opportunity to go to the mill and tour the mill?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I have had the opportunity. I was invited to tour the mill - approximately, I believe, a date that was offered was in June last year. One of the conditions that I put on the invitation was that I would attend provided they invite a representative from Pictou Landing First Nation and a representative from Clean Pictou Air group. To date, that request has not been fulfilled and I have not gone out to tour the facility because they've generally indicated an unwillingness to invite those other stakeholders, which to my knowledge, those stakeholders had each toured the facility in the past, so I'm not sure why, but certainly I'm still more than willing to go for a tour of the facility with the mill representatives.

 

            One of my concerns, as I commented in the opening statements, was one of the things I'm most proud of in the past year, the work that we've done, is on our openness and transparency. Given the fact that I was aware of growing concerns, certainly it did make the media in part due to some efforts that you made within your own community around the May time frame last year, which did grow both the media and general interest, so certainly aware of the concerns. In order to maintain confidence in the integrity of Nova Scotia Department of Environment as a regulator, I did consider what kind of message it would send if I was to tour a facility on my own behind closed doors and so on, and it was for that reason of openness and transparency that I thought it would be appropriate to have other stakeholders participate in that tour. I felt that would be the most open and transparent way and certainly that offer remains to date.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I think that is a fair suggestion. My understanding from Northern Pulp is that they've been trying to request to have their scientists sit down with your scientists. Is that still a possibility now at this point or is that sort of a long gone opportunity?

 

            MR. DELOREY: During the appeal process that is something that is submitted to me and that record was submitted. Their scientists and whatever resources they use to prepare their appeal submission, that is part of the record that will be reviewed. That's a consistent process used in all appeals that would be submitted, not much unlike a judicial review.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I believe I recall you indicating that you did tour Boat Harbour. I just want to confirm that and if you could provide the date again and who actually was able to provide that tour to you that day.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I would have to go back to my calendar to get the exact date but I can advise that I think it was around the 16^th, if you can verify, that was the Saturday of the blockade at Boat Harbour. I do recall it was the Saturday that I did do the tour. I went on that particular date, if you reflect back in our memories, it certainly was public knowledge that I met with representatives from the band - the Chief and Pictou Landing First Nation Band Council, as well as with representatives from Northern Pulp on the Friday. On the Saturday, in anticipation of continued discussions, I did go back to the community. I took an opportunity to visit the protesters at the blockade. I also went down with a representative from the Band Office to tour the leak site beyond the blockade, so I went past the blockage and toured that site, and I went with my staff representatives to tour the Boat Harbour facility itself.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just curious if the invitation was ever extended to you from Northern Pulp to travel to some of their woodlot areas where they are actually harvesting.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I don't recall ever seeing an invitation but I won't rule out the possibility that one has been submitted to somebody in the department but I don't recall ever receiving such an invitation.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Going back, obviously the IA is of great concern now with Northern Pulp. I'm just curious - the request has been sent to me that they extremely feel that if they had the opportunity to sit down and speak with your department that there could be some compromises made that would help them fulfill some of the goals or requests that are in IA - do you ever see that opportunity being able to happen?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I see the process playing out as it is supposed to proceed. As I indicated, during the process leading up to the development, through the development process of the IA, as I indicated, there had been engagement and consultation both written and I believe in-person meetings and teleconferences. I'll just look to confirm that but that did, in fact, take place the way that I expected it.

 

            Again, that's part of a regular process and the final IA was developed as a result of those discussions. As is the proponent's right, they have decided that they disagreed with the IA that staff developed and provided to them. So they exercised their authority, their right to appeal it. That appeal was ongoing. That process is for them to submit the details and that's something that is submitted to me and not the staff that developed the actual IA.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just wondering if you could explain or elaborate, just for the record. I know that we had discussions prior with regard to having an air quality monitoring station located especially in downtown Pictou. I'm just wondering why in IA that was never suggested, if you could elaborate on that.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Just to highlight again the staff developed the industrial approval and a big part of having staff do that work is, again, as I had mentioned in the last response about the industrial approval, is that the appeal process is to appeal to the ministers so it really is delegated authority to staff to develop and make their decisions with respect to the industrial approval.

 

            What I can tell you is what I've been advised by staff as they're making their decision known. They use air dispersion modelling which basically uses data about air flows in the area, based primarily on historical data. The modelling identified a number of positions where it would make the most sense, that is, where on average emissions from the stacks at Northern Pulp would most likely arrive, based on historical air patterns at the ambient level, which is where these air monitoring stations are established, and those are where the decisions were made to write into the industrial approval the locations of the air monitoring stations that were written in there, they made those decisions based on the data where those stations would most likely receive the highest volume of emissions.

 

            With respect to the Town of Pictou there is, as we've discussed previously, an air monitoring station. It's one that is not connected to this or any other facility, it's one that is run by the province as part of the national air network. I mentioned in my opening remarks how we are actually transitioning to air monitoring zones this year. Prior to this transition into the national air monitoring zones, in fact the national air monitoring program only required and tabulated the data primarily for air monitors around populations of 100,000 and greater; originally we had two and now technically it only be one outside of managing HRM's data but although that was all we were required to, we did have multiple monitors including the one at the fisheries pool in Pictou. We continue to maintain that and that station will represent that zone for that section of the province for assessing at the ambient level.

 

            I believe it's about two, two and half kilometres would be a rough estimate from the boardwalk to the pool, from an air dispersion perspective. Scientists and the staff recognize your concern and I have asked staff generally about that request, not explicitly in the context of the IA, we've had these discussion with staff, they've indicated to keep points on that particular one. One is, and they actually showed me an air dispersion model that they had that actually showed that, again based on average air patterns, and we put the map right on the dot and they broke it up, I forget how many segments, if you think of it as slices of pie, the direction of the wind, that the Pictou site was actually picking up a wider swath at the Pictou fisheries pool than it would have if it was located along the boardwalk location, that's by sheer conscience, it wasn't part of IA, it was situated there for general usage, but they did overlay the other monitoring just to assess that question, would it actually be better and their conclusion was it would actually not, on average for expected air patterns, be better to move it from its current location.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: The monitor that is located right now at the fisheries training pool department building there, is that something that your department can see the data on a daily basis?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Sorry, I just wanted to verify some additional details about that. For our station, which we manage and monitor, that data is actually publicly available through air quality monitoring sites and is updated and accessible. Did you ask about that one or are you asking about the Northern Pulp ones?

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I was asking about the one right in Pictou, at the fisheries training pool, I believe it's attached to that building. I'm just wondering if your staff could read it on a daily basis - so they can. Okay.

 

            MR. DELOREY: They can. Yes, we can get the data.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: And which leads to my question, within the IA, you will be establishing new ones? There's one in Greenhill now and you'll be putting one over towards Boat Harbour, will those two be the same type of monitors? Will they be measuring different particulates?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Our current site primarily monitors particulate matter. The systems being put in place as part of the industrial approval will monitor total reduced sulphur as well as particulate matter.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around because I really don't know. So each of them will be measuring the same particulate matter, or does one measure something else, you know, because I believe that one that is connected with Northern Pulp will be measuring something different that will be attached right to one of the stacks there? That's what I understood, that they would be measuring something that is attached to one of their stacks. Is that something that is in IA?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I think there might be some misunderstanding and confusion there. I suspect what it might be is when you talk about something attached to the stack, you would be talking about stack emissions. We get those test results. Those are the ones that this summer there was quite a bit of interest about. Those are ones that require consultants, essentially. I think there are very few, I asked about it, there may be one or two firms in Atlantic Canada that do that particular type of stack testing. Those air monitoring stations that we were talking about, those are ambient, more at the ground level.

 

So I guess for comparative purposes, if you think of stack testing as testing directly from an exhaust pipe in a car versus assessing the air that you breathe as you are walking down the sidewalk as the ambient air and that's the distinction. I'm not aware of this piece about having something on the stack as connected to those ambient air monitors.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So the ones that will be placed in the Greenhill area and Pictou Landing, are they similar to - I notice the ones at Pioneer Coal, they have about six or seven surrounding their radius and I'm just wondering, do they look something like those ones?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I can say more or less. I don't have the exact equipment model. The industrial approval doesn't define the brand of technology, it just identifies what needs to be monitored. It would be up to the company in any case to select but again, for equipment performing similar functions, there would certainly be a similar type of equipment.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: My next question basically comes from a group of people in Pictou. There has been some interest of some people looking at investing, pooling together some money, between $15,000 and $20,000 actually, to go and purchase a really good air quality monitoring station. Of course I don't know really what to suggest to them because really at the end of the day would the Department of Environment be interested in their findings?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Through this process I think I've made it clear that we do assess and review information when we are making decisions. In this particular case we have an industrial approval draft that was made available for a month for people to review in advance and provide submissions. So certainly if members of the public have information they think may be of value or of interest to the department, we'd certainly be happy to receive and review it.

 

            That said, based on the technical advice I've seen and been given to date, and as I have explained in response to a previous question here, the station we have at the ambient level - you're talking about two kilometres away - based on air modelling, the site at the fisheries, by coincidence, actually ends up picking up a greater amount, on average, over the course of a year of the emissions.

 

            Would it be a wise investment? It may provide personal comfort and security but based on the information that I have seen before me, I don't see it as necessarily being a technical necessity. Again, if people are going to do it, I wouldn't tell them explicitly not to but I will say that I have confidence in the technical information I have received to date that the site at Pictou fisheries pool is providing the data we would need to identify major issues.

 

            If they are going to pursue an initiative, an investment, one thing that I would caution in terms of the receipt of information, is to make sure that it is appropriate technology. Again, it's kind of like, I don't know, if you buy a lower-grade technology or equipment. So you might suggest if the primary intent is to collect data that they wish to share with the department, I would certainly encourage them, if they go down that course, to reach out to the department to discuss the type of technology they might be looking to purchase so that we can provide some input, perhaps, on whether we may have any concerns with the results the technology might produce. I guess it would be prudent to have that conversation in advance, rather than on the back end.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just going to move to the coastal strategy. I know that there was one, I believe, completed in 2012 and I'm just wondering, has the department done anything with this strategy or is there a final report that is going to be released?

 

            MR. DELOREY: For that particular strategy we have had some meetings on that through the process. As you can imagine, coast makes up a large majority of our province, particularly our populations are certainly coastal, it is both of interest with people but also crosses jurisdictions and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture actually has taken the lead on working with that particular report.

 

            As I said, we have had some additional meetings with our colleagues there but they are the leads on that particular piece of work.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Did you yourself have an opportunity to meet with the Ecology Action Centre on this and was it suggested by your department to move forward with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I've met with various representatives with the Ecology Action Centre on a number of issues. I don't recall if I had a meeting on this specific one. Again, I've met with them both in formal and informal settings. I can't recall if I had a specific formal meeting but I certainly know I've had conversations with either current or former members of the Ecology Action Centre when they've had opportunities to express some interest in it but I don't recall if I had a formal one with that specific agenda item.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Were there any meetings with representatives from your department with any municipalities within the province discussing coastline erosion?

 

            MR. DELOREY: As part of staff's role and working with municipalities, which I do on an ongoing basis, those types on inquiries and interests would be discussed but that's again from discussing their concerns around it. I mean, they would have discussed with municipalities but I don't have any specific outcome, it's just an ongoing process we engage with them frequently.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So the strategy that was completed in 2012 is now being handed over to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture but we don't know at this point if it's going to be implemented or modified or if they will be holding more discussions with citizens in the Province of Nova Scotia?

 

            MR. DELOREY: This isn't a question of this report being handed over to Fisheries and Aquaculture, this a report that was started through the Fisheries Department so it never was an Environment report. We've been engaged on it because of, again, this notion of cross-jurisdictional interest but we've never been the lead.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you very much for that clarification. I'm just wondering, what is the status of the Green Economy Strategy?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We worked with the Minister's Round Table on Environment and Sustainable Prosperity. It's a stakeholder group under the agencies boards and commissions that has a number of stakeholders representing industry groups as well as non-governmental agencies with environmental interests, municipal units are represented, as well as Department of Environment, the Department of Economic Development participated so I engaged that round table to perform some work, engaging, collecting information with targeted stakeholders in the public sphere. They submitted their report back to me in December 2014, so we've continued to review what they submitted. Working with our departments, again a greener economy strategy is a strategy that spans many departments within the government because there are many jurisdictions that have an interest in economic development.

