June 25, 2019
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels,
substitutes for Pam Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Jim Lester, MHA for Mount Pearl North,
substitutes for Paul Dinn, MHA for Topsail – Paradise, for a portion of the
meeting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis,
substitutes for David Brazil, MHA for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans, substitutes for Paul Dinn, MHA for Topsail – Paradise, for a portion of
the meeting.
The
Committee met at 6:09 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Bennett):
Okay, we're in business.
We'll
call the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.
We'll
start off by the Committee Members and staff on my right to introduce
themselves. We'll start off with the newest Member, Jordan.
You may
have to put your hand up. Okay, perfect. Is the light on?
MR. BROWN:
No.
CHAIR:
Okay. Here you are, buddy.
MR. BROWN:
Jordan Brown, MHA, Labrador West.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.
MR. J. DINN:
Jim Dinn, St. John's Centre.
MR. LESTER:
Jim Lester, Mount Pearl North.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Kevin Parsons, MHA, the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
MS. BONIA:
Laurie Bonia, Researcher, Official Opposition.
MR. TIBBS:
Chris Tibbs, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. LOVELESS:
Elvis Loveless, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MR. BRAGG:
Derrick Bragg, Fogo Island - Cape Freels.
MS. STOODLEY:
Sara Stoodley, Mount Scio.
MS. HILL:
Angelica Hill, Researcher, Government Members Office.
CHAIR:
Before we ask the minister
to introduce her staff, we're going to ask for a motion, first of all, to adopt
the minutes of the June 25 meeting of the Social Services Committee for the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. BRAGG:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Moved by Mr. Bragg.
Don't
need a seconder.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
Okay, now, Minister
Dempster, if you wouldn't mind introducing your staff.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Good evening, everyone.
Lisa
Dempster, the MHA for up in God's country, in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, and
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Jamie Chippett, Deputy Minister, Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MS. SQUIRES:
Susan Squires, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment.
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Dan Michielsen, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Infrastructure and
Support.
MS. SHEA:
Erin Shea, Communications Director.
MS. KELLY:
Tara Kelly, ADM, Fire, Emergency and Corporate Services.
MS. HAYES:
Robyn Hayes, Departmental Controller.
MS. JANES:
Jackie Janes, Assistant Deputy Minister for Climate Change Branch.
MS. ENGLISH:
Dana English, Executive Assistant to Minister Dempster for CSSD and NLHC.
MR. SIMMS:
Randy Simms, Executive Assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment, Minister Dempster.
CHAIR:
All we ask now is – we're in
such a big crowd here tonight – when you go to speak, make sure your light is on
and identify your name, please.
CLERK (Barnes):
We're going by subhead,
right?
CHAIR:
Yes.
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 1.2.03.
CHAIR:
We'll give Minister Dempster
15 minutes to have her opening remarks, then the first person responding and the
Official Opposition will also have 15 minutes.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't
think I'll need 15, maybe only four or five, but I'll give a little overview.
I'll start by saying good evening and thanking everyone for being here to
participate in the Estimates of Municipal Affairs and Environment. It is an
absolutely gorgeous evening outside so I'm sure that some of you would prefer to
be elsewhere.
As a
department, we focus on advancing the economic, social and environment success
and sustainability of municipalities, communities, regions and the province
through the delivery of effective programs, services and supports.
I think
most of you in the House know that I am newly appointed to the department. I
just took a look at the calendar. It's been three weeks and a couple of days, I
believe. I'm going to see how much I know in that short time frame. I have a
very good team around me for anything that I fall short on I'm sure.
I want
to say just out of the gate it's been a wonderful learning opportunity to see
how this department engages with residents, governments and stakeholder
organizations to support safe and sustainable communities. My MHA colleagues
would have heard me this afternoon in the House talk a little bit about my
experience and knowledge at the municipal level, locally and provincially before
now, so I do bring some experience to the portfolio.
Their
work is resulting in better services and outcomes for residents. I've certainly
over the last – we've been working through briefings and every day having a
little briefing before we come in the House in the afternoon. It's given me an
opportunity to see first-hand how knowledgeable and dedicated the staff of the
department are in improving the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and
their families. I was especially struck by whether they were environment or
climate change or municipal, you could see the passion and the interest that
they all had for their individual areas that they work in. I believe that bodes
well for all people in the province.
I'm
going to break it down in several headings. In our close work with communities
we continue to provide funding and support to encourage strong local governance
and high-quality services. Budget 2019
includes $123.9 million for community funding programs such as Gas Tax, the
Community Employment Enhancement Program – most MHAs would be familiar with –
and the Municipal Operating Grants.
Municipal infrastructure; our department has continued to work on infrastructure
projects that are important to communities right across the province. Through
our municipal infrastructure programs we are investing in stronger
infrastructure, providing better access to clean drinking water, protecting our
environment by investing in waste water infrastructure and working to advance
regional collaboration.
Over
the past year we have improved cost-share ratios so that communities are better
able to initiate projects that improve transportation networks and provide
places for communities to gather and to work together. We have laid out our
long-term plans so that communities can best take advantage of funding, allowing
them to start projects that respond to their individual needs and update their
plan accordingly.
In
September 2019 Premier Ball announced an agreement for $555.9 million in federal
funding for the next 10 years under the Investing in Canada plan. Once
leveraged, joint funding will result in over $1.3 billion in investments in
public transit, green infrastructure communities, culture and recreation, rural
and northern communities. This is anticipated to amount to more than $1.3
billion in cost-shared projects and over 4,000 person-years of employment.
Through
Budget 2019, government allocated
more than $129 million for municipal infrastructure. Of this amount, $48.3
million will be used to leverage an additional $30.7 million in federal funds
from federal infrastructure programs. New project applications under the
Investing in Canada plan are in the final processes with the federal government
and we will hold another call for project applications this summer, very soon.
Also from the $129 million, $50.5 million will be used for provincial-municipal
cost-shared projects under the 2017-2020 municipal infrastructure program. In
March, Premier Ball announced 31 projects in 29 communities under this program.
I'll
speak about climate change for a moment. Our government is committed to the
protection of the environment and the quality of life of residents, as well as
facilitating the wise management of our natural resources. We are supporting
development of a clean economy and climate-resilient infrastructure, and we are
working on initiatives to support an environmentally and economically
sustainable future for our province for generations to come.
In
March, we launched the provincial five-year Climate Change Action Plan. Through
this plan we are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from across the
economy, stimulate clean innovation and growth and build resilience to the
impacts of climate change.
We are
implementing programs that support our five-year plan and encourage a transition
to a low-carbon global economy. In January, we announced $89.4 million over four
years in federal-provincial funding for the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund.
This
winter, we launched five programs that will be supported by this fund,
including: Home Energy Savings Program, Energy Efficiency in Oil Heated Homes
Program, Climate Change Challenge Fund, Freight Transportation Fuel Efficiency
Program and Energy Efficiency and Fuel Switching in Public Buildings program.
We are
also leveraging federal funds to support initiatives that will help key economic
sectors adapt to climate change and be more resilient. Over $302 million in
federal funds are also being leverage under the green stream of the Investing in
Canada Plan to support businesses and communities in the transition to a green
economy.
Public
safety: the health and safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is our number
one priority. The provincial government is committed to ensuring that
firefighters in Newfoundland and Labrador have the necessary equipment. In 2019,
we are making our fire protection vehicle program work better for communities
and fire departments.
Budget 2019
includes an investment of $2.88 million for the replacement of fire protection
vehicles and firefighting equipment program. It also includes $101,000 for
grants to the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services to support
operations and the Learn Not to Burn program. This is $1 million more than the
usual allocation. This additional $1 million will be used for the expanded fire
protection vehicle program.
In
January, we updated the program to include more options for communities to
access funding for both used and new vehicles. Through this expansion, not only
will communities have options to improve their fire protection vehicles that
better match their fiscal circumstances, but it will ensure that our budget can
make a bigger difference in a larger number of areas in the province.