 

Our interest is in how the environmental and the green economy side can play a role. So we continue to work with those other stakeholders and those other departments to see how we can move forward on it.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So would we anticipate it being released to the public before the end of 2015?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I don't have an exact date on when it will be released to the public. Certainly with changes around economic development transitioning to the new Department of Business, we are a little bit delayed as the restructuring takes place and the interest around that. We want to make sure we get a good, solid strategy out. We certainly do have a heightened interest. We've had a number of reports as a government - point to the Ivany commission, the One Nova Scotia report. All of these really blend together. We want to make sure that the final product and the work that we do meshes rather than conflicts.

 

            It is a lot of work and a lot of moving pieces that we are trying to line up, so I would rather make sure we get the right product out the door than setting an artificial date and rushing something out that's not in the best interests of Nova Scotians. We do want to move this economy forward and we do think that there are certainly elements of a green economy that can contribute to that.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I was happy and most pleased to learn that you went to Quebec and was able to partake in the climate change talks. I'm just wondering - obviously it was of great value, I'm sure, so I'm just wondering if you can shed some light on what you took back and maybe Nova Scotians can expect to gain from that trip.

 

            MR. DELOREY: There are actually two important pieces. Because of the timing, there was actually a conference the day before the summit, on climate change, hosted by Premier Couillard and the Province of Quebec. The conference that took place on Monday was actually, to your first question, focused on the Canadian green economy work. So my staff and I did have the opportunity to attend a number of sessions during that to learn more about different industry stakeholders - the representatives from David Suzuki Foundation, but also GE was represented there at one of the sessions that I attended - talking about how they're moving forward on scales outside of Nova Scotia. So it was certainly informative on the day and the sessions we were able to take in there. That's all good information we can bring back and incorporate in our own work for greening the economy.

 

            With respect to the summit itself, certainly the primary focus of the summit was to discuss the climate change initiatives. They had a number of representatives, including international researchers and representatives from international organizations available to present information to us with respect to climate change and steps to move forward on both international and national levels. So again, very informative.

 

            From a Nova Scotia perspective, it was certainly an opportunity to highlight to the other provinces and participants at the session the success that Nova Scotia has been achieving, including having it highlighted the success that we are one of few provinces that are on target with our greenhouse gas emissions. It was with some pleasure that my colleague, the Minister of Environment for Ontario, actually during some of his comments - not at the summit but at the conference the day before - actually spoke positively also of Nova Scotia's leadership on the solid waste side of things. So we are seen as leaders in Nova Scotia on the national stage.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I just want to say it's really great news to hear that and it must have spread really well because my son came home and was bragging about how Nova Scotia was meeting its targets so I think that in itself is important, to engage our youth and be able to explain to them that we are doing okay and we can always do better but we are setting goals up to do better. So that's good, I'm really pleased that you went. Earlier in your statement you did mention about collectively working with other provinces, maybe streamlining to avoid red tape or whatever, and I'm just wondering if you can elaborate on that.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Sure, a number of examples. We look to other jurisdictions where they may be further advanced on particular initiatives. So for one example, and I mentioned it in my earlier comments, the solid waste strategy that we consulted on extensively last year, recently put out a What We Heard document and now that we're actively working on regulations one of the hallmarks of the report and one which is supported by many stakeholders, not necessarily unanimously but by many is the notion of extended producer responsibility, or EPR.

 

            While there are many jurisdictions that have already implemented EPR including British Columbia, I believe Saskatchewan, Ontario, so a number of jurisdictions have already implemented EPR so we've looked to those jurisdictions to see not just what has worked well for them but also what stumbling blocks, so opportunities to align regulations where they make sense, which is something that is good for industry. Certainly when we're looking through extended producer responsibility to move responsibility for the handling of waste from packaging to the producers of the packaging, particularly where those operators work in multiple jurisdictions, the more synergies and consistency moving from one jurisdiction to the other, the more beneficial those regulations are the better it will work for them while still meeting our ultimate environmental goals.

 

            On the reverse side, other jurisdictions do the same, looking to Nova Scotia where we are already leaders in many aspects of solid waste management, particularly around composting and those jurisdictions including the Minister of Environment for Manitoba who was again at the summit and who I had an opportunity to speak with, continue to express the desire to continue to engage us on the work that we've been doing.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you for those answers. You were mentioning about water earlier and one of our other unfortunate issues in the Town of Pictou is our water situation and it's very unpredictable. I can wake up at 5:30 a.m. and I can have my water black or I may not and sometimes it takes two hours just to run it straight through before it will be clear again. It's of great concern and I know that the municipality is working extremely hard to rectify that and move forward. I'm just wondering does your department work closely with the Minister of Municipal Affairs with regard to ensuring that we all have clean water.

 

            MR. DELOREY: As you noted, the water systems are municipal units, Environment's role as the regulator for those systems, both for monitoring and compliance side of things, we do engage and have been engaged by either the Department of Municipal Affairs and/or municipal units themselves when they are looking for guidance and support and we'd make ourselves available.

 

            As per your earlier question about our engagement with municipalities on coastal erosion, again as indicated, we engage, these are our partners and stakeholders both governmental but also as a regulatory department, as stakeholders that we do regulate a number of their activities, so there is ongoing engagement throughout the year.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Are there any updates being made to the drinking water strategy as we speak?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We do continue to review and update this strategy. As I mentioned in my comments, in addition to the Drinking Water Strategy, the OAG - the Auditor General - did file a report just about a year ago and they made several recommendations in that. We are continuing to move forward.

 

            Many of those recommendations we were already working towards moving forward on, but there were some that we took to heart and continued to move forward on. So it is an ongoing process, we work on that strategy every year to review and see what makes sense, to improve.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So if someone was to have their water tested, are they able to go to your department to have that procedure done?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Generally the testing of private well water, private home water, it would be the homeowners who do the testing, not unlike when you - well I can speak as a rural resident, I'm not on a municipal system. When we test our water, when you are on a well, if you are going to purchase a new home, generally you do that testing before you go through with the sale, you want to make sure you have good, potable water at the home, and you can go to private testing centres - I know in Antigonish we drop it off at the hospital that provides testing of the water and that's, here again, in Antigonish what most people do.

 

            We do have a website that provides links and recommendations about how frequently testing should take place, so it does have a lot of information about the testing that people should be looking for and the type of testing they should be asking for.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time has elapsed for the Progressive Conservative caucus for this hour. We'll move our questioning to the New Democratic Party, and Ms. Peterson-Rafuse.

 

            HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Time goes fast doesn't it, minister, when you are having fun. Thank you very much for your information and your passion for the environment. I've seen that throughout the province and I appreciate that, because it's really important that people recognize that you are concerned about our environment and working towards positive direction. So thank you for that.

 

            I want to ask you - you probably recall last May, in 2014, that I brought to your attention the pilot project that was taking place in the western region of the province where you were doing a pilot project on complaints and looking at the fact that the department in that area, through that project, would no longer take anonymous environmental complaints. Can you provide an update of where that is, please?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Certainly. I appreciate your raising your questions and your concerns with the pilot. That's exactly the purpose of pilots, to provide an opportunity to solicit feedback.

 

            What we've done is the staff reviewed the information, both what they received from the public that would have participated in the pilot process for feedback, as well as other staff members, employees, both from within the region who have worked with the pilot, but also with other regions that hadn't yet been using the pilot process and drafted some changes. We do plan to move those changes forward in the not-too-distant future this Spring so I think we made a number of amendments, and I think certainly the notion of your concerns you brought forward about whether anonymous questions would come forward or not will certainly be addressed in that update.

 

            But I do want to clarify the rationale for bringing in a policy. There really wasn't a department-wide policy on complaints handling, and what the department was seeing was high volumes of requests coming in and they were finding that in many cases they didn't have the information if an anonymous request came in. The concern was if it's an anonymous request and we don't have sufficient information we don't have anywhere to go to follow up to get the information we need to proceed with an investigation and complaint. So in many cases the reason for trying to encourage people - and I would still encourage people to provide their information and their details because having the information, much like a police investigation, when you have the contact information and potential witnesses it strengthens the inspectors' ability to perform a complete investigation.

 

Certainly the intention behind looking at anonymous complaints or not moving forward on anonymous complaints was not in any way an effort to move away from responding to concerns; in fact it was an effort to try to strengthen our ability to respond, that is really what the effort was focused on.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Did your department look at how Crime Stoppers work and the fact that it is anonymous and how they would not be able to follow up on anonymous tips, and we all know how significant that program is and has resulted in actions against crime. So I'm just wondering - was that part of the review process?

 

            MR. DELOREY: As mentioned through the review process, there were a number of people who were engaged to get feedback and, in fact, representatives did look at the Crime Stoppers system and did assess that as well.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you tell me who was part of the public consultation, was it individuals, was it community groups, and how that consultation was advertised, and when?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I don't believe that was public consultation in the context of - like we would do with environmental assessments when a proponent has a consultation session. It was soliciting feedback from people who participated through the system, so those would be the members of the public who would have had the opportunity to provide feedback. I believe through the course of the pilot period they would ask people through that process, so people as they are submitting complaints or as they're working through a complaint scenario that they would inquire about the feedback at that time.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Do you have a list of where, throughout the province, were those when they asked the question, because I would assume that if somebody was calling in there must be some kind of data recording done by your staff to ensure that everybody was asking the same question to the same caller and where that caller was from and what the call was about and what they would say back to the staff person in terms of being anonymous or not, if they were comfortable with that - do you have a breakdown of that information?

 

            MR. DELOREY: That data would have been just in the western region where the pilot was taking place. The data that I saw in terms of the breakdown did, of course, assess the nature of calls or complaints that came in through the system, numbers that were anonymous or not, and so on. I don't recall the geography of the complainants falling into that. Again, the pilot was restricted to the western region, but within that I don't believe, at least on the report, that I recall reviewing that in that rolled up report that I received. I don't recall seeing a subset of geographies, but again more so on the nature of complaints and the nature of the information that came in.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I understand that during - and correct me if I'm wrong - the pilot project anonymous complaints were not being taken, so can you tell me how many anonymous complaints during that time were not investigated because they were anonymous?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I know that we identified how many anonymous calls came in; I don't have the report with me right now, so I can track that information down and get it back to you, but I don't have it.

 

            It's important to note that again some of those anonymous complaints, even if they came in through other jurisdictions, in some instances these are voice mails left on the office phone with blocked call numbers and no name or contact information to follow up, and there's insufficient information being provided. So just to make sure that I stress the suggestion that the notion of anonymous calls not being investigated, two things: (1) in many cases they are not possible to investigate because there wasn't enough information nor a mechanism to follow up; and (2) to also stress that the notion of anonymous complaints, it's anonymous, but also low-risk complaints.

 

We do have a separate policy that has already been in existence pertaining to major environmental emergencies, and those always did, even in the western region during that pilot phase would be responded to and that's an all-hands-on-deck type of response. We don't want to leave anyone with the suggestion or the impression that important environmental or significant environmental events may have been missed or overlooked or not responded to. That certainly wasn't the case, nor would it have been with that draft policy.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: How would you be able to guarantee, though, that if an anonymous complaint came in that it may not lead into a major environmental issue, because of the fact that you have people in the community and they may see something that is of concern and to other people it may not be a concern, but in actual fact it should be a concern and be investigated by your department, and the only way it is discovered that it can lead into an environmental crisis would be to take that call. That would be more of a preventive measure than wait until the actual crisis takes place. Your policy allows for that anonymous call at that crisis level.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Certainly, and that's one of the points that I was making in terms of the review of the pilot - the focus in the new model is less on the report and more on the information. So when this policy gets updated and released in the not-too-distant future, this Spring, I am hesitant to disclose too much detail only because we haven't rolled it out within our staff yet - and I do believe it's appropriate for the staff to have that exposure first.

 

            I will say that the focus and the emphasis, rather than on the caller or the complainant, is on the nature of the information and the quality of the information, and the ability to assess and make informed decisions at that juncture.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Do you not have a concern, however, because especially in rural communities, I mean everybody knows everybody and of course if there's a Tim Hortons, we all call it the "Timmy Talk," that's where all the news - and if you want to start a political rumour just go to Tim Hortons and say a few words and leave and then everybody in the community knows by the end of the day, right?

 

            I'm just concerned with the fact that people are very hesitant to come forward in the first place because if their name gets attached to a complaint, it might be something that their neighbour or their employer is doing - what guarantees, with this policy, will ensure the comfort to those individuals who do want to take action but are very nervous to do so?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I guess the main one is, as I'd indicated, the ability to make a third party or an anonymous complaint will be part of the model, so that option would be there, but the focus would be on the information, so making sure that there is sufficient information for us to move forward and proceed.

 

            But, again, as I mentioned at the onset of this discussion, we'd still encourage people to come forward. Having that information makes it - the contact information - allows continued dialogue and discussion. For example, what a witness has seen at a particular point in time, if the nature of the complaint isn't an ongoing activity so that when the inspector arrives they don't observe the same thing, an ability to have a discussion and collect more details because we're not able to observe, only strengthens our ability.

 

            Again, it is, from an investigative process, certainly beneficial and helpful, if not necessarily always needed to have the information of the complainant, but that said, as I mentioned, that anonymous third party option is still going to be incorporated, it's going to be retained, based on feedback we receive. Furthermore, whether it's under the current system or the one that we'll be rolling out, when a citizen of Nova Scotia submits information to the province, we do have legislation with respect to protecting personal information. That would be our FOIPOP legislation.

 

            Often the focus of FOIPOP legislation is on the freedom of information side of things, when the public or the media or others have an interest in accessing information of the government, that the government has or a public body has. Often the discussion doesn't touch on the protection of personal information - the back side of it - which is why sometimes governments require requests to go through the freedom of information to ensure that personal information is protected, before we disclose information outside of the department or the area working with it. So that would certainly lend to protect personal information of individuals.

 

            I'd also like to follow up and add to that - recognizing that we are a regulatory body with jurisdictions and at times we would have to, and have the authority to, lay charges, summary offence tickets, and/or to engage the Public Prosecution Service of the Department of Justice to pursue, depending on the nature of an offence. Given that awareness and the nature of court proceedings and so on - again, much like a criminal, a police investigation, our investigators and if a court process was to proceed, sometimes individuals, if you want to see the action come to a successful conclusion through that process, it may require witnesses and sworn affidavits.

 

            In those cases, they would have to be publicly disclosed. That's that point about if we have to move things through and it goes to that compliance course, we need people, otherwise we may do an investigation, find some information and be at a loss on actually enforcing because we may need someone as we move through the compliance phase.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You did the pilot project in the western region, but when you had your conversations about making this a provincial policy, did you include inspectors from throughout the province in those conversations?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Yes, we did.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We know that you will now have other inspectors in your department, under your portfolio - will they be following the same policy in terms of anonymous calls in order for them to do their work?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We'll be bringing the other compliance inspectors and inspectors from other departments in, effective July 1^st. Part of that process includes work of a transition team to assess where the synergies exist, that is where we can line up our processes to adopt common best practices. It's too early for me to say explicitly that those departments will adopt what we've developed, those employees, it's possible that there may be elements in existing process that those compliance officers have that either reflect unique circumstances of the work that they're doing or that they may have some best practices that we can adopt to enhance. So it's a little too early to say exactly that it will be the only model adopted, but certainly it will be our starting point.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you tell me when the transformation will be taking place, are those inspectors still at their locations under the other departments - when exactly, what's the timeline for that transition to Environment?

 

            MR. DELOREY: As announced officially, the transition - that is when employees from the departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Health and Wellness will be transitioning to Nova Scotia Environment - is July 1^st, effective July 1^st. That will represent essentially at this point in time a reporting structural change. At this point we're not anticipating to make drastic structural change, that is having all of the offices - you know, physical changes that may take place at that time.

 

            Recognizing that sometimes the stress of making changes like this in an organization, organizational change can be a stressful time for employees, one of our primary focuses is on engaging work with our employees to ensure it's a successful transition, that they're prepared to move over to Environment and the new reporting structure, but at that July 1^st date we expect basically inspectors to be continuing to do their job, but we will have done the groundwork to prepare them and will continue then throughout the months following to move forward with more structural changes that would support our transition to a unified division within Environment.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: How many employees with this affect?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We have approximately 130 Nova Scotia Environment compliance inspectors right now and we're looking at about 100 additional inspectors coming, collectively, from the other departments.

           

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you list those departments again and what their responsibilities are?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Yes, so from the Department of Health and Wellness we estimate approximately 10 environmental health staff and public health inspectors who focus on things such as tobacco control and tattoo parlours, those aspects of public health.

 

            DNR we look at approximately 50 conservation officers, so those would be the conservation officers who work on protecting forest resources, protected areas, wildlife, parks, beaches, hunting and fishing compliance.

 

Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Agriculture, is about 50 regulatory inspectors in the enforcement and compliance division between Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Agriculture, because that's kind of a joint department, I don't have the numbers broken out between Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Agriculture - the data I have is already combined. So that was 10 from Health and Wellness, about 50 from DNR, and about 50 from Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Agriculture.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You mentioned that initially there will not be any physical location changes for these inspectors.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I wouldn't say "none," I mean, there may be some instances where the changes are substantive but I wouldn't expect the substantive changes, major changes, on the July 1^st date.

 

There may be some instances where it may make sense and be mutually beneficial to do so earlier but, by and large, I wouldn't be suggesting that people would see a substantive change on July 1^st, other than the reporting structure where these employees reside, the division within Nova Scotia Environment and leading up to that. Again, we'll have the transition team that lays out the exact transition timelines, as well as specific steps and actions that will be taken through the subsequent months.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So that means timelines have not been calculated. Is there not - I understand you're going to have a transition team, but to come to a conclusion of this decision, has there been any business plan that has been laid out in a strategic manner to show what departments move, when and where they move, and how they move and so forth - is there a plan that exists?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We do have the plan that identifies the importance of unifying the compliance and inspection work done in the province. The timeline established to make the business functional change is July 1^st. As far as the operational physical locations, that level of detail is being worked on with the transition team.

 

            Again, the focal point, keeping in mind that the primary purpose of this initiative, one of the primary purposes is building that unified ability, generating some efficiencies in work that is similar, and whether it is, as we were talking about earlier, complaints handling policy that makes sense so that the general public knows how to engage and it's not being passed from one department to another, that they know that if we call into this system we know how complaints can be processed then, or through training opportunities that enforcement officers do which, in many cases, the investigative side is very similar, we're able to consolidate that and do joint work together, learn and do best practices, breaking down those barriers and building those opportunities.

 

            Also, in addition to that, what this change allows is for those departments, particularly around Natural Resources, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture, that traditionally had a mandate of industry promotion and growth, supporting industry growth, but were also responsible for enforcing regulatory control and compliance of that same industry, it's removing that appearance of a potential conflict of interest, of having an inspector working or a compliance officer in the same department who is actively promoting growth and work in a particular sector.

 

            By establishing these units within Nova Scotia Environment, we're able to allow those other departments to focus on their industry sector growth, while the enforcement - and I think we've shown particularly in the last year - that's something that Nova Scotia Environment knows well.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Are you able to provide us with a copy of the plan that brought you to the decision that these inspectors should be unified under one department? As you mentioned there was a plan - can you provide that to us?

 

            MR. DELOREY: As mentioned earlier about the FOIPOP legislation, I'd have to check to see whether it would be something that would be subject to that legislation or not.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: If it isn't, then you'd be able to provide us with that plan?

 

            My other question is, what cost analysis was done to determine what the costs would be to move the inspectors under one department? I would think that, for example, right down to the letterhead to business cards to vehicles that now would say DNR when you need Department of Environment - what is that cost, what analysis was done, and can you give me the cost of that entire transition of inspectors?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I can't give you that cost breakdown right now because, as I indicated, the primary purpose and focus of this transition is not simply restructuring the decal on letterhead and vehicles. Our primary concern and focus here is on the work that's being done and the ability to strengthen and build about the capacity and consistency of the work being done in a unified compliance model in addition to, again, removing the perception, or the potential for perception, of conflicts between departments that have both an industry focus to promote and grow an industry and also at the same time responsible for enforcing. That, again, is the primary purpose and that's where our focus is, not on the one- time transitional cost of making that change because this is a long-term benefit to the Province of Nova Scotia to make this transition.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So I guess I'm correct interpreting that there was no cost analysis done, the philosophy was that it would be better to have the inspectors unified in one particular department, but there was no cost analysis to say well this is what it would cost us to do that, so right now there is nothing - is there anything in your budget to cover that or where would that be covered? What if, as you go along, you discover it costs $1 million, where does that come from?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The operational costs are reflected and will continue to be held in the current departments, that is their departments where inspectors reside for this fiscal, they will continue to be the area with the cost centres for them and we will transition then to the cost of structure into Nova Scotia Environment in the next year, the 2016-17 budget because that will be when the transition is completed.

 

            As far as actual transitional cost, the transitional restructuring costs, those are managed through the restructuring allocation within the budget.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Are you aware if there were any inspectors in the past in the province consolidated in the same manner, or is this the first time?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I'm aware that various groups of inspectors have gone through various changes throughout the history in Nova Scotia. I'm not aware of a point in time when all of these compliance inspectors came under one roof but certainly, for example, previously there were - sorry let me rephrase that - currently within Nova Scotia Environment there are employees who previously worked for Department of Health and Wellness on water, worked in the past on water and onsite systems because that work used to be managed by that department. For example, we do have instances where they've already transitioned into Nova Scotia Environment and are part of the work that our staff do in the department today. So it will be similar, like that, it's just bringing all of these other groups, and I'm not aware that these specific compilations have ever been initiated.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I know that when you look at a major change such as this that's it's always good also to look at what problems or challenges may arise. Have you looked at that, and what do you think may be the challenge of this consolidating?

 

            MR. DELOREY: That's exactly true. In fact I have some personal background and expertise in management, given my previous work and research, and certainly any organizational changes I've mentioned before I think are really incumbent on the human side of things.

 

I think any change like this, where really it is all about the people and the success or failure of this type of initiative, is going to hinge on our department's ability to connect and work with the people who are affected, both the employees who are currently within Nova Scotia Environment, to prepare them for what is essentially almost doubling of compliance inspectors, but also working with those inspectors who have an identity connected within their department where they are currently. If I use a sports analogy, it's kind of like trading a player from one team to another and sometimes people can feel a variety of emotions.

 

Some people may thrive on the opportunity and look forward to it, and others may feel like they somehow weren't valued and that's why they are being traded, so to speak. That's our number one thing - to work with our employees to make sure they know full well that this is not an example or scenario where these employees are not valued; in fact, it's quite the opposite. We're making the structural change because we value the work of our inspectors and our compliance staff; we value the importance of the work they do in all these departments, and recognize that the value of that work will actually be strengthened.

 

            I do, without hesitation, believe that this is the right thing to do and I believe it will be successful. Again, we'll be successful because of the people who are going to be coming over and strengthening our team in Nova Scotia Environment.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you tell me, from your talking about an internal communication process with employees, which I'm very pleased to hear that you recognize the significance of that to make this work, what about from the external perspective with the general public? As you know, it takes repeat, repeat, repeat for people to become aware and understand what numbers they need to call for what services. Can you tell me what type of communication strategy is in place in order to ensure that there is a public education and awareness campaign?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Actually in addition to that we also look at partnerships, so working with really the stakeholders that we regulate and monitor and enforce as well to assist us in that process, so that's certainly a big part of it. For example, engaging with the Federation of Agriculture or the forestry association, et cetera, is a big part of it, as well as the general public. But, in addition to the general public, we have the opportunity, again in the short term, to maintain the current infrastructure in place - that would be phone numbers and so on - and transition out. With technology these days, the ability to transition off a fixed land line while maintaining the number and making a call forward, so that essentially it will be seamless for people without necessarily incurring the full cost of the same land line. So there are lots of opportunities like that. One of the things that, as I said, the technology that exists today helps us facilitate that as well.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm going to move in a little bit different direction in terms of staff layoffs. I understand in your department there will be three employees who will be let go through the budget process - can you tell me where those employees are located and what their responsibilities are?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I know one was a junior engineer, one was an internal librarian for our department, and a director of IT services, which when you - part of the restructuring that took place around IT services within Internal Services, that position wasn't necessary within our department anymore.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Were those positions all here in the city?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Two of the positions were in the Halifax area, and one was in Sydney.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm going to move along to talk to you about process and the department's involvement with other departments. As you would know, in the mandate of the new Department of Business it talks about coordinating the efforts of all departments, that everybody is working on the same path to the same outcomes and encourage making better conditions in the province for employment, and also for investment in the province and for the people of Nova Scotia.