The
department also continues to work closely with our emergency management
partners, government and residents to continue ensuring the safety and
well-being of residents and communities. In the wake of emergency events such as
the Thanksgiving rainstorm event, the Mud Lake flooding event and the West Coast
flood, we have continued to support residents and ensure their safety and
well-being. We continue to work with Public Safety Canada to administer disaster
assistance programs.
Through
Budget 2019, we have allocated over
$1.85 million for the Newfoundland and Labrador Disaster Financial Assistance
Program. This amounts builds on over $12 million provided in
Budget 2018.
Over
the past year, the provincial government has enhanced water-level monitoring in
the Churchill River area to help better predict and manage future floods and
protect the residents; 11 new water and climate monitoring stations and a local
river watch program are in place, and
Budget 2018 provided $1 million for flood-risk mapping and flood forecasting
of the region.
Throughout 2018 and in 2019, we will continue to work on flood-risk mapping on
the Humber, Exploits and Lower Churchill River. Last year's investments in
flood-risk mapping is assisting government, communities and emergency management
partners in better anticipating and responding to possible flooding events. Our
investments are supporting adaptation to climate change, minimization of damages
to infrastructure and improved emergency response.
In
conclusion, I'll just say that these are just a few of the many initiatives that
I am proud to highlight for the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
I'd be
remiss, before I finish speaking, if I didn't acknowledge and thank the
officials and staff of the department for all their hard work. Just since I've
been there, we've been sometimes doing briefings on Sunday evenings or at night,
and I'm sure they put in lots of hours that I know nothing about.
As a
government, we remain committed to working closely with our community partners
so we can continue to deliver better services and achieve better outcomes for
all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
We'll give the Official
Opposition 15 minutes to respond and start questioning. Again, we're talking
about Executive and Support Services, item 1.1.01 to 1.2.03.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
1.1.01,
just a couple of questions for the minister starting out here.
Can we
be provided with a copy of the minister's briefing binder?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Are
there any errors in the published Estimates book?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'll look to my deputy for
that.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's one item which we
can speak to later. Robyn may know the heading, but the revenue amount between
the federal and provincial governments added together is correct but they should
be proportioned differently between the two headings. I think that's
Infrastructure, 3.4.02, so the overall revenue is correct but it should be
proportioned differently in terms of federal and provincial revenue.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
To the
minister: Are you still applying zero-based budgeting?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. TIBBS:
What are the attrition
savings last year in terms of dollars and positions?
MS. HAYES:
The department's attrition
target for last year would have been $78,200. The department met that target and
the '19-'20 target of $59,400 for a total of $137,600 by eliminating three
positions.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
What is
the attrition targeted savings for this year?
MS. HAYES:
That was the $59,400 that we
met last year.
MR. TIBBS:
How many people are
currently employed in the department?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Two hundred and thirty-five
positions and 32 vacancies, as of today.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
How
many of those are contractual or short-term employees?
MS. HAYES:
Contractual positions for
the department are three positions.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
How
many retirements have occurred in the department this past year?
MS. HAYES:
We had 10 retirements in
2018-19.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
How
many layoffs have occurred in the department in the past year?
OFFICIAL:
Zero.
MR. TIBBS:
Zero.
Thank
you.
How
many new hires have there been in the past year?
MS. HAYES:
There have been eight.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
And how
many vacancies have not been filled in the department?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are 32 vacancies as of today. A number of those are positions that we only
fill in the event of certain circumstances. For example, I know six are
temporary staff we hire in the event of an emergency event. So it's probably
more like 20 overall, in terms of vacancies.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Have
any positions been eliminated, and what would they be? What are they?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are three positions, Robyn spoke to, in terms of the attrition plan. That
would be the only three that we've eliminated, and I think one was a financial
analyst.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Sticking with 1.1.01, I ask the minister, in Salaries, $39,500 less was spent in
the revised, and there is an additional $34,600 in this year's budget. Can you
explain the variance?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $39,000 in the 2018-19 was a result of lower salary costs for
the minister. The position also last year – it predates you, I know, but it was
vacant for a portion of the year.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, $28,000 less was spent in the revised last
year, but this year's budget includes an additional $28,300. Can you explain
what is included?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That would be directly related – there was no minister there for a period of
time and then the transportation was down as it reflected lower ministerial
travel due to that vacancy.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay, thank you.
Moving
on to section 1.2.01, Executive Support, in Salaries there is a significant
variance here of $571,500 more was spent last year than budgeted, and this year
it is $385,500 less. Can you explain, and what positions were added or removed?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $571,500 in the 2018-19 revised reflects higher salary costs due
to salary continuance and/or severance/annual leave payouts for six people. That
figure would have been $729,300, and Waste Management Strategy salaries $38,700
offset by savings $196,500 due to vacancies. That would have been MMSB CEO, ADMs
and ADM secretaries.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, last year $2,000 less was spent than was
budgeted, and this year there is a $71,200 increase in the budgeted amount. Can
you explain,
and what was included?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We would have had vacancies
in some of our ADM positions last year. That would have contributed to the
reduction. Now we have a full complement of ADMs. The other thing, I think, is
we only had a portion of the department. We had a branch added early in the last
fiscal year.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Professional Services, what is the $50,000 for in this year's budget?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That's the budget for the
Waste Management Strategy.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, an additional $18,100 is budgeted this year over the revised
amount. What is included?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That reflects the budget for
the Waste Management Strategy $13,500, and zero-based budget adjustment of $100.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Revenue - Provincial, I understand this is related to the salary for the CEO of
the MMSB. Can you explain why only $28,100 was spent last year, and has it been
filled?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $149,000
does reflect lower related revenue from MMSB for the CEO salary. As you
indicated, the position was filled by the DM of MAE for the majority of the
year.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Section
1.2.02, Administrative Support, current salaries. In this budget, salaries of
$19,200 less than revised number. Can you explain?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That would be a decrease in
the summer students' salary budget.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Not that we – we have lots
of students in the department, it's just that we didn't spend the full amount.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay, thank you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, $10,000 less was spent last year; in
addition, an additional $10,500 is budgeted for this year. Can the minister
please explain what is included?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease reflects lower departmental postage, freight and communications
costs.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, what is included here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Based on the composition of the department, the minister sits at numerous
federal/provincial/territorial tables. So the $16,800 is our contribution to the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Revenue, what is included here? What explains the extra $33,000 in the revised?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That reflects higher miscellaneous revenue from repayment of prior years'
community enhancement program grants payout. And my deputy can correct me, but
sometimes when a community gets a certain amount allocated, they may actually
claim some things that they're not eligible for, correct? And that's where that
would've come from.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
1.2.03, Strategic Financial Management, Salaries, $220,600 less was spent last
year, and this year there's an additional $205,700. Can the minister, please,
explain the significant variance in these salaries, and what positions are
included in these amounts?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, the $220,600 in 2018-19 revised budget reflects vacant positions and
recruitment period. There were a number of positions vacant: two managers,
financial officer, and two organizational budget analysts.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
(Inaudible.)
MR. TIBBS:
Yes, that's good for this section.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Brown, would you like to start?
MR. BROWN:
I just want to thank everyone for coming tonight. This is great. This is my
first Estimates, so wish me luck.
I think
for the most part everything is covered here. I just have a quick question about
the overview, that way. For Salaries and stuff, there seems to be a bit of an
increase throughout there. Are some of those positions that were mentioned of
the 32, are they being filled or going to be filled soon, or are they still in
the process of looking for those people?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Well, I was going to say in a large department you always have a number of
moving parts with staff. Generally, there are always some positions that are
vacant, as the deputy alluded to. Some positions are filled only in the event of
different things that happen around the province, but there's always ongoing
recruitment. There are always lots of positions that move around as well.
Someone might be in one and they move to another.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. You have 32 positions, you said, that need to be filled. It seems it's
quite a high number for a department.