 

            I want your thoughts on how that is going to roll out to ensure - I guess a good example would be with respect to the quarries and knowing that under a certain amount of hectares of land there is no environmental assessment required. That's a real pull between environmentalists and feeling that it doesn't matter, a square inch of land that is going to be dug up for a quarry should be under environmental assessment before you go forward.

 

            First I'd like to ask the minister - how many hectares? I'm trying to remember. It's four, isn't it? Yes. I was going to say that; I thought it was back in my mind somewhere. So above four hectares they don't need to do that. Really I can understand the argument for people with respect to the environment, because under four hectares can be damaged just as bad as if it's over four hectares. Can you tell me how you think that process with your department is going to be able to meet those challenges of big business versus the environmental concerns that people have - they don't always, most of the time or always fit together, right?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I can understand and appreciate where you're coming from. However, a couple of things with that - one is that with respect to if there is going to be a major impact or not, those rules, there are other aspects. For example, there may be a quarry structure in place, but if it has more sensitive features - for example, water courses - and is going to impact a certain amount of water course, it falls under another set of regulations around water course alterations that would require an environmental assessment.

 

            So there are other mechanisms that complement the pit and quarry guidelines that we use, and the activity designation regulations - so to suggest that just because it's under four, well, if it is in a really sensitive area, for example, with water courses, marshlands and so on, that are of concern, there are other mechanisms that may trigger that environmental assessment to be pursued.

 

            I guess to highlight even in the current context, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility, the nature of the activity, so it's really the nature of the activities taking place.

 

            I think it's also worth noting that - and as you mentioned at the beginning, my interest and concern for the environment and also for the information that people bring forward is one that I take seriously. Certainly quarries are one of those topics that people in communities, when one is proposed, like to be engaged and share their perspectives, so I do get a fair amount of correspondence on the topic, expressing essentially those same concerns that you've just raised. I needed to become better informed and so I engaged staff to assess what our history is with quarries in terms of both the environmental impact and the type of major issues we have seen from quarry activities. Yes, recognizing of course when you are extracting aggregate from the land, you are creating environmental change, but that is the nature of the activity.

 

It's going to happen if you are going to approve quarries to access aggregate to do work such as our roads and infrastructure. We're going to need the aggregate so the question is, what is the nature of those environmental impacts and are they extensive in the sense not of just restructuring the land but are they extensive in the sense of dramatic impacts on, again, those really sensitive things like watercourses threatened, or extinct or at-risk animals and so on, and even flora - plants - as well.

            Generally speaking, it's not like a Boat Harbour-type of activity, I guess is what I'm getting at, so that level of risk is very different in some activities, and others.

 

            Now with respect to how all of this then transitions that flux or conflict, whether it is perceived or real, between industry, the economic pull and the environmental pull, how that gets balanced with the mandate of the new business environment, I want to assure you the focus of Environment and the Environment Act and the regulations that govern the department are very clearly laid out in the legislation in terms of what our mandate is.

 

            What I see the relationship between us and the Department of Business is in those regulations that we have, are there efficiencies in the way that they are structured in terms of how the paperwork is processed? Can we adopt a more lean way of processing? "Lean" does not mean not doing the necessary oversight, technical review and so on - what lean means is when there is non-value-added activities within a process. Can we take those out of there? Do we have things being done or delays in the process that nobody has ever looked at, that aren't providing value? That's the type of thing that I see the division, within the Department of Business, on regulatory excellence really contributing to Nova Scotia Environment and providing that kind of oversight - how do we make our processes more efficient so that while we maintain the integrity and the rigour of the environmental oversight, we do so in the most efficient way possible?

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I believe my experience with the quarries, the frustration has been in terms of the preventive measures people feel Environment could take if an assessment would be done under the four hectares.

 

            As you mentioned, there are some leverages in the legislation, but I don't think that the public believes there is enough leverage there and that when it comes to the quarry situation that it's really important that less than four hectares is still seen the same as if it was double that amount. An environmental assessment actually, and it should be paid by the quarry company, would probably settle down a lot of issues in those areas - if it's an independent environmental assessment. It can't be one that is done by the company, but an independent, there would probably be a lot less grief if that was part of the process.

 

            I think the other frustrating part is the public consultation because in the regulations presently the company, any company that is seeking to create a quarry or do quarry work, it just says that they need to do public consultation, but it doesn't have a framework around that public consultation. They could just advertise that they're going to meet you on the side of the road or they're going to advertise that you call this number, and that is considered public consultation.

 

            I'd like to ask you, do you have any plans on looking at that and to develop a real list of criteria of what the public consultation should be like for quarries?

 

            MR. DELOREY: First off, and if you'll just pardon me a little aside because it ties into the overall theme, but I will answer specifically your exact question as well, so bear with me.

 

First, I do want to stress for all the members here, again recognizing that there are and have been members of the public in areas where quarries exist, looking to establish a mandate for an environmental assessment for all quarries and not just those over four hectares.

 

            I want to stress and remind people that in the absence of an environmental assessment for those quarries under four hectares does not - I want to stress "does not" - mean that there is no environmental oversight of those quarry operations. Those operations still require an industrial approval. The industrial approval does provide terms and conditions with respect to the operation of the quarry facility even when it is under four hectares. I really want to stress that point - I cannot underline it enough - there is still environmental oversight even for those quarries under four hectares, and it's through the industrial approval process.

 

            With respect to consultation, I'll say no, I don't have anything in place with respect to pits and quarries to require terms of reference. The reason I say that is because when I came in, that level of concern around consultation is not restricted to pits and quarries. I see that as something that is a broader concern. I mentioned earlier one of the things that I think was a great success of the Department of Environment has been around the notion of engagement over the last year or so. We use the example of the work that was done with fracking waste water; that was done through effective engagement and consultation through that process.

 

            With disclosing, and I won't disclose due to privacy concerns, but I can say that there are organizations that I have interacted with and the department has interacted with since I've come into this office who, with a little bit of encouragement, opted to take more proactive and engaged approaches to community consultation. They've come back and have advised how it has been more successful for them and they've seen the value of it.

 

            I think the opportunity exists. I do have a group within the department that I have asked to work on evaluating the notion of consultation, but not specifically in the context of pits and quarries, but in a much broader context where and when we require a consultation, both through industrial approval processes and environmental assessment processes - what can we do to enhance it?

 

            I do believe that process will align nicely and rather than - as you started this segment of questioning in bringing up the notion of the Department of Business and highlighting that notion of conflict between environment and economic activity or industry - I see this notion of what I'm looking to develop and establish here is actually looking at showing the synergies that can exist where taking a good solid approach from the environmental side will actually result in good business - not just good business practice, but in building good faith within the community, allowing the operations to continue to operate and thereby resulting in good business, as well as environmental outcomes.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm glad to hear you talk about the importance of consultation because I know that it has been a challenge. This is a prime example, and I want to ask you if you can walk me through the process of where the Department of Environment participates. I haven't seen any participation from the department particularly in these situations, and I'm wondering if there is a process or if that's a gap that we have, and that's with respect to clear-cutting.

 

            As you may be aware, the Ingramport area, there was a huge outcry from the public of the clear-cut area being on the ocean side, close to people's homes. A lot of environmental concerns there because of some of the water paths and the waterways there going to the ocean. Unfortunately, those environmental issues have not been addressed in the minds of the public that I represent in that area.

 

So I see that as one of those things that is a challenge for you as a minister with your department because the Department of Natural Resources makes that decision - where does the Department of Environment come into play in that role to ensure that there is absolute grassroots level consultation and that your team is out there working with the scientists to ensure that that clear-cut decision is not going to have detrimental effect on those lands?

 

            Can you tell me what process is in place now for you to be able to work with DNR? I mean, I didn't see it - maybe you know more information than me, but my understanding is that there wasn't anything done through your department to assist the DNR in their actual decision making with that clear-cut.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Forest management does fall under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources. That is the department that makes those decisions. Our role with the Department of Environment is not in the decision making as to the approach that DNR takes in working with the stakeholders that they work with for decision making on the type of forest approach. They do have guidelines, as I understand it, within the department to make those decisions around the work.

 

            Nova Scotia Department of Environment, certainly we do have a certain level of expertise with respect to things like water courses and other aspects of the natural land area - particularly in our parks and protected areas branch of the department. We certainly make our expertise available to the Department of Natural Resources when they request it, in much the same way that the Department of Natural Resources have certain expertise in the area of wildlife management and so on that our department reaches out to them and leverages that expertise. We have a good working relationship in that regard so that we both know the nature of the expertise that each department respectively has in-house, and when either department feels that there is an opportunity or a necessity to engage and leverage the expertise that's in-house with the other department, then we do so.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Would you not agree though, Mr. Minister, that it shouldn't be just up to whomever is working on a particular project to make the decision whether they consult with Environment, that the reason we have a Department of Environment, because there is that expertise there and the government's talking about bringing the inspectors over to Environment because you want to unify the process, the procedures. Wouldn't this just fit into place, the same philosophy that you're talking about with the inspectors that something as huge as a clear-cut, sometimes they're deep in the forest, but there are other times, where in Ingramport you see it as you drive on Highway No. 103 and it's going down towards the ocean and we do know that there are a lot of rivers there, there are a lot of environmental issues.

 

            As a minister, would you make steps going forward with the clear-cut to not have such a divide that that's DNR, we have nothing really to do with it unless they ask us, and rather make it as part of the process that Environment is always involved in that decision making. I guess that's my question, as the Minister of Environment, would you be willing to go forward with that type of regulation or legislation to ensure that the environment is looked at through environmental eyes and not DNR eyes, and then come to some type of conclusion on whether that particular area should be clear-cut or not?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The process, as you would be aware, in terms of the roles and the scope of the responsibility, in fact I started this evening highlighting where the mandate for and what legislation governs the work of Nova Scotia Environment, much like the Acts that fall under the purview of the Minister of Natural Resources and that department are defined under legislation they are responsible for, and through that process it is a clear distinction . . .

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, the time allotted for the NDP caucus has expired, and we'll now turn the questioning over to the . . .

 

            MR. DELOREY: Could I have a quick recess?

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll take a two- minute break.

 

            [6:48 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[6:52 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, we'll resume. The time for commencement of the questioning by the PC caucus is 6:52 p.m.

 

            Ms. MacFarlane.

 

            MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Moving along, I meant to ask this earlier, I'm just wondering, the ministerial order that you gave, does that now sort of morph together with the IA or is it still like a separate document?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The ministerial order still exists as an order on the company that they must comply with; however the industrial approval did adopt certain aspects that were defined in the order, as I understand it, and are written into the industrial approval as well.

           

            MS. MACFARLANE: Just recalling, the ministerial order was that up until May 31^st it would stay in effect and then, I'm just wondering if the precipitator was supposed to be up and running by May 31^st, so that is not the case and then the intention is to proceed with shutdown on June 1^st for a couple of weeks - does that have any effect with the ministerial order? I'm just trying to wrap my head all around it.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I guess if you look at it - it wouldn't seem to have a material effect if you say they have a shutdown on the next day, because it's not emitting anything, but they would certainly have to be in compliance when they do come up after the fact because it does indicate that they have to be in compliance with their emissions and the stack has to be operating.

 

If you look at the language of the ministerial order I believe the language is that the minister will suspend or cancel, if you're looking at a situation where it's not online, even if there is a suspension, but if they're shut down there is no material distinction there. A suspension would prevent them from operating, if they're choosing not to operate I wouldn't see that there is a material change there but when they come back online they would certainly have to be compliant.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: So I guess, yes, if they proceed with the shutdown on June 1^st and maybe not open again until September 1^st, but as long as the precipitator is up and running and working September 1^st, that duration, there's no effect on them, there's no penalties or anything for being closed that long or anything.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Again, the language of the order is to suspend or cancel a decision as to which option to pursue if there is non-compliance with the ministerial order. It would have to be taken at that time to assess what the nature of the non-compliance at the decision point is at that time to determine whether action is necessitated and then which of those two courses of action would be taken. So it would be difficult to say if there's any subsequent consequences to a deferral because we'd get into hypothetical scenarios and it really is something we'd have to assess the specifics as we come up to the end of May.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Moving forward, I noticed earlier you mentioned about - I'm not sure if it was like a management program, but you mentioned something about Brigadoon and protecting lands around that. I'm wondering, was that Crown lands or private lands and how does that actually work? There's a group - you may have heard of them - the Redtail Society back home and we're looking to try to secure some land. We actually did raise a lot of money, $100,000 and some, I think it was, and purchased a nice piece of land that we want to develop into like a community forest, and we're looking to purchase more. I wonder if you can give me what the protocol is to protecting the land.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I just want to verify some of the technical details there. With respect to the first part of your question around the Brigadoon lands, the land was purchased as part of Crown purchasing lands, so it became Crown land through a purchase process.

 

            There were funds that had been allocated along that line for acquiring properties for protection. The land hasn't yet gone through the official designation, although it is clearly identified and earmarked to go through that process. There are additional surveying things that have to go through and we have a number of properties we are working on. It is legally, not formally, designated as protected lands yet, those lands around the Brigadoon camp, but they were certainly allocated and intended to go down that path and the lands that were purchased and are Crown lands now around the campsite that I referenced for the intention of protecting.

 

            With respect to your local organization, we no longer have a tangible capital fund in the department. This is funding that existed to support moving forward on the parks and protected areas plan, identifying lands that would be protected through that process, so those purchases were being made leading up to, primarily. Right now the phase we are in is in the administrative side of getting the surveys and the work done in those protected lands, to move forward with the official designations.

 

            That said, there are certainly private nature trusts that exist; for example, the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, these other, a Canadian, a national one, the Nature Conservancy of Canada that exists with an intent to protect lands as well. Those organizations certainly could be reached out to; they move forward to find properties to protect as well.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Does the Department of Natural Resources have any involvement in that - is it out of their budget that they purchase land or does it normally come out of the budget of the Department of Environment?

 

            MR. DELOREY: There are different approaches that have taken place so, again, for a couple of years there were some funds in Nova Scotia Environment for purchases that Nova Scotia Environment identified and wanted to move forward with. But Natural Resources also, and in particular much of the land, the Crown land, that's being protected originally either by virtue of recent acquisitions or historical acquisitions, were their assets and managed under Crown. When they are protected, of those pieces of legislation identified earlier in my opening remarks, the ones for the special places and the wilderness area legislation, once they get designated and protected through those Acts they become properties under Nova Scotia Environment.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I believe when I was walking back from my break - and I don't want you to have to go into length again because I believe that the member from the NDP might have been asking the same question - I understand as of July 1^st you will be taking over food inspection, and actually I'm not sure what your role will be, so I'm just wondering, what inspections, as well as does this increase or decrease your budget, what about manpower, and . . .

 

            MR. DELOREY: That actually is a really exciting transition. I think it is, I heartily believe that this is a good move for all Nova Scotians. The change will see approximately 100 new employees - well new, 100 employees joining Nova Scotia Environment from other departments. Those departments are Department of Health and Wellness, Department of Natural Resources, the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. The majority of those employees would be coming from DNR, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture and, to a lesser extent, from the Department of Health and Wellness.

 

            The nature of the work being conducted currently by those groups in Health and Wellness, it's work in the public health space, primary with things like tobacco control and tattoo parlour-types of health and related activities, so those would be the ones coming across. With DNR, it would be their conservation compliance offices that do the work enforcing regulations around things like hunting and fishing, and then in the Fisheries, Agriculture side, it would be certainly the inspectors they have as well for regulatory enforcement.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just going to go back here - I think, when I left we were discussing water. Your department has stated a goal that municipal waste water treatment facilities will provide at least primary treatment by 2020, I think. In 2013 though it showed 92 per cent that there was no change from the year before, so do we have what the percentage is for 2014 - even if you tell me it's up or down, I guess.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Staff has just gone to grab the most recent data to get you that answer, but I do recall actually that I forgot to answer part of your preceding question - I'll answer now just to cover that gap. You also asked, if I recall correctly, about the budget information, not just the change in staff, but also budget. At the present time we have identified in the budgets and maintained the staff costs about their salaries and other operational costs within their current departments for this fiscal year, because the transition won't take place until later in this year. So we've left the budgets there and the cost will be recovered from those departments for fiscal year 2015-16. But as the transition is completed this year in its entirety we would anticipate that the appropriate appropriations, fiscally speaking, will be made in our 2016-17 budget, that is, to reflect the cost of providing all those inspection services under Nova Scotia Environment.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you for that answer. I guess we'll stick to a little bit of budget then until we come back to the last question. So when I look here I see that your overall budget has gone down - approximately $1 million or so - I'm just wondering, can you can tell me why?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Some of the largest changes are a couple of programs within the department, again looking at our department as a primary regulatory function. We only had a couple of programs that were being offered, relatively speaking the administrative costs when that's not your core mandate is not generally as efficient as departments that have core mandates and program delivery. So we made the decisions to move away from those program deliveries, so that would be our EHAP and the Flood Assessment Grant.

 

The Flood Assessment Grant portion is part of the work that municipalities do on flood mediation work. The municipalities can still apply and get funding to support that same work, but they just do it through one point, and that would be Municipal Affairs will continue to manage that. Municipal Affairs had a much larger program also in the flood space, so again that notion of consolidating and allowing a single point of contact. Our staff, in particular our climate change division, is still available, and our water division too, to support municipalities and Department of Municipal Affairs as they go through. But, again, the larger portion program delivery has been focused on that, so that covers about half of the amount.

 

The other big item was about $460,000, which was covered for shared services, part of that shared services restructuring, so resources that were providing primary IT services within our department being reallocated over to Internal Services to, again, consolidate those changes. As was mentioned earlier, or inquired about earlier, there were three positions in the department as well.

 

MS. MACFARLANE: Obviously I'm going to need a little help here - so when you say that there will 100 new employees under your department, where will they fall under, like the budget for next year, would it be under Programs and Services, FTEs, or what department within your department do they fall under?

 

MR. DELOREY: We will be creating a new division within our department. Currently the division where comparable employees, that is our inspectors, reside in the compliance division, or is the compliance division, but we believe it would be prudent upon us to not simply have employees from other departments move into our existing compliance division. We believe it's far more important to create a new division so that the current compliance division of Nova Scotia Environment will also be wrapping up and they too will be coming into this new division. We want to make sure that everybody is seen as coming in together at the same time into this new division rather than, and this is strictly from a more managerial perspective to assess and ensure that sometimes if people feel that they'd feel more welcome if everybody is starting a new division together rather than some people feeling like they're coming in to someone else's turf, so to speak.

 

So we'll create a new division, the division will be named appropriately. We do have a draft name - I don't think we've disclosed it yet, not even to employees so I don't know if it's appropriate to disclose here at this point in time, but we do have a draft name for the division which I believe will accurately and adequately reflect the scope and the nature of the work being conducted by all of the employees, both those currently in Nova Scotia Environment and the new employees we're going to be welcoming with open arms.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: When I look at Grants and Contributions and see that we were at $1 million and some, and now we're down to $588,000, what is the reason for the decrease in that again, and I guess I'm also curious who applies for grants and I also want to know is there any opportunity for - because this was asked if I would ask - any schools if they're doing any particular projects with students or anything, if there is any opportunity in your department to look for a little bit of funding?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Again, for the decrease, two of those grant areas were already identified under programs, the EHAP and the Flood Assessment program, so the vast majority came from those two programs for the reduction.

 

            The nature of the remaining grants and programs that exist, there is a wide variety, some are municipal and some are programs that exist, for example, as part of protecting lands. There is in the protection of people who protect private lands and choose to have those lands protected, they get a rebate through us for their municipal taxes on those lands. So in an effort to encourage private landowners to protect their lands, we do provide an offsetting grant for that. If you look through these grants you'll see a number of them to municipalities, to municipal units, those are the total of taxes essentially, it's a grant in lieu municipal taxes on those protected lands, and when you consider that close to 80 per cent of the province is private lands, and as we move forward and look to conserve lands, that's a big initiative.

 

            Again, it's non-governmental agencies that we support doing the environmental work, academic institutions, research, Dalhousie, Saint Mary's, Acadia. I think Acadia is in here, definitely Saint Mary's is here, and then some joint programs with other jurisdictions that we're partners with and, as indicated, a lot do go towards those land conservation grants.

 

            I don't recall it in the past, but there are very many, we can talk smaller programs, I mean I assume you'd be thinking something in the hundreds or $500 type of school programs. We don't have a lot of those that I'm aware of in terms of coming in, but we do support a lot of the non-governmental agencies, groups like the RRFB, Clean Foundation, and those organizations that do work to reach out to the school communities on education programs and initiatives. They often have opportunities and, again, for a department that doesn't do a lot of administration the time to review all of the requests that would come in, it's generally more economically effective and efficient to work with the larger organizations, provide them with grants, because they are the ones out there engaged at, I guess, the grassroots level. Whether those are individual community organizations or they could be schools, or what have you, and that's generally the way that we see the funding flow.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I do know some of those organizations work with the schools in encouraging the kids to recycle. Was there ever any, with the Ecology Action Centre, have they every tapped into any money from your department, or has there been any transfer to them to work on any particular projects?

 

            MR. DELOREY: For that particular organization I believe historically they've received funding. Not that I'm aware of, I wouldn't classify the funding as operational funding or core funding, but I believe that organization has in the past applied for specific programs, funding that we've had available for particular initiatives that were ongoing through the department. For example, climate change adaptation, initiative that an RFP would have been out or a proposal that this program existed. I believe that would be an example of one that I think they've applied for in the past and received funding.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I know earlier we spoke about coastal erosion and I did forget to ask this question on behalf of a constituent who has a summer home. If they wanted to speak to someone with regard to just receiving help and suggestions on what they do for erosion, is there someone in your department who will go and speak to them or assess the situation and put them in the right direction?

 

            MR. DELOREY: To collect some of the information that our department has, to provide information and point people in the right direction and so on would be our climate change division for flood mitigation. On our website, if you go to our climate change division, that is where the contact info is to get hold of them. Other again, non-governmental organizations do exist, they have similar information and supports available, organizations like the Ecology Action Centre do work in that regard as well, so multiple areas that can be reached for support and help, too.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you very much. In 2007 the goal was to have no more than 300 kilograms per person by 2015 for garbage - I think the average per person is about 370, 380 right now, around there - I'm just wondering, what's our plan to meet that goal?

 

            I know there have been some discussions around that it's not uniform across the whole province - do we have a plan to try to make it a little bit more streamlined and the same across the province?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I'll start with the first question - yes, our solid waste and we are leaders in solid waste management from across the country. I believe I mentioned earlier about the trip to Quebec, how my colleagues, Ministers of Environment from other jurisdictions, both Ontario and Manitoba, we had discussions about this at the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment that took place in P.E.I. in the Fall. That was the first time I met my counterparts in person.

 

One of the agenda items was around solid waste management and EPR. They spoke positively, they wanted to learn more and here we are, not quite six months later, at the climate summit in Quebec and these colleagues were continuing to discuss and engage and highlight the work they are trying to do to emulate the success in Nova Scotia.

 

            We've seen a significant decrease over the last number of years in our solid waste. You're right, we're about 375, 380, that is as of 2013 data - kilograms per person - and we're working towards 300.

 

            In the last year we undertook a significant consultation process on reviewing our solid waste strategy. It was back in about 1995, 1996, when we took our first steps to stake out a leadership position in the solid waste area. I don't know if you remember - I remember when this came in as I was in the province and remember the shift over to recycling. I remember as a kid we'd get the beer bottles you'd get refunded for, but not the pop bottles and other beverage containers. That was part of the start back then.

 

            Also the compost, which was a really significant contributing factor, and just to show how much of a leader we are, those other jurisdictions in the Fall were just talking about moving forward to ban compost from landfills, despite compost making upwards of approximately 40 per cent of landfill waste. So just moving compost, reusing compost in a productive way adds a lot to the sustainability of our solid waste streams. That's work that we took 20 years ago and other jurisdictions are only talking about moving their jurisdictions forward on that.