(Inaudible) Strategic Financial Management, so this is handling multiple
departments? Because it says here it provides services for Municipal Affairs,
TCII, Service NL and that. That's one department handling the things of other
departments?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We physically house the staff but they provide financial services to the three
departments that are referenced in that heading.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, yes.
For
this section, I think that's good for me there.
CHAIR:
Good?
MR. BROWN:
Thank you.
MS. DEMPSTER:
He can go on, if he wants, right? He's new, so …
CHAIR:
No, that's all that section.
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 1.2.03
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.03
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.
CLERK:
Fire, Emergency and
Corporate Services, 2.1.01 through 2.3.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
We'll start off with Mr.
Brown.
MR. BROWN:
For this one here, Local Governance, is the department looking at modernizing
the Municipalities Act to bring it more in line with modern municipalities?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, and we've actually held consultations and reached out to groups like MNL
and PMA and we're now collecting what we heard. I believe some of it's posted
online already. You can go to engageNL.ca. We've heard some very clear messaging
around the need to modernize that piece of legislation to make it more enabling
and less prescriptive for communities. There will be something coming on that
this fall.
MR. BROWN:
What's the largest topic with this outreach that you're finding?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Sorry, can you repeat that?
MR. BROWN:
Sorry. What is the topic that's most amongst the municipalities on this?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Okay, I talked a little bit about it in the House this afternoon, about conflict
of interest, and you would appreciate this coming from a relatively small area.
A lot of our small communities end up with maybe business people running to sit
on the council, for example. Then maybe there's a snow clearing contract that
goes out and someone who sits on council is actually the successfully bidder.
People ask for clarity around that, so that would be one of the things.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you.
Under
regionalization, I know that there was an outreach and I know that there was a
discussion around the province on that. With regionalization, are you guys
moving forward more with that, or has there been any more development in that?
MS. DEMPSTER:
We're very interested with aging demographics and shrinking municipalities,
shrinking communities. We're looking at a couple of pilots in the near future,
but we have not yet selected the areas.
MR. BROWN:
Excellent.
Eliminating Limit of Service Agreements. The department eliminated Limit of
Service Agreements with the aim of achieving greater efficiency in response of
the needed communities. Do you have any background on that?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Communities over the years have often called for to have their Limit of Service
Agreement lifted going back quite a long time. You may have homes or a street
outside the Limit of Service Agreement, so those streets could never apply for
funding programs under 90-10 or 80-20, or whatever. That was lifted and it's my
understanding everything is working fine. Municipalities now have the option to
apply for funding in areas that they would not have had otherwise.
MR. BROWN:
When it comes to resettlement, Little Bay Islands – how is that going?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The people have voted and 100 per cent, I believe, of Little Bay Islands voted
to relocate. The department is currently working through the next steps.
MR. BROWN:
Okay and everything's all good with it?
MS. DEMPSTER:
It is progressing, yes.
MR. BROWN:
Williams Harbour, that was good, was it? Everything went well with Williams
Harbour?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
All
right, well, I'll start with 2.1.01. I notice in Professional Services last year
it was up about $19,000. What was that for?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Do you want to answer that, Jamie? I don't see that.
MR. CHIPPETT:
You said Purchased or Professional Services?
MR. BROWN:
Under Professional Services.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The increase there was actually due to legal fees. One was related to, actually,
the relocation file that you just referenced in terms of Williams Harbour.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Then there were some lower required planning consultants, in terms of appeal
boards and so on.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The difference is what you highlighted.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Revenue; I notice that in line 02 there it's down $20,000. What would that be
for?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I don't see where he's referenced. Okay, yes, the decrease of $20,000 reflects
lower revenues from cost recovery on land use planning amendments.
MR. BROWN:
On to 2.2.01, Policy and Strategic Planning. I notice that Salaries are lower in
the estimated budget. Is there attrition there?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The $96,000 reflects adjustment to the director of legislative renewal position
to contractual.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Then there's also a decrease of $23,800 and that reflects lower salary cost due
to recruitment periods for vacant positions.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, that was up by about $10,000 there. Is there
any particular reason for that?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The $10,000 increase was the higher travel cost for legislative renewal. I just
talked about the consultation sessions that we were holding –
MR. BROWN:
Okay, so that was (inaudible) to that.
MS. DEMPSTER:
– for the Municipalities Act.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MS. DEMPSTER:
That would've been directly tied to that.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Grants
and Subsidies for this section, what are the Grants and Subsidies for this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Grants and Subsidies are – we talked about the environment table that we
contribute to earlier. There's $9,900 that is for the local government
minister's table. That's our contribution on a national basis.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's a $147,000 grant for the Conservation Corps, and there's a $12,200 grant
to the Eastern Canadian Premier's Secretariat.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Moving
on 2.3.01, Fire Services, there's an increase in Salaries for the coming budget
there. A new position?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes. The increase reflects the addition of a new fire protection officer
position.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. That is a regional position, or is it an overall position?
MS. DEMPSTER:
It's provincial. Again, my deputy can correct me but I believe, historically,
the RCMP would show up and do some of these investigations. And they no longer
do that. So the department has founded a new position, and that's the new fire
protection officer. So we now have someone that will do that.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. So that's for investigation purposes.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. BROWN:
So he'll be the province-wide.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. BROWN:
Or the person in terms of that. All right, perfect.
Thank
you.
Allowances and Assistance, what are they used for in this particular sense?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Are you wondering why the decrease?
MR. BROWN:
Actually, an overall of what is it used for in particular.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes. That's right, yes.
That's
the compensation for volunteer firefighters through WorkplaceNL.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. BROWN:
All right. And then, yes, there was a decrease in budgeted.
MS. DEMPSTER:
That's right, yes.
MR. BROWN:
So, I guess, there were less volunteer firefighters applying?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The budget just reflects lower assessments –
MR. BROWN:
Okay, yes. So I guess the –
MS. DEMPSTER:
– over the last year.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. Yes, no problem.
The
Grants and Subsidies, is that for local fire departments?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are three different pots, we'll say, in the Grants and Subsidies: $40,000
is an operating grant for Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire
Services; $61,000, actually, the minister referenced in her earlier remarks,
it's for the Learn not to Burn campaign.
MR. BROWN:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
And $140,000 are for different things involving community fire departments. For
example, if a fire department responds outside their municipal boundary that
would be what some of this funding is used for.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. But that doesn't cover the fire truck subsidies?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's a separate heading for vehicles and equipment.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
2.3.02,
Emergency Services, Salaries are down. Was there a loss of position there?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $65,800 reflects salary attrition reduction. That would've been
an Administrative Officer I, $42,000, traded off for a temporary manager of
community co-operation; and lower travel time of $10,000 and lower salary steps,
$13,800 for new staff. So new staff coming in would've been paid lower than the
ones that went out.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
Transportation and Communications, there was an increase there, but that was
with the change of staff?
MS. DEMPSTER:
No. Right here on 2.3.02, right?
MR. BROWN:
Yes.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $30,000 reflects higher search and rescue costs for the year.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, the higher search and rescue.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
Under
the Disaster Assistance, 2.3.03, there was a sharp decrease in Salaries there
from budgeted to actual to next year.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $259,000 in the budget of 2019-20 from 2018-19 reflects reduced
temporary salary funding required for disaster assistance staff. So you will
recall the Thanksgiving 2016 rain event. Then there was the Mud Lake flooding
event, the West Coast flooding event. So there was temporary salary that was
attached with that for the staff that was hired to process the claims for those
events.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. So this is the tapering off of all this.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, that's right. Yes.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, yes.
CHAIR:
Your time is expired.
You
just have a quick one more or two more questions? If you do, I'll ask for leave.
MR. BROWN:
No, I'll let my colleague go on now.
CHAIR:
If not, we can go back to
you.
MR. BROWN:
Yes, thank you.
CHAIR:
We'll go back?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. TIBBS:
If we could just take a moment and go back to the start. I have a few questions
there for 2.1.01.
Under
Salaries, $102,500 was spent than budgeted last year, and this year there's an
increase of $98,800. Can the minister explain the variance and how many land
planners there are?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm slowing down.
MR. TIBBS:
2.1.01.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, thank you.
Sorry,
can you ask the question again?
MR. TIBBS:
I apologize; $102,500 less was –
MS. DEMPSTER:
Okay, yes.
That is
lower salary costs due to recruitment periods for vacant positions, the
$102,500.
MR. TIBBS:
Yes.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. TIBBS:
And how many land planners are there?
MS. DEMPSTER:
How many do we have? Six?
MS. KELLY:
There are four.
MR. TIBBS:
Four.
Thank
you.
Under
Transportation and Communications, $8,000 less was spent last year and $12,000
more is budgeted for this year. What is included, and why the variance?
MS. DEMPSTER:
There was lower travel and communications cost last year due to staff vacancies.
So we have to plan and look ahead, and hopefully we won't have those staff
vacancies this year, so we budgeted accordingly.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Supplies, there has been a decrease in the amount for Supplies. What is
included?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Are you looking at the $6,000, or both of it? The $5,500 budget reflects
zero-based budget adjustment, and the $6,000 reflects lower office and meeting
supply costs. There were regional consultations, boards, appeals, things like
that would be covered off there, and there were less of those that happened.
Correct? Feel free to jump in anywhere you like.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Just generally, if I could speak to the activity. As the minister said, there
are things here like appeal board hearings, protective road zoning amendments.
So we don't control, necessarily, how many communities come forward looking for
planning amendments. As a result, the budget and the spending fluctuates from
year to year.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
While
on the topic of appeal boards, can you give us an update on the status of the
boards and appeals in the region across the province, and is there a backlog?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes. The Eastern Regional Appeal Board has 16 outstanding; Central has five
outstanding; Western, nine; and Labrador, none.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, $11,700 less was spent in the revised last year; yet, this
year's budget is back to $35,800. What is included?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $11,000 – I believe the deputy alluded to it in the beginning –
reflects legal fees. That was $35,900 for relocation files, Williams Harbour,
offset by lower required planning consultants and lower planning board member
costs.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies – I understand this is generally for feasibility studies –
why was only $5,000 spent last year? What is included this year?
MS. DEMPSTER:
You're right; the budget does reflect fewer applications for those feasibility
studies and other regional co-operation initiatives. So the funding is there,
it's in place. If two or three communities living in a close proximity to each
other want to explore the idea of amalgamation, then this funding is available
for them. They may do so but it's up to them, and we do fund some.
Sometimes we fund them and communities don't actually end up amalgamating. But
as I said to the deputy earlier today, maybe in a couple of years they might
actually come back and decide to for shared services or whatever.
MR. TIBBS:
Right, thank you.
I ask
the minister, can you provide an update on community relocation requests?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The only one that is actively in the process is the one we spoke to earlier,
Little Bay Islands. There is one community that has expressed an interest in
addition to that, I don't recall the name of the community.
MS. KELLY:
Tilt Cove is the name of the community.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Regional Appeal Boards, can you give us an update on what is happening with the
Regional Appeal Boards?
MR. CHIPPETT:
All appeal boards have their full complement of members. In fact, the Labrador
Regional Appeal Board, it's the first time that's actually functioned as its own
board for a number of years.
I think
the minister went through the appeals that are outstanding. On those, I'd just
point out that some of those have been mutually deferred by solicitors and so on
for some of the clients, but the numbers have improved a lot over the last year.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Moving
on to Fire Services, 2.3.01, under Grants and Subsidies, these budgets for the
grants are consistent. What is included and has anything changed?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's been no change. It's the $40,000 operating grant for the Association of
Fire Services; $61,000 for the Association of Fire Services to run the Learn Not
to Burn campaign; and there's $140,000 for training and for municipalities who
provide fire services outside of their community boundary.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
The
Town of Grand Falls-Windsor has been promised a new fire truck. When is the
proposed delivery date?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I'm not sure what the exact delivery date would be. I think the process that's
happening right now is they're working through tender specifications with the
fire commissioner's office. It's for a new truck, not a used truck so it would
need to be manufactured and so on. So, usually, it's a year or more after the
approval.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Municipal Legislation Review, can you give us an update on the Municipal
Legislation Review?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I was just sharing some of that information with the Member for Labrador West.
We have
gone through the consultation sessions. We have heard from groups like the
Municipal Assessment Agency, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and other
groups that have fit in some very clear messaging around we need more clarity on
conflict of interest.
Right
now, most of the information, all of the information that has been gathered is
posted on the EngageNL website. We hope to bring new, more modernized
legislation into the House of Assembly this fall.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Fire and Emergency Services as well, I just have a quick question about bunker
suits in certain municipalities. I'm hearing from several municipalities that
some of the bunker suits are becoming worn and not fire retardant like they
should be.
With
the security of our firefighters in the province, what determines if the bunker
gear is not fire retardant and when they can get new ones, or the process?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I'm unaware of the specific
specifications that you speak to, but there is an annual call for applications
through fire services, and the fire commissioner does all the evaluation on
those, but it is a priority. The normal priority ranking is for communications
equipment first and then secondary to that is the bunker suits and SCBA.
MR. TIBBS:
Under regional government,
what is the plan regarding regional governance and/or sharing of service pilots?
Can we have an update on that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
As the minister said
earlier, there were a number of consultation sessions on this and specific
sessions with MNL and PMA and gathered a lot of good data on what people
consider to be regions in the province and what kind of services people were
interested in sharing, but we haven't had a decision yet on where we would do
the two pilots. That would be the next step.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Chris, your time is also
expired.
Do you
have any more questions, Jordan?
MR. BROWN:
Just a couple questions
there.
The
municipal infrastructure gap, I know that it was in the mandate letter of the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to develop a plan with
Municipalities NL to address this problem. How is the addressing going?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I guess as a precursor to
defining the infrastructure gap, the work in the department has primarily
focused on developing a toolkit that municipalities can use to assess their
assets from an asset management perspective, so we're involved in that work
right now. Obviously, one of the key challenges is different municipalities are
at very different levels of progress in terms of their asset management plans.
So,
when we've arrived at something that could be adapted to all municipalities
we've rolled that out and that would be a significant factor in how you make
decisions on closing the gap.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, absolutely
Also
there I noticed that starting with 2.3.03, Disaster Assistance, revenue from the
feds. It was budgeted at $17,502,700 but it was down quite significantly, almost
$16 million. What was the reason why the feds didn't live up to the expectation
here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Section 2.3.03?
MR. BROWN:
Yes, under Disaster
Assistance, Revenue - Federal.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $16 million
reflects federal revenue for the West Coast flooding event and the decrease of
$12 million reflects lower federal revenue for the Thanksgiving rain event and
West Coast flooding. So, they would have had the money in place for that and
then once expenses and claims were processed and clued up, there was no longer a
need for that.
MR. BROWN:
Okay. I guess the money
wasn't needed as expected?
MR. CHIPPETT:
With this heading and some
of the heading we'll talk about a little bit later, the federal infrastructure
and so on, there's a claims process involved so it really results in cash flows
that we can't always control.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there's no question we'll
get the federal revenue, it's just maybe which fiscal year it's actually booked
in.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
Just
another question or two, under civic addressing, especially in rural areas, I
know there has been some work around trying to get people to put civic addresses
on their houses and identify civic addresses. How is that process going with the
Emergency Services?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Primarily, external agencies
do that work. Obviously, from a NL911 perspective, which is an agency that
reports through our minister, they would be involved in work from that
perspective. Other entities like the waste management boards, for example – so
Eastern Regional Waste Management would be another entity that would have a lot
of data around that. It's at different stages, depending on the region that
you're in, but NL911, in particular, is able to effectively obviously locate
where people are. When they move to Next Generation 911 they'll actually be able
to tell where you're calling from.
MR. BROWN:
Moving on to Enhanced 911, where are we with that right now?