 

            For us, moving forward, part of it is our refreshing of the solid waste management strategy. Part of that will encompass things like the EPR work. There will be some additional bans, which will be targeted at things that are either more hazardous - so when you're thinking of things like compact fluorescent lightbulbs that still contain mercury to get those out of the landfills and banning them from landfills to ensure that they get processed appropriately, both for environmental and health reasons, but then there are also other opportunities, which will help more on the goal of weight when you look at things like textiles.

 

            Textiles currently make up about 11 per cent of the waste that goes into landfills. That waste has been reviewed and identified that it could generate upwards of something in the vicinity of $15 million to $20 million in revenue for non-profit agencies. If you think of the clothing bins that are around - the Diabetes Association, the Cancer Society and others. They take those textiles and they turn them into value either through re-sale opportunities at consignment shops, or for stuff that doesn't sell they turn into rags.

 

            Other products they ship overseas to other jurisdictions, where we may not consider it in a North American context as useable clothing or textiles, in other jurisdictions some of those what we consider worn out aren't always worn out. They may just be out of fashion, but the footwear and clothing are well received and used and create economic opportunity in other developing parts of the world, and then other products that don't meet those needs can be repurposed, again, for rags or broken up into other types of materials that can be used for things like insulation and stuff like that.

 

            So striking that balanced approach to reduce our weight and I just use textiles as one of those examples that's really exciting because it has the opportunity to create economic value for charitable industries while also moving forward on our EGSPA target of 300 kilograms.

 

            To your question, are we going to make it uniform across the province? Our first objective is continuing to refresh our strategy on all aspects of the solid waste. A big part of the focus - while hitting 300 kilograms would be a great accomplishment it is a stretch goal that we have established. We're doing quite well, but we're hearing from our municipal partners who are responsible, they are the ones who manage on the ground our waste management streams primarily, and business owners as well.

 

            So we're looking for opportunities to ensure that the waste management system that we have in place is not only successful in the outcomes that it produces from an environmental perspective, but also economically sustainable. Part of the strategy that we assessed was to look at opportunities and that's where EPR comes into play to make it a more sustainable model so that we can sustain, and that's a very important point, and we continue to be leaders across all jurisdictions. The national average is somewhere in the vicinity of 700 kilograms. Sometimes that last 100 metres in a marathon is the hardest.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I just want to thank the minister and his staff; this concludes all my questions. My colleague here has a couple of questions and I just want to thank you, you're doing a great job.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harrison.

 

            MR. LARRY HARRISON: Good evening. Just a couple of questions in my own constituency I'd like to ask about. One is the waste water that is in Debert and Kennetcook. The waste water in Debert, I think, is being looked after at this point, that's my understanding anyway, through Lafarge. I'm wondering, are there any plans for the waste water that's sitting in Kennetcook?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Just to clarify, there is still some waste water in Debert. There certainly has been a process that has been working so far to deal with a large volume of the water, it started with a pilot project that took place in June of last year and we received all of the test results from that in early Fall, and then there is a request for another volume of water which we allowed. As I understand it, there was a recent request essentially that would cover the remaining volume.

 

            I just want to verify, I don't know if we've responded to that - I know an application came in, but I don't know of a final decision.

 

            So an application has come which is essentially a request for us to allow the remaining water in Debert to go through the same process but it's still under review by staff at this time, but noting that that application is tied to the operation of the Lafarge cement plant which is currently in shutdown, so really the timing isn't as material at this specific juncture.

 

            For Kennetcook-Noel, the water in those locations, the proprietor, the company responsible for them is continuing to look at operations. Essentially they're responsible for the water; in fact they engaged AIS for the services that AIS has provided, and the joint AIS Lafarge solution, that has been used. At this point I think the focus has been on ensuring that they move forward with a successful completion of the water in Debert and then they would be submitting their proposals, and they may be looking at other technology and solutions, but to date I don't believe we have an active application before us for disposal options for the water in Kennetcook-Noel area.

 

            MR. HARRISON: My understanding was that there has been a little bit of leakage in the Kennetcook area. I'm just wondering, is the company going to be responsible for containing that leakage?

 

            MR. DELOREY: To my knowledge I'm not aware of any leakage or even allegations of leakage at Kennetcook-Noel. The last time that I'm aware of an incident, off the top of my head, was actually in January 2014. In January 2014 we had a heavy snowfall precipitation followed by a heavy rain and a flash freeze, and at that point in time the caps that were on the ponds pressured and some of the water went over the boards. Both Environment Canada and Nova Scotia Environment were on site and did some investigation of that, but subsequent to that we've maintained and updated the requirements for the proponent, the company, to ensure that they had ongoing active monitoring, which meant that they also had to make sure that the caps were maintained and the integrity assessed on a regular basis throughout the winter, and that was to be proactive to avoid that type of situation.

 

So if members of the community are aware of leakages, I would encourage them to report them to the department staff in the local office. I guess Kennetcook-Noel would probably be the Bedford office for Nova Scotia Environment, and the contact info is on our website.

 

            MR. HARRISON: So my understanding is they are required to give an update every so often as to what is happening.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I'd have to double-check the specifics. I believe they're required to do the monitoring on an ongoing basis but I believe the reporting - and I'd have to double-check this - I believe the reporting is on an exception basis. So to report on nothing would seem to be one of those areas of red tape reduction we look to avoid because it doesn't really provide value, but yet if there is an exception, if there is a leak or an issue, they would be obliged to report that to us and so that's the process.

 

            MR. HARRISON: Thank you for those answers and I hope that is under control; that's one of the things that I worry about, I guess, how it gets into the ground.

 

One more question and that has to do with Lafarge itself. You certainly know the situation about another plant being built in Quebec and they are a little bit nervous about the Brookfield one. They do have a layoff right now and that has been in place now for a few years, I think. Has there been any application given to plastics and to tires by the plant?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The plant does have an application before (Interruption) Let me just double-check this.

 

            Sorry, I just wanted to clarify, the earlier discussions and questions around Northern Pulp that we started the evening with. The process of the assessment, sometimes there are discussions before formal applications come in, so I was just trying verify whether the formal application has been submitted or if it's just in discussions around the plastics application. I believe the consensus is that the formal application has been submitted. To put that in context, the operation actually did some research. They employed Dalhousie University to do some modelling around plastics, they applied and received basically a pilot to test using plastics last year that was a limited scope to allow us to assess the impacts on the air emissions. They, of course, are looking to plastics as an opportunity for a lower cost fuel, and our concern would be, of course, the environmental air emissions, but the plastics would be replacing a current fuel source of coal so our primary concern is that the air emissions are no worse - or better than the current emissions.

 

            MR. HARRISON: So there really is no go ahead at this point in time, they're still assessing what that impact might be?

 

            MR. DELOREY: As of the last briefing that I had, which was last week, the application was before us, but no final decision had been made. It was being reviewed. Again, as I mentioned, by all accounts the research and the pilot went well. We followed the same variables, it would be expected to result in positive outcomes. We have to make sure that we do our proper due diligence to ensure that the data we have is reflective of the proposal coming forward and ensure, again, that we have the environmental outcomes, based on the evidence, that we can make informed decisions. That's the reason for reviewing.

 

            MR. HARRISON: Those are all my questions. Thank you very much and thanks to your staff. It is a lot of work to get prepared for these estimates. I hope I never have to do it.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Peterson-Rafuse.

 

            HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Does the minister want to have a little break in between? (Interruption) You're a tough one.

           

As we closed off the last time we were talking about the importance of your department and how your department really intertwines in many other departments in the province. I know you spoke about your department following the regulatory framework and the legislation that's in place for that. As we all know, there are opportunities to change regulation, and there are opportunities to change legislation. As society progresses and we learn more and we understand more, I think that becomes more evident, how we need to have those interactions between departments.

 

            I think that seems to be part of the strategy as you talked about, under the Department of Business. That's what brings me to that discussion I had about the Ingramport clear-cut and how important it is that Environment has a significant role in the decision-making process when that takes place.

 

            I would say there are other departments, there's the Department of Energy that decisions are made that have an effect on our environment. The point I am trying to express here is that there's a difference between paperwork and book smart versus the reality of our society we live in and the reality of how things really work in life.

 

            I think the clear-cut in Ingramport is a prime example of how necessary it is to have the Department of Environment right there at the table when those decisions are being made, rather than wait until you are invited - because sometimes you are not invited, right?

 

            I'm going to ask again, as the Minister of the Department of Environment, in going forward do you see yourself moving in that direction and to try to establish legislation that sets up a system where Environment is at that table? It is critical, I mean your role is very, very important in this province and I think we have many gaps. I'm just wondering your thoughts on that, and you may be pursuing that, rather than just the regulatory aspect of your department.

 

            MR. DELOREY: Thank you for both the kind comments and the acknowledgement of the importance of the role that Nova Scotia Environment - I wouldn't say necessarily just me, but the department as a whole and the work that the staff do day in, day out.

 

            The other comments you made are equally telling; that is the fact that the role intersects with multiple departments, many departments. We see that again with the restructuring we are doing on the compliance side. I think that is one step in that direction that you are talking about here in terms of our role to be that oversight, that outside perspective if you will, that is outside the industry mandate and focus.

 

So even in the current context as we make this transition with the inspectors, what we'll see is that even though DNR will continue to, in the current framework, make their decisions around the cutting practices and the approach that they will take, it will be Nova Scotia Environment staff officers who will be responsible for investigating. So if there are practices in the forestry sector that are violating the rules around the forestry practice, it will be our department that will be taking the necessary actions.

 

What you're getting at is a step forward, so for those certain activities that do fall under, we will be working on them, we need to get this transition right really before pursuing broader, and I do think that any broader consideration would certainly be one that would be a broader assessment of what those roles are that you'd be looking at. In this case we're, again, moving on enforcement. You mentioned making the decisions but it wouldn't necessarily be the decisions, sometimes it's the regulations and the rules, right, because as it stands, if the rules are in place, the decisions being made, again, will be enforced based upon the rules, and that enforcement, again, for much of those activities falls with this transition to Nova Scotia Environment, so we're moving, in essence, in that direction you're looking for.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I do appreciate the fact that, as you said, you have to take each step as it comes, and it's difficult in the political world because there seems to be such a short time frame and so many things coming at you at once. But I would encourage you that your role and your department, your fabulous staff, I think are so integral to so many other departments and decisions that are being made void of the environmental effect from a decision that doesn't have all the information, so I think it's just so important.

 

As you know, knowledge is power, so the more knowledge you have in making those decisions for Nova Scotians, and with Nova Scotians, I think it's critical that Environment gets to play a bigger role in that. So whatever you can do to move that along, I would encourage you to do that, because I think another example is the sustainable transportation strategy which is a very important strategy to encourage Nova Scotians to think about riding their bicycles to work, to do what they can to create more sustainable transportation. You know that transportation in rural Nova Scotia is quite an issue and really links communities together and links the entire province together.

 

Could you just comment on your feelings with respect to that strategy actually being cut, because probably Environment wasn't at the table for those discussions? And I'm sure that if you were there you would have been waving the banner for sustainable transportation and the importance of it to fit as part of the environment puzzle in our province.

 

MR. DELOREY: Again, in your comments you made some very nice comments about the staff and, on behalf of them, I want to thank you for that acknowledgement.

 

With respect to your question on sustainable transportation - as you mentioned rural Nova Scotia and the challenges that we face in rural Nova Scotia, many individuals, whether low-income or seniors, which one doesn't necessarily preclude the other, those challenges do exist and representing a rural riding myself, living even outside the rural parts of my riding and having grown up there recognizing those challenges.

 

            But at the same time I want to acknowledge the work being done by the Department of Municipal Affairs. It's not necessarily under the auspices of sustainable transportation, but it is under public transportation which supports really what amounts to sustainable transportation. I can point to Antigonish having recently a community initiative launched with the financial support from both the two local municipalities, the Town and the County of Antigonish, as well as supportive funding from programs within Municipal Affairs. Again, not a sustainable transportation program, but other programs that exist. 

 

They were able to run a seven-month project pilot project that ran quite well from September-October when they launched through to the end of the March. At the end of the pilot program they have continued, so they've managed to establish and continue this public transit system which, again, supports the outcomes that we see in part on the sustainable transportation side.

 

            Beyond just that public transit side of things we do look at other programs when you think bicycling, hiking, and so on, these other aspects. We look at trails management that exists, which again there is an environmental element there when you're looking at trails, particularly ones that take place in the natural environment which are of course of particular interest to hikers and mountain bikers and so on.