MS. KELLY:
We're actually going to be skipping over Enhanced and moving on to Next Gen.
That's the next step in it. It was originally Basic, Enhanced and then Next
Generation. The Next Gen is coming in as a result of, I believe, the CRTC
direction. NL911 is working towards that right now. I think maybe in a year or
two – I'm not exactly sure of the timeline but it's coming soon. We just
recently had a meeting on it, actually.
MR. BROWN:
Perfect, thank you. I'm good with this section there now if anyone wants to …?
CHAIR:
Okay, Chris.
MR. TIBBS:
Please.
CHAIR:
Yes, sure.
MR. TIBBS:
Under regional governance, what type of systems are being considered?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are numerous models across the country; you'll hear about county systems
and so on. There are also models around sharing of services, some of which,
obviously, already exists in the province when you look at regional service
boards. At this stage there's not been a decision made on what the model would
look like or where exactly the pilots would be carried out.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
the Disaster Assistance we have a pretty good handle on it now, we know it's
winding down, but I just have a couple of questions about that. Under
Professional Services there's been a $600,000 decrease since last year's budget.
Can the minister explain what was included?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That's basically exactly the same thing we've been talking about. It reflects
funding required for the Mud Lake flooding event and West Coast funding event
expenditures. That was insurance claim adjusters.
MR. TIBBS:
Perfect.
Under
Purchased Services, what explains the revised number?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $138,000 is revised. It reflects a higher funding requirement
for the Mud Lake flooding event expenditures connected to Red Cross and housing.
I'll let Jamie elaborate.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Minister, you're exactly right, it's the payments to the Canadian Red Cross for
rent and security deposits.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Just
two more questions. Under Allowances and Assistance can you explain what is
included? Is this for private insurance claims? What claims are still
outstanding?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Primarily, I guess if you
have insurance you're not eligible for disaster financial assistance. This is
primarily payouts directly to residents who were impacted by the various storms.
MR. TIBBS:
Perfect.
CHAIR:
Any further questions?
MR. K. PARSONS:
The first question I want to
ask: Are we going to get your briefing book tonight because last year we didn't
get it all.
MS. DEMPSTER:
You didn't get it at all?
MR. K. PARSONS:
No, we asked for it a few
times.
MS. DEMPSTER:
If you're really nice and on
good behaviour, I'll consider it, yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
We are on good behaviour. We
will?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, thank you.
When it
comes to the money spent on Little Bay Islands, has all that been paid out yet?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It hasn't been paid out yet.
One of the steps in the process – so we talked about the 90 per cent vote
earlier, that's kind of a gate if you will, through the decision process. The
second one is people actually signing conditional offers to accept the funding
to relocate. That's the process we're in now is actually talking to folks about
whether or not they're going to sign the property offers.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Is
there a time frame on how long that's supposed to take?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I don't know that there's a
minimum time frame, but I mean it usually happens within a number of months.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
A
question I have: Have there been any other people requiring amalgamation, any
towns looking to be amalgamated in the province?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We've had some that I think
have been out in the media. For example, we did the feasibility study for Wabush
and Labrador City; we did one for Northern Arm and Botwood as well. In both
those instances, at least right now, communities haven't moved forward with
amalgamation, but those have been two of the ones we've done recently. There's
one request from a group of LSDs on the West Coast that we're looking at now but
I think that's all we have in the hopper right now.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just going to the disaster
relief program, before the fed's money comes, there's a certain amount of money
that has to be – the disaster has (inaudible) financial. Can you explain that,
how it works and then what the feds pay for once they kick in?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The new threshold, I think,
is about $1.6 million. A few years ago the federal government actually made a
change to that amount, so it's about $1.6 million. They will cover your
essentials from the perspective of your primary property and, again, in the
event you can't get insurance for it. That's the first parameter for what
they'll cover, is something that you can't reasonably get insurance for.
Then
they normally focus on your primary residence. I think you're able to have one
out building that is covered. They don't cover vehicles normally because
insurance would normally apply and then recreational vehicles and so on are not
normally covered.
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's all I have. Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Any other questions for –?
MR. BROWN:
(Inaudible.)
When it
comes to the ratio for voting on a community to resettlement, right now it's
90-10. Are there any talks or any consideration of reducing that down,
especially in smaller communities where one or two people could really upset the
whole apple cart kind of thing on that? Are there any talks about changing that
ratio?
MS. DEMPSTER:
As an MHA you would know I
went through that. The interest to relocate from Williams Harbour did happen
before I knocked on their doors in 2013 I'm always happy to share. It wasn't
something – the first line of the relocation policy says it must be community
initiated and community driven.
From
time to time, the question comes up should we lower that, but as you can see
from our Estimates books here tonight there are a number of times we've alluded
to legal fees. We have it at 90 per cent and then there's a 10 per cent window,
even in that, that comes back and challenges the department on whether people
maybe would have liked to have stayed or that were not deemed a resident.
I don't
think there's any government, no matter what your political stripe, that would
want to be seen as forcing resettlement. Everybody was left with a bad taste in
their mouths from decades ago that predates all of us. There is a school of
thought that if you reduce that 90 per cent down, then you're just opening
yourself up to more of the legal fees and things like that.
MR. BROWN:
Absolutely.
MS. DEMPSTER:
It's a very emotionally
charged and difficult topic for sure.
MR. BROWN:
Absolutely.
Have
any more communities come forward wanting a plebiscite on the idea of
relocation?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Tilt Cove is the only other
one.
MR. BROWN:
Perfect, thanks.
That's
it for this section there.
CHAIR:
Any other questions on Fire,
Emergency and Corporate Services, 2.1.01 to 2.3.03?
MR. TIBBS:
I have one quick question, just a quick one.
When it
comes to communities outside of municipalities, is there any legislation,
exactly, what fire department in a nearby municipality has to do to cover any
residents that aren't living in the municipality? Is there a strategy across the
province that covers those people that don't pay taxes to a municipality, but
live on the cusp, if you will?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's no requirement. Usually we look to the communities to establish some
kind of an MOU with neighbouring communities or areas. That's often how it's
done, and we're always quite eager to have those discussions. So the fire
commissioner's office would be quite willing to work with any communities on a
situation like that.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
CLERK:
2.1.01 through 2.3.03
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.03
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.03 carried.
CLERK:
Municipal Infrastructure and
Support, 3.1.01 through 3.4.04 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Chris,
do you want to start this one?
MR. TIBBS:
Yes, please.
Under
Regional Support, 3.1.01, Salaries, $105,400 more was spent in the revised, and
$136,100 less is budgeted this year. Can the minister explain the variance in
salaries, and were positions added or removed?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There was a continuance payout for one person in that division, but also some
savings due to recruitment periods for vacancies. So that's where we get the
$105,400 increase in 2018-19, and, basically, we're back to full complement in
2019-20. But the staff that were hired, as often happened in the recruitment
process, have lower salaries as they're just starting.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Revenue, what is included here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We have an MOU with the
Nunatsiavut Government to provide engineering services for their capital works
projects. So that's why you see the $160,000 every year.
MR. TIBBS:
Could we get a list of who
received the grants? Sorry, my apologies.
The
next question is under Salaries; $109,900 more was spent last year and $113,100
less is budgeted this year. Can you explain the variance in the salaries, and
were positions added or removed?
MS. DEMPSTER:
You're gone to 3.1.02?
MR. TIBBS:
Sorry, 3.1.02. Yes, my
apologies.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $109,000
reflects continuance payout for one person and it was offset by savings due to
recruitment periods for vacant positions.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
3.1.02, can we have a list of who received these grants?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Subhead 3.1.02?
MR. TIBBS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are no grants in that
particular –
MR. TIBBS:
“Appropriations provide for
the administration of programs such as municipal operating grants.”
MR. CHIPPETT:
Municipal Finance, this is
the staff that assess all the applications and so on. The actual grant payouts
are in headings after this one. So I can see why you asked the question.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
I'd
like to move on to 3.2.01, Industrial Water Services. In 2018, this section also
included municipal infrastructure and water management. Why was it removed?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are separate – I don't
know if you're referring to the heading. I think there was always a stand-alone
industrial water services heading.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
But, basically, the
decreases you've seen throughout relate to the province turning over these
industrial water systems to municipalities.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Professional Services, $10,000 less was spent last year and another $12,000 less
is budgeted this year. What is included here?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $10,000
reflects lower cost from water system operators and engineering consultants.
MR. TIBBS:
The same thing for the $12,000?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $12,000 reflects zero-based budget adjustment.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, $10,000 less was spent last year; yet, an additional $22,000
is included in this year's budget. What is included here?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Under Purchased Services, the decrease of $10,000 reflects lower repairs and
maintenance costs.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Did I miss something there?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So just to give a little bit more context on this one, in terms of the numbers
throughout the item. There used to be 54 of these industrial water systems in
the province. They were often associated with fish plants, in particular, but
over the years, either there's been no need for them if the plant no longer
exists, or municipalities may have taken on the system.
So we
are now down to two systems; one in Ramea, and I think the other one is in New
Harbour. The New Harbour one is actually on the verge of being divested as well,
to, I think, the school board in that case, because it's near a school. So,
essentially, we're gradually getting out of this activity.
Ramea,
because of the saltwater content, the community would never be able to afford to
take that over. So we will have that as an expense in perpetuity, probably.
That's why you see the lower numbers in the 2019-20 Estimates.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Revenue; again, what is included here? There was $100,000 less last year; yet,
increase of $76,700 is expected this year. Why the variance here?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Really, it's the same issue. We didn't collect all of the revenue in 2018-19, so
some of it will be collected in 2019-20. The overall trend downward in the
revenue is because we're maintaining less municipalities. So less municipalities
are paying us for that service.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
3.3.03, we've been hearing it from some municipalities – towns and mayors and
whatnot – that the change in the template for the forms that some municipalities
are having trouble with. Why was the change made in the applications?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So this is 3.3.04, correct?
CHAIR:
3.3.03, Municipal Operating
Grants, isn't it?
MR. TIBBS:
Sorry, the Municipal
Operating Grants, the applications have been changed, the templates, from last
year and some municipalities are having trouble with them. I'm just wondering
why the change was made?
This
could be under gas tax as well.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There is no application
process for Municipal Operating Grants. We pay this out twice a year to
municipalities, based on a formula. They don't apply for this, so there is no
application.
MR. TIBBS:
Okay. I may have been
mistaken. This was supposed to be under Gas Tax. So when we get to it, I'm sure
we can ask that question again.
Under
3.3.04, Allowances and Assistance, can the minister explain the $35,000 under
the revised?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That was a legal system pay
out.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, what was included in the almost $2.4 million revised, and
can you give us a breakdown, please?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of $375,000
reflects funding provided for the William's Harbour relocation. There were a
couple of legal files there that were settled.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, why was $480,000 less than the budgeted amount spent last
year? Can we have a list of who received those grants, please?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, we can provide that.
MR. TIBBS:
And the $480,000?
CHAIR:
Are you referring to
Community Enhancement, now?
MR. TIBBS:
Yes, sorry, Community
Enhancement.
CHAIR:
3.3.05.
MR. TIBBS:
3.3.05, my apologies.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $480,000
reflects lower grant expenditures due to anticipated savings and delays in
processing final reports.
I don't
know if Jamie wants to elaborate on that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Community Enhancement
program goes through a regular cycle of application calls, and we would expect
an application call to happen, actually, fairly soon, but as you get towards the
end of the year, we're assessing reports that come back from the sponsors of
projects. So, if those final reports come back too close to the end of the
fiscal year, then we don't get to pay out whatever is owed that sponsor until
we're into the new fiscal year. So whatever we kind of lose in '18-'19, we
normally pick up in '19-'20.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
We'll go back to you again
after.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN:
In 3.2.01, Engineering
Services, Industrial Water Services, you referenced that there's $100,000 less
because of collection of revenue. What is the collection of revenue? Where are
you not being able collect it from?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It depends on who was
ultimately receiving the service. In some instances, it's a municipality and it
might just be kind of like the last question, we deal with it at the end of the
fiscal year and we don't collect the revenue. In some instances, for instance,
some of the numbers you're seeing here it was actually still connected to a fish
plant. So, it depends on who ultimately receives the service.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, so they're just
getting late paying their bill kind of thing.
In
3.3.01, Municipal Debt Servicing, I noticed that the budgeting for Grants and
Subsidies is down quite a bit. What's the reason for this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
A few years ago, maybe many
years ago, government, rather than providing grants to municipalities for
infrastructure, provided loans. So the two headings here, one for the principal
and one for the interest, is basically government continuing to pay off those
loans. If we're all here next year or the year after, those numbers will
continually get lower until I think the year 2027-28 is when the last loan comes
due.
MR. BROWN:
So would this tie in with
the principal as well, this is a fixed thing that both of these things will
continue, because I noticed in 3.3.02 it's the same thing, it's a constant
decline. So they're both the same reason, is it?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Same reason, one is the
interest and one is the principal.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, absolutely.
3.3.03,
Municipal Operating Grants, it's pretty consistent here on this. Is there a
reason why it's very consistent or is it like – because I know you have your
budgeted, your revised and next year is exactly the same thing? So that's always
the same money, there's no – the feds – according to what comes in basis, it
doesn't really change.
MR. CHIPPETT:
This one is only a
provincial program and government has chosen, in the last number of years, to
set the overall allocation at $22 million and then there's formula that
determines what each municipality in the province gets, based on remoteness and
the number of people in the municipality.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, because I noticed,
like I said, you budgeted for $22 million and you spent exactly $22 million.
There was no savings or nothing there. It was pretty consistent right on
through. Great.
Subhead
3.4.01, Municipal Infrastructure, I notice that in your Salaries there, it was
down a bit. Was that attrition or a position not filled or …?
CHAIR:
3.4.01.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $62,600
reflects rightsizing of the salary budget with the inclusion of positions from
municipal infrastructure and waste management. So, some of the positions were
reprofiled.
I'll
let Jamie put some meat on that answer.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Could you repeat the
question, if you don't mind?
MR. BROWN:
No problem.
I
noticed that from budgeted '18-'19 to revised there was a bit of a decrease in
Salaries and then the decrease kind of carries over into '19-'20. I'm just
wondering if that was attrition or was that a vacant position. As the minister
alluded, there was some rightsizing as well.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The decrease from '18-'19 to
the '18-'19 revised was around recruitment periods for vacant positions.
I guess
what I'd like to point out in this particular activity is there is a lot of
turnover, so this is where a lot of our engineering staff and our design
approval technicians are. There's a fair amount of turnover in that branch. Then
the other thing is one of our attrition positions was done through here as well.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
Under
Transportation and Communications, there was a lot of money not spent there. I
guess a lot of people not travelling or was it because of lack of – vacancies or
just you didn't need to go anywhere.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, well, it was directly
related to the vacancies.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
Under
Purchased Services, there was quite an increase there. What was purchased?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The $66,400 reflects the
waste management financial study; Goose Bay, Forteau landfill site survey. It
was partially offset by lower Xerox and other general Purchased Services costs.
MR. BROWN:
3.4.02, Federal/Provincial
Infrastructure Programs, the Grants and Subsidies – I noticed budgeted was quite
a lot more than what was actually in the revised. Were there not as many
projects that came in that way?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In the infrastructure
headings and some of our other big grant programs, it all depends on how
projects actually move forward. It is very difficult to predict, for example,
exactly when if it's a federal-provincial program, the federal government will
approve projects. It's also difficult to predict – and you'll see it a bit later
in gas tax and so on – what kinds of applications you will get, or if
municipalities are meeting certain compliance criteria to make them eligible for
funding.