 

            We've moved to, because in the past there were so many departments - I think at one point there were five departments with various trail strategies and initiatives and that's problematic both for managing internally in government but also for the external stakeholders who spend more time preparing grants for five different programs, then collapsing a bit. So we've collapsed and it's true even on the trails in Nova Scotia, Environment is not a lead on that initiative. Again, we have a role to play through our parks and protected areas and the management plans and trail agreements that get established through those processes, but DNR and Health and Wellness really take the lead on trail development and work there with organizations like Trans Canada Trail and things like that to simplify the process.

 

            So again, just because things are perhaps collapsed and something doesn't have the name of something else doesn't mean we are not as a government either (a) interested, or (b) effective in achieving some of those same outcomes.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Does your government have a committee that will bring those ministers to the table at one time to discuss these issues, that meet on a regular basis, Environment, Energy, certainly DNR, would sit at those together - can you just explain how that works to make sure that there is that information flow and brainstorming to be able to idenitfy how interconnected departments are with Environment?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We have particularly, as I said, on the trail strategy, met as ministers to discuss that. Similarly there were earlier questions about the coastal action strategy, I believe by the member of the PC caucus earlier this evening. Although Fisheries is the lead on that particular strategy, we've had meetings with respect to it as well. So that is a relationship that exists within our Cabinet members so that we can meet on specific topics, and we do so, not necessarily at a set schedule but certainly those meetings take place as necessary.

 

            Furthermore, we continue to meet weekly, as Cabinet members; we also engage each other quite regularly on an ad hoc basis. Believe it or not, some of my colleagues I actually just happen to like, and we interact with each other outside of work, but that doesn't mean that we limit our engagement, often work intersects.

 

            Finally, at the senior level, but also at the staff level, so of course there's always that ongoing engagement and things like committees to work on things like the trail strategies and the coastal work.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I appreciate that, minister. We're going to take a little trip now to Oak Island - it wouldn't be Denise if she didn't bring up Oak Island. I wanted to ask you several environment-related questions around Oak Island. As you are aware, the exemption for Oak Island is the Oak Island Act which allows the treasure seekers, hunters, to hunt for treasure by digging and doing all sorts of things that affect the environment. The licence comes through DNR, which is mining - and you know my opinion on that one - it should be under Communities, Culture and Heritage and under the auspices of having an archeologist available.

 

            With respect to Oak Island, can you explain the process the licensees would have gone through to get permission to drain the swamp on Oak Island?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The process, and it's not a question of it being Oak Island, it would be the same for facilities or activities, so really the regulations take place based on the nature of the activity and what is proposing to be done. In some cases size comes into play, so they would have, if they are altering a watercourse, there are rules around that. If you make reference to a swamp on Oak Island specifically, the parameters of that particular wetland or watercourse would have been assessed and reviewed to identify the nature of that activity.

 

            I don't know offhand what the size of the affected or proposed affected watercourse or wetland area was, but certainly in our wetland rules and activities it does have a trigger mechanism to distinguish whether it requires an environmental assessment and an industrial approval, or just an industrial approval - similar to the scenario we talked about, pits and quarries before, there are certain thresholds that were established.

 

            In this case I did just confirm that there was an application, I believe, and I believe based on the parameters it did just require an industrial approval. That application would have taken place before I came into office, but it would have been reviewed and a decision made. Generally those industrial approvals are done by the local office - for Oak Island that would probably have been our Bedford office.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you explain what would be the trigger to make it involve more environmental assessment on it? Like you said, it was an industrial approval. This is an area that is fairly large and is a swamp on the island. That application to drain it, they applied for and received from the Department of Environment. Can you explain what might have triggered whoever looked at it, whatever staff person, to say okay, this should get industrial, or we should do more environmental assessment?

 

            MR. DELOREY: For wetland alterations which, again, if you are classifying this area as a swamp, it would be a two-acre affected area is what would trigger, under the current regulations, an environmental assessment.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you tell me if, when they're draining a swamp, they are allowed to drain it absolutely dry?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I don't have the approval terms and conditions for that particular project, so I don't know what the specific terms and conditions are for that site because although I can comment on what those thresholds are for general water course alterations knowing that there is the two-acre - sorry, hectare (Interruption) two-hectare threshold for triggering, each project would be different and would be assessed based on the specific parameters of both the activity and the nature of the surrounding areas, and the terms and conditions would be stipulated around that. On this one I don't have the approval; I can't comment on the specific.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: My understanding is - and I'm not quite sure how much - that they're not allowed to drain a swamp dry, which in fact, they did. It could even be seen on the Internet, a sky view of the drained swamp. So I'm just wondering, can you tell me how the Department of Environment would monitor something of this nature? The licensees apply for an application and they get the permit to drain the swamp, so is that the last time they see the Department of Environment, or is there a monitoring program in place to ensure that whoever applies - whether it's Oak Island or anywhere - is following the permit process?

 

            MR. DELOREY: It does vary. In some circumstances there may be activities that have defined reporting periods and standards and/or inspections that take place, but simultaneously that doesn't preclude Nova Scotia Department of Environment staff from inspecting operations and activities that are regulated by the department. However, in some circumstances, depending on the nature of the activity, I guess on private lands anyway we need just cause, much like police officers, to enter private land to investigate.

 

            So in some cases we need sufficient evidence to justify our inspectors entering primarily or in particular on private lands to do those types of inspections, but for operations that have industrial approvals, generally speaking we have mechanisms to do investigations and inspections as part of the terms and conditions.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you tell me if people have a concern that the process or the procedure was not followed appropriately? Because they actually did drain the swamp and they actually had it on an Internet site that you could see where the swamp was completely drained. What can people do? I do appreciate the fact that it is private land, but I also appreciate the fact that it's an environmental issue if they're not following the specifications of the application that was given to them to drain the swamp. What would trigger having your department go and check what they're doing with respect to draining that particular swamp?

 

            MR. DELOREY: Well, in particular, other than if there were any specified reviews that would be considered as part of the nature of the activity, it would be part of a regular work plan of the staff. Certainly - and we had that discussion earlier this evening about the complaints handling - members of the public who have concerns about activities that they believe are violating the Environment Act or terms and conditions, which essentially would be a violation that we would be responsible for, can certainly submit their complaints, the allegations, to the department and we could initiate, assess the information submitted, and take the appropriate course of action if it results in an investigation or not.

 

            In an event where a complaint may be submitted to the department, recognize that depending on the nature of the information, the evidence that comes in, whether or not staff would consider whether in a given situation, again I would have to see information, but just for information purposes if there is a scenario whereby a member of the public submits a complaint and staff determines either they don't have sufficient information to pursue further the investigation and so on, there is a mechanism - I forget the exact form number, but there is a mechanism that the public can submit. It does require disclosing one's name and contact information to submit what would be considered a formal complaint rather than what we were talking about earlier, which would be kind of the more informal complaint handling process.

 

So there is a form that can be filled out, so if members of the public feel they've made an informal complaint and they aren't satisfied, they can make a formal complaint, it would be a documented process and staff does have a defined process for and a requirement to respond accordingly.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Once a permit is given to drain a swamp, do they have to reapply every time they do that or is it a continuation, do they just, you know, once it's made then they have the opportunity to do it as many times as they want?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I don't think there is a blanket response to that. Generally there is, again, the nature of the activity and environment and circumstances of what's taking place would generally then be outlined in the industrial approval terms and conditions. So to that end it would be stipulated in the terms and conditions if it's a one time or expected to be a reoccurring activity that they could do, but I would expect that the terms and conditions would identify that on a case-by-case basis.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Are those terms and conditions available to the public to see - can they access them?

 

            MR. DELOREY: By and large environmental assessments actually are all public, so environmental assessments are all online and available. By and large industrial approvals have not been made public in advance. I believe in many cases industrial cases do go through the FOIPOP process, again recognizing the potential while there is an interest in the freedom of information there is a protection of personal and proprietary information that is protected in there, so it would have to be scanned.

 

            Again, I can state that the past practice has not been proactive publication of industrial approvals, so there wouldn't be a place where you'd expect to see it online initially, but that does not preclude one from submitting a FOIPOP application to have them reviewed and assessed for potential - just the compliance on the privacy side of the freedom of information. So it's not a scenario of hiding, it is about complying with other legislation that we are governed by as well.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I want to now focus on a program that, while in government, we felt was a very, very important program, especially for low-income Nova Scotians and that we actually expanded this program. It's the Environmental Home Assessment Program, which was just eliminated under the new government's budget. Can you tell me when the changes will take effect - how long can people still apply for the program, when will it absolutely stop?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The funding for the program is not included in the 2015-16 budget. That means new applications won't be there for this year. However, there is, historically speaking, a lag in the completion of work that is done, so we will be continuing to work with people. I believe there will be notices going out to people who have been approved for the program, so the funding for pre-approved is set aside and allocated, so those people who have their certificates approved will continue to work with them to honour them in an appropriate time frame.

 

            There may be a point in time where, again from an accounting perspective, I mean I don't think it can be left on the books indefinitely, but certainly we'll be ensuring - I believe for a couple of years anyway - that those that are working, because we do recognize that it sometimes takes a little bit of time because the value of those certificates was not necessarily sufficient to cover all the costs, to recognize that some homeowners needed to take a little bit more time to get the systems designed, and also the resources, the money in place to complete the work.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I just wanted to review - and I know you know this but for the record - what this program offered for seniors and low-income Nova Scotians, especially in rural areas, water and waste water assessment for their property, a $100 rebate on a septic tank pumping within one year of the home assessment visit which, as you can realize, coming from rural Nova Scotia, is vitally important with respect to the environment and having septic tanks.

 

            Sometimes I think that if you are used to living in a more urban area and don't have to deal with those things, you don't think about them, but they are pretty much of an issue for people in rural Nova Scotia - and a cost factor.

 

            As I mentioned, when we were in government we expanded to include oil tanks because that is one area, as we know with insurance companies, they want the turnover of oil tanks to the age of them. For people, so they can get insured they have to have a new tank, and there are a lot of people in rural Nova Scotia who just cannot afford that price of an oil tank and they need assistance.

 

            The fear is if people cannot replace their oil tank, that increases the opportunities for an environmental hazard to take place. Other items that this included were water sampling bottles, water-saving devices, samples of environmentally friendly cleaners, booklets on taking care of well water, septic tank systems, and oil tanks. In addition, a grant of up to $3,000 was made available to qualifying homeowners towards the repair or replacement of failed septic tanks. Can you tell us how many households took advantage of that program just in the last year?

 

            MR. DELOREY: First, I will again come back to the comment, but just some clarification around the program. I appreciate that you've indicated your government, the previous government, supported and believed in the EHAP, but since you put that on the record, I think it's also worth putting on the record that it was your government that reduced the EHAP from something in the vicinity of $1.5 million to about $400,000, which is what I inherited.

 

            It's one thing to stress how valuable a program is and another to essentially cut it down to its bones. Within that context, what I inherited when I came into this position was a program that is roughly $400,000. About one-quarter of that cost was allocated towards the administration of the program, so really you are looking at about a $300,000 program. When you look at the value versus the cost on that administrative, it wasn't an efficient program being run through the Department of Environment.

 

            As I mentioned earlier, the Department of Environment is not necessarily the appropriate venue for program delivery, it's not the primary focus of our mandate, it's not something we do extensively, and so our ability to do so and deliver programs efficiently and effectively is not our area of expertise, and recognizing the value of or the importance or the concerns of low-income Nova Scotians who may require support with upgrades and work to their homes, the Government of Nova Scotia does provide supports through the Department of Community Services for low-income homeowners, whether they be seniors or not.

 

            Much of the work and the opportunity to do upgrades around the home that would have been covered by the EHAP are available in other programs, again, through general work being done to homes that may be needed by low-income Nova Scotians. The notice that the previous government expanded EHAP isn't quite accurate. There was an announcement about a week before the election, the writ dropped, that indicated the intention of the previous government to expand the EHAP program to cover oil tanks with an estimated cost of I believe $1 million, ironically the same amount of money that was cut from the EHAP in the years prior.

 

            Again, in the context of what I inherited and where I was from a financial perspective, I don't know where I would have found $1 million in the budget to pursue that initiative. What I inherited in this department in last year's budget we talked extensively about was the issues and the concerns and the challenges being faced by the department. Where most public concern was faced, was concerning, we spent much of tonight discussing it, was around the compliance and regulatory side of things, complaints handling, having adequate resources to do that work, that important work that we agree on that the staff do provide.