The
majority of what you're seeing in this heading is really what I'll call the ebb
and flow in infrastructure spending. For example, under this particular heading
we have 269 projects that are currently ongoing and we have a pretty large list
in Ottawa that we're waiting for approval on. You can imagine with all those
projects moving at different stages, having been approved in different years,
your cash flows can really vary from year to year.
MR. BROWN:
So this is like sewer plans
and things like that, probably larger projects. Okay, absolutely.
I
noticed in the revenue, too, I guess it's the same process. You really don't
know what's going to come down the pipe kind of thing.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We know the amount because
there are fixed cost-shared ratios in terms of the federal-provincial programs.
Really, it's a combination of what I just spoke to in terms of variability and
infrastructure projects and then the claim process that we have to go through to
get the revenue in from the federal government.
MR. BROWN:
Okay, perfect.
Under
3.4.03, I noticed that you're pretty consistent with the department there. Under
Grants and Subsidies here it's the same thing, there seems to be a lot more
budgeted but a lot less spent. Is there a similar thing here where you're just
waiting on the feds and stuff like that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In the federal Gas Tax
Program we administer the federal gas tax agreement on behalf of the federal
government, so we have staff. In this case, municipalities have to submit a
capital investment plan. Sometimes they just don't and they wait to allocate
money after they're eligible for more. In other instances, they're non-compliant
with certain parameters and they need to become compliant before we can issue
the funding.
It all
generally is the same explanation as the heading we just talked about, but in
this instance there's more of a focus on the compliance end of things.
MR. BROWN:
Okay.
I
noticed in budget '19-'20 – are you expected a large jump in people applying for
this program?
MR. CHIPPETT:
You might recall in the federal budget the federal government doubled the gas
tax allocation for communities across the country. That's why it's double the
revenue coming in.
MR. BROWN:
Yeah, okay, so this is from the federal budget. Perfect, thank you.
Last
but not least, 3.4.04, Fire Protection Vehicles and Equipment. I guess this is
what you were saying where you added an addition of $1 million – was that you
alluded to earlier.
MS. DEMPSTER:
That's right.
MR. BROWN:
How many fire trucks have been applied for this year?
MS. DEMPSTER:
In applications there's been 74 applications received with a total of $17
million in ask.
MR. BROWN:
Seventeen million in ask, so obviously –
CHAIR:
Okay, your time has expired.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, if I could just …
CHAIR:
Yes.
MS. DEMPSTER:
We have a provincial fire commissioner. When applications come in, the fire
commissioner actually does a ranking of low, medium or high needs and then that
folds into the department after they've done their assessment.
CHAIR:
We'll get back to you again
after if you have any further questions.
MR. BROWN:
Perfect, thank you.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Fifteen trucks were allocated. I didn't have that in front of me.
CHAIR:
Mr. Tibbs, do you …?
MR. TIBBS:
Kevin, do you want to go ahead?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask, if you don't mind.
I want
to go to the Special Assistance grants. Can we get a list of those grants that
were put out last year for Special Assistance?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
We'll get them this year? Thank you.
I asked
for them last year and never did receive them.
MS. DEMPSTER:
You didn't have a good year last year.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Shocking, I'm telling you. I know, Minister.
MS. DEMPSTER:
New minister, new day.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It's just not right. I've very pleased with the new minister. The minister is
doing a good job so far.
On the
gas tax – and it's a question that's asked a lot – can you give me a breakdown
on how it's done for the municipalities? I know that some projects, like
municipal buildings, recreation and stuff like that, I don't know what the cost
breakdown is.
Is
there a breakdown on how towns can apply for that? Is it 70-30? What's the
cost-shared ratio to the communities when it comes to using gas tax towards a
project, say, paving?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of the gas tax, the allocation is for the municipality. I think the
question is about stacking, right, and how much they can use towards federal
projects.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
That's stipulated in different federal-provincial agreements and it actually is
different over different agreements. It depends on the specific agreement you're
talking about.
Dan, do
you want to chime in on it?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Basically, in the programs – for example, the new Investing in Canada
Infrastructure Program – depending on the category, the federal government has
assigned a maximum amount of federal money they would put into that project. In
certain categories, towns are able to stack and use their gas tax towards their
share, but in other categories they can't because they've already maximized the
amount of federal money allowed to be spent in that category.
We try
to adjust things around to allow the towns to use their gas tax when possible.
Of course, in our provincial programs, they can use a gas tax to account for
their full municipal share, provided it's an eligible expense through the Gas
Tax Program.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
Under
the Gas Tax Program, first when it was initialized, it was for environmental
stuff; we got roads into it because of dust and stuff like that. What's the
criteria now for using gas tax funding in your municipalities?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
There are a number of criteria. They can use it for roads, they can use it for
water and sewer works, they can use it for a number of different categories
under the federal gas tax agreement. One of the things that they can't use it
for is projects that have already started and that's where we run into some
issue sometimes. The town has already started the project and has the invoices
and the federal government won't allow us to approve a project once it's already
started.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Are you having any issues now – and it might fall under the gas tax. I'm just
trying to figure out where it falls under. I had some municipalities tell me
that the template has changed when they applied for different grants, say, for
municipal buildings; I'll give you an example, just like a recreation chalet.
The procedure has changed and there's some kind of a new template that has to go
back to the department for engineering purposes and stuff like that. Have there
been many changes in the department on that?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Yes. We've rolled all of our programs, our federal and provincial. I think this
is mainly for our Municipal Capital Works and our ICIP programs. There are a
number of significant amount of requirements the federal government requires in
terms of – for example, there's the climate change lens that has to be done
where the towns need to identify how the project will help reduce climate change
effects, and also to help the town mitigate against other climate change issues.
So there's the climate change lens.
There
are also a number of criteria the feds have in terms of outcomes that we have to
go through, and all these sort of applications are evolving to allow us to more
efficiently process in terms of submitting it to the federal government. There
were a number of times we had to go back to towns to get more information, as
the federal government requires it. So that's where a lot of that is coming
from, in terms of federal requirements.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just a question again on this also.
The
added cost to this is huge. On small projects, you're talking a project, say,
$600,000 and there's a $200,000 cost of – I call it engineering cost, but it's
what you just explained that time. Is there a grant available to offset some of
this cost to the original application?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Under the Municipal Capital Works program, towns are eligible to apply for what
we call engineering feasibility studies and those types of things. So if they're
looking at a major project that, for example, to put in some infrastructure,
whether it be a drinking water system or whatnot, they can apply first through
our Municipal Capital Works program, get the funding to do the engineering. Then
once the engineering is done, then they can come back again and apply for the
money to actually do the construction. If they apply for both at the same time,
any of the engineering they do in order to put in that application wouldn't be
eligible, because the money is spent before.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Because the money is spent before. That's where the cost is to.
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Yes. So, basically, they need to do it in two stages in order to.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yeah. So you're talking a project needs to be done over a number of periods of
time, actually, because you'd have to apply for both.
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Yes.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, all right.
I just
want to go back to section 3.3.04, Special Assistance; Allowances and
Assistance, $35,000. I know you said something about – could you explain that to
me?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I think everybody would recall the landslides in the mid-2000s in Daniel's
Harbour.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So the province at the time was involved in delineating an area, kind of called
the safety zone, where people shouldn't go back into their properties. In one
instance there was a property that was not identified at the time; it came up
later. So this was a settlement related to that property.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
We
talked a little bit about the federal/provincial infrastructure programs, are
there any issues in getting these programs out the door? Are they getting out on
a timely basis money wise?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's difficult to answer the
question because every program seems to have a different start date and so on.
So, as the minister said earlier, our plan this summer is to do a call for
applications in the summer. That's unusual. I don't think there has ever been a
call in the summer before with the idea of trying to have projects selected,
advanced to Ottawa and then have project approvals before the new budget kicks
in.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
I have
another question on fire vehicles, and it's a question that was posed to me. If
we recently put in that there's $100,000 available to buy a used vehicle, can
you take that $100,000, and as long as the municipality is willing to pay the
rest, towards a new vehicle?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There is a specific stream.