 

            When faced with those decisions, for example do I take $1 million away from my compliance staff and put towards expanding a program that was a pre-writ promise by a government at that time, or do we focus on maintaining the status quo at that time and invest our resources and focus on the employees that do the important work of protecting the environment across the Province of Nova Scotia? I chose the latter, we chose the latter. And this year as we continue to assess our fiscal realities broadly as a government for the Province of Nova Scotia and specifically in the department, the direction that I gave was to staff to assess the work that we do in the context of our core mandates - our core mandates around the environment and managing that work did not include program delivery of this nature.

 

            Again, as I've mentioned, the fact that 25 per cent of the funds allocated here, approximately, were put towards administration - that's not an effective program, that's not an efficient program. So while the intent of the program, even some of the education side of things that you commented on, about well water and pamphlets and so on, we have much of that information still available both through our department and third party NGOs, both through our website which, again, where possible, and certainly there is still public accessible computer terminals through libraries and other venues, schools, CAP sites, et cetera, that people even if they may not have Internet or computers in their home that they can access this information. It may not be delivered to them at their doorstep but it will be accessible and continues to be accessible.

 

            To your specific question that you asked, about how many people applied in the last year, it was I believe about 84 for EHAP in 2014-15.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm just wondering if you, as the minister, or any of your staff had a discussion with the Department of Community Services, because my knowledge of the programs that are available through Community Services would not cover what was in this program. You mentioned that it would be, but I do not believe it is.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I know for a fact staff between the two departments have had discussions and that they had discussions for a period of time. That was an important consideration in my decision, in our decision, around this program was the knowledge that low-income Nova Scotians would be able to apply for work that they would be doing on their households, that there are programs in Community Services around emergency work that needs to be done in their homes. when there is an issue with an oil tank or a septic system that these low-income individuals would be eligible.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Can you provide that information because my understanding is in terms of there would be some programs in Community Services that allows for repairs on household, there is a lot of restrictions and criteria around it, but I'm not convinced that it would entirely cover these items that I specified in terms of water testing and the pumping of your septic tank and water and wastewater assessment and samples of environmentally friendly cleaners. If you could provide where that program is in Community Services and that it covers those things that were in the Environmental Home Assessment Program I would really appreciate that.

 

            I'm going to ask one more question and then pass it over to my colleague.

           

The question that I have is, are you aware of the Blue Dot movement? He's smiling, somebody brought that up. Okay, so you want me to bring it up or not?

 

            MR. GORDON WILSON: I participated in it.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Oh did you? Great, great. Well I'm bringing it up because I want to ask the minister, will you pursue legislation with respect to the Blue Dot movement within your mandate in the next number of years? The sooner the better; I think it would put us on a national stage, provincially, if a commitment was made by the government to do that.

 

I'm glad I made you smile, because I think it's the first time I've ever made you smile.

 

So, I'll let the minister respond to that.

 

            MR. DELOREY: I just want to point out for the record that the member was not referring to making me smile, she was referring to the member for Clare-Digby. Just for the record, I smile all the time, I'm a happy guy.

 

            I am familiar with the Blue Dot initiative and I'm familiar with a number of the initiatives that took place, including one of the main launches here in metro, and as the member for Clare-Digby off record was commenting on, just this past weekend, in fact, when they had a national day of action and awareness about the Blue Dot campaign, a community within his constituency was one of the sites so they participated as a formal site. In fact, the member for Clare-Digby actually participated as one of the speakers at the event, and I want to thank him for doing that - for his engagement with the community and with the environment - something I know is near and dear to his heart. So I did want to get on the record, the work that he has done on that.

 

            As far as committing to the actual Blue Dot in terms of legislation, I'm a firm believer in not - just to reiterate, not - making commitments around legislation in a knee-jerk way. Although I'm familiar with and I've reviewed information around the Blue Dot initiative, I'm not in a position at this point in time to make commitments to move forward with the legislation.

 

            I certainly recognize and respect the people in the Province of Nova Scotia and, indeed, the people around the world working in partnership with the David Suzuki Foundation on the Blue Dot initiative and certainly they're working on a very good cause. But at this point to commit the Province of Nova Scotia in the legislation, we have to make sure that we do appropriate consideration and we have legislation in EGSPA that covers a number of elements that would be in a similar vein, and that's what we're still focused on right now in the short term.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for your frankness. I would encourage you though to move that along because - I do understand what you mean about making sure your i's are dotted and your t's crossed, but I think we would put Nova Scotia on the map environmentally if we took a lead role in that. So I would encourage you as minister and your staff to gather as much information and perhaps pursue that. I know legislation doesn't happen overnight, but I think it would be a very critical piece to tell the world what we're about here.

 

            I'm going to pass it along to my colleague, and if I don't have an opportunity to speak again I want to thank your staff very much for their dedication and commitment to a very, very important part of every one of our lives in terms of keeping an eye on the environment and making sure that people are following the rules when it comes to the environment.

 

I want to thank you very much for your dedication and passion. It's very obvious that this is your portfolio and a good portfolio for you, and you take it very seriously, and you give very frank answers, which is greatly appreciated.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Zann, I'm going to move the questioning on to you. I would just like you to know that there are 12 minutes left in this hour and 12 minutes left in estimates for today, so if you want to keep that in mind. I'm not sure if we're going to be finished with the minister today or not.

 

            MS. LENORE ZANN: Good evening, Minister Delorey. There are a few things I'd like to ask. Obviously we've switched our critic duties now and I have a few new ones - six new ones - to focus on.

 

I did want to just ask you a little bit about the cleanup for Northern Pulp, for Boat Harbour. I know that your department isn't involved in the actual new building that's going to be built and all of that, but you are going to be involved with some of the preliminary work of a pilot approval project from the Department of Environment to actually begin early remediation - is that correct?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I'm cognizant of time so if you want me to elaborate just tell me, but I'll try to keep it short - I'm not known for that.

 

The role of Nova Scotia Department of Environment is as the regulator. Internal Services will be taking the lead for all of the work, including any preliminary work. The legislation was brought forward by Internal Services; the facility is owned by Internal Services, so they will be essentially the proponent for work.

 

            Any work, whether it's preliminary or the full project of remediation, based on the nature of the contaminants and things, would likely trigger environmental approvals. That's where the Department of Environment will come in - not in the actual work itself but in the regulatory role of assessing and establishing the terms and conditions to mitigate any expanded scope of environmental impact of working in this kind of space.

           

MS. ZANN: I guess where I was going is about the risk assessments. Is your department going to be involved with the risk assessments that are going to be done to determine how the contaminants are going to be removed, and what is going to happen to them, and what they are going to do with those contaminants?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The disposal process would generally fall under the terms and conditions of the approval, so it would be part of the approval process. What would happen is proposals come forward to the department with the nature of the work. We would set the parameters so if the testing indicates that the material meets a certain criterion, there are certain accepted disposal methods or approaches. If they meet other criteria, they may have other disposal criteria, and we would set the terms and conditions that say if you are in this range, you can dispose of the materials in this fashion, and in a different range you would have to follow a different course of action.

 

            MS. ZANN: Right, so your department will be involved in that part of the process then. When the different contaminants are brought forward and you tell whomever it is how they are going to dispose of them, who is it that you are actually telling - are you telling the company itself or are you telling the Internal Services Department?

 

            MR. DELOREY: We would be advising the applicants, so as a regulatory process the applicant, which is generally the proponent or the organization that is undertaking the work. In this case, again, we haven't received the applications - and shame on a politician for doing this - but I would hazard a guess that that would be Internal Services that would be responsible for the actual work and remediation.

 

What I can't say is whether it would be explicitly Internal Services or if the work gets contracted out, if it gets done internally. I don't have those details nor is that really material in the context of the work we do. Whomever is doing the work, who is submitting the applications for doing that work would be submitting it and would fall under our regulations and we would be advising that organization - it could be a subcontractor, it could be . . .

 

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. Along that line I'm just wondering, so when these contaminants are exposed and dug up and drained and whatever they do with them, along that line, what in the end was the result of the Lafarge's burning of the toxic waste water from the fracking waste water? What was the outcome of that - did you do the tests and find out exactly what was left over, and is that something you are going to be considering doing with these contaminants?

 

            MR. DELOREY: It's too early to comment as to what the process for remediation on the Boat Harbour side - I can't comment at all, it's far too early for that. I can clarify for you, I know last year you had questions about the Lafarge. We did, we ran a pilot last June. We got the test results of both the stack and the clinker tests in early Fall and we did determine that the results were fine and that in fact the emissions results and the clinker tests were in line, and/or better in some cases, which is consistent with what we would have expected, because before we even approved the pilot we did have a comparison of the twice-treated.

 

I will clarify again, it's the twice-treated waste water that was used, a coolant, not the contaminated waste water. We did have test results that showed from Shortts Lake, which is the normal source of coolant and the twice-treated waste water from AIS, and the results did show generally the starting point of the twice-treated water had lower levels of most. Both were within guidelines of our water standards, but even for certain elements it was even lower, many of them in the twice-treated water than in the original lake. But again, to clarify, I don't want people concerned about the lake - both were well within our water standards.

 

            MS. ZANN: How much more of that waste water is left in those holding ponds that they are going to get rid of?

 

            MR. DELOREY: In the Debert area I believe there is 5 million litres remaining and there is an application requested to allow them to use the same process to dispose of the rest of that water. The application has been submitted; it's under review right now, I don't want to get ahead of the review process, but again to date we've seen this process working well. There is also about 20 million litres in Kennetcook/Noel area, the originating area, but those are covered so there is no additional precipitation adding to those volumes, they've been capped for over a year now and the focus is on dealing with and ensuring we get rid of the water in Debert. That is the first step and then they'll be looking at whether that's a viable option for the existing water or if there are other methods that they would like to pursue.

 

            MS. ZANN: How many litres did they do in the cement plant already?

 

            MR. DELOREY: The numbers are a little tough to follow, and I only say that because they did the pilot in the Spring, or June time of last year, I think it was a 2 million litre pilot but then precipitation over the summer it actually, basically put the 2 million back type of thing, and then an application for 5 million that came later in the Fall. But I don't believe they moved all of the five before they shut down in the winter, but now there are about five left, so you're looking at about five gone and five left. I think they had ten originally, but it might be a little bit more because of the precipitation that went back in. The numbers get a little moved around, it's not new water, it's precipitation that's added to the volume.

 

            MS. ZANN: Could you just let me know what's going on with the burning of tires at the plant - are they going to be allowed to burn the tires?

 

            MR. DELOREY: I know they've had discussions around burning tires, as well as plastics. They ran a pilot project with plastics, did some great preliminary research with Dalhousie, I believe, that modelled it, and then they ran an actual pilot for the plastics, and I believe there is an application before us to consider allowing them to continue burning plastics. The tires, there have been discussions but, to my knowledge, to date there is no application before us for tires, but there is for plastics.

 

            The process would be the same either way, I mean essentially right now they're burning coal. Our assessment in reviewing these types of applications is to look at it and say okay are the environmental outcomes as good or better than what the current emission standards are, and that's what we'll be, even if tires were to be looked at, it would be looked in that lens that really if we can get better environmental outcomes, why wouldn't we?

 

            MS. ZANN: How much time do I have?

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: About 45 seconds.

 

MS. ZANN: Okay, 45 seconds. Very quickly, what's going with the Alton Gas Storage salt brine, epically the salt brine - what's the latest on that?

 

MR. DELOREY: There is still the consultation with the First Nations, ongoing with the company and First Nations. We've made it clear that their approvals weren't going through until we've finished that process, so that hasn't been completed yet.

 

MS. ZANN: Keep me posted. Thank you.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Closing remarks.

 

MR. DELOREY: Closing remarks, I want to thank the members for the questions, thank my colleagues for joining us as well but, most importantly staff - the members opposite who are asking questions have made references to the fantastic staff at Nova Scotia Environment. I reiterate and if there is anything that I can support 100 per cent in the Opposition it's the gratitude for the work of the staff of the Department of Environment.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E7 stand?

 

Resolution E7 stands.

 

That is our allotted time for the day. Thank you.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:36 p.m.]