The minister spoke about this in her opening remarks.
Obviously, traditionally, you've only been able to apply with a particular
cost-shared ratio for a new vehicle. This year government added two additional
streams to that application process. One was the used one you referenced up to
$100,000, and then there's another one whereby if you say you're willing to do
what you just described in your question, government would provide a grant of
$100,000 towards a new vehicle.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Towards a new vehicle.
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there are three different
streams now.
MR. K. PARSONS:
All right. That's good.
Seventy-four applications you said were put in for last year. I had another call
from a municipality that their vehicle is 20 years old and under the regulations
it has to be replaced after 20 years. I guess that's done through Fire and
Emergency Services through an inspection or whatnot.
What
happens to the municipality once that vehicle is gone past its life and they are
required to replace it; yet, they're part of this 74 and didn't get accepted?
What does the municipality do, or volunteer fire department in that area?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'll start in the response
to that and then let Jamie build upon it.
There's
no doubt, just like many other headings in various departments where we have a
budget, no different in Capital Works where we have a budget in place, and the
number of requests that come in, often, or most always, I would say, exceeds the
budget that is in place. I know communities – I'll refer to my district – that
would come up to me and say we've just applied seven consecutive years. We do
our best to follow the rankings of the fire commissioner of low, medium and
high, but there's no question that we could put a lot more money in this budget
and we still wouldn't meet the need.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Just to speak to the ranking process.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's not a particular – and you're right in terms of 20 years being a
benchmark that you'd like to see across the board, but the rankings from the
fire commissioner are really done based on the applications in comparison to one
another.
For
example, a certain municipality, a larger one, may apply, they may have multiple
fire protection vehicles, one is getting old and at or past the 20-year mark.
That would get a different ranking based on the fact that municipality has
other, newer fire protection vehicles versus a municipality that has one vehicle
and is up around that particular point in time when end of useful life becomes a
consideration.
It
really depends on what the applications are and then what the kind of unique
circumstances are of that particular municipality, what municipalities are
around it to provide support and so on. So there are a list of things that are a
lot longer than I can remember. I've seen the list, in terms of what the fire
commissioner –
MR. K. PARSONS:
I just got one more question and then I'm finished, if that's okay.
CHAIR:
Yes, go ahead.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Just getting back to this. I had a municipality call me and say: Listen, Kevin,
where are we to on that list? Is there a ranking list that will come out to
municipalities and say you were here, here, so they'll know where they're to?
Because what'll happen in my case is the town is willing to go and basically
finance their own fire truck, but if they knew there were 15 out and they were
number 16, then there's a good chance that next year they'd get a vehicle and
they'd hold off that year. It's important to them to know where their ranking
is. Is there a possibility to know that?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The fire commissioner will inform any municipality. There's not a specific
letter that says you were ranked low or medium or high, but the fire
commissioner or the executive will share that ranking with any given community.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. CHIPPETT:
In terms of holding off for a year or what have you, the rankings can change
just based –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Oh, yeah.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– on the other new applications that might come in. The ranking may not carry
over to be the same. If you have fewer in a given year, just as an example, you
could see a number of communities that would go from low up to higher based on
others dropping out of the mix so to speak.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Do you have any other
questions?
MR. TIBBS:
I have just a couple.
CHAIR:
Sure. Then we'll take a
short break after.
MR. TIBBS:
Waste Management section
3.4.01; I'm just wondering, can you provide an update on the situation with the
cabin owners and the garbage fees?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Our former minister had
provided a directive to Eastern Regional Service Board to implement a change in
policy in terms of the fees and the services provided in areas where there were
cottages or cabins or what have you. Initially, there was going to be an
implementation plan provided by the end of April, but given Eastern Regional
Service Board has existing contracts and contractual obligations, they asked the
former minister for an extension. That implementation plan is now due at the end
of June.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
The
same section, can you provide an update of where you are with the Waste
Management Strategy review?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I think the consultations
through EngageNL, and directly with municipalities, will occur very shortly. The
date for review of the strategy is December of this calendar year.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you.
I'm
hearing of a situation at Norris Arm waste management. They had a shredder out
there for some wood, old furniture and whatnot. Some of the metal pieces were
clunking up the shredder they have out there and they can't do any more with it.
What they have now is a pile of wood that they can't burn or anything. It's
toxic. It's just a continuous pile that's growing and growing and growing and
they don't know what to do with it.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I know in terms of the pile
of waste wood, the fire commissioner has provided some advice to Central
Regional Service Board on how they could deal with that if the situation doesn't
become – if there's not a new initiative on moving forward with dealing with the
waste wood. I do know the various regional service boards have met and they're
discussing a potential RFP to look for a service provider to deal with that,
shred or grind that waste wood – not only for Central, but for other regional
service boards as well.
In the
event that doesn't move forward and, particularly, moving into the summer season
if there are issues, the fire commissioner has provided some advice, for
example, on how piles could be separated and so on. Which is a common practice
in terms of management at a landfill.
MR. TIBBS:
Perfect, thank you.
Just
one more section, 3.4.03, back to the Gas Tax Program. Under Professional
Services, what is included here? Why was nothing spent last year? What is the
$20,000 for in the budget?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's always a small amount of Professional Services in here. Again, this is
the federal program that we administer on behalf of the federal government for
the federal gas tax, so a very small amount, as you can see, of the overall
budget. There were no consulting services required last year. These are
frequently around financial matters and so on.
There
were none required last year. In terms of this year, we just – I jumped to the
wrong line. I apologize for that. In terms of this year, the $20,000 is just a
requirement for lower consulting services.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you, Minister and Deputy Minister. That's all I have.
CLERK:
3.1.01 through 3.4.04
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.4.04
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.4.04 carried.
CHAIR:
We're going to take a short
break. We'll return at 8 p.m. sharp.
Recess
CLERK:
Environmental Management and
Control, 4.1.01 through 4.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll start off with
you, Jordan.
MR. BROWN:
This will be going to Jim
there now.
CHAIR:
Okay, Jim.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much, I
appreciate that.
CHAIR:
4.1.01 to 4.3.01.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, 4.1.01 and I'm just
going to start off with regard to Salaries, the decrease in the 2018-19 budget
and then the increase in the budget this year. Were there job vacancies
accounting for the reduced spending?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The $118,200 reflects salary
costs due to a recruitment period for vacant positions and then the increase of
$8,600 reflects salary step increases.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much,
Minister.
Before
I go on, I do want to say thank you very much to you and your staff for coming
here tonight. I don't know if it was any indication when I came in the weekend,
all the cars that were outside, I'm assuming there were people here preparing
for budget briefings this week, so thank you very much. The unsung heroes who
make the officials like us look good.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yeah, that's right.
MR. J. DINN:
I'm looking now under
Transportation and Communications actually, could you give me a breakdown of
what's involved with that? 4.1.01.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Are you looking at the
decreased (inaudible)?
MR. J. DINN:
No, actually I'm just
looking at the – not the decrease, I'm just trying to get an idea of what's
involved with Transportation and Communications.
MS. DEMPSTER:
What's involved? Okay. I'll
let the controller of the department answer that.
MS. HAYES:
We have an allocation of
$17,800 for our office phones with Bell Aliant. We also have another $3,200 for
our Bell Mobility cell phones. We have an allocation of $3,600 for couriers and
freight and then we have travel for our 20 staff of $44,400.
MR. J. DINN:
Of $4,400?
MS. HAYES:
$44,400.
MR. J. DINN:
What would that travel be
involved with?
MS. HAYES:
It would be various travel
for industrial air monitoring audits; monitoring maintenance; industrial and
waste management inspections; federal pesticide inspections; federal,
provincial, territorial meetings; different agreements including the Canadian
Council of Ministers of Environment and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency;
stakeholder meetings; et cetera.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you very much.
You
said monitoring, maintenance, and that would be maintenance of provincial sites?
MS. HAYES:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
With
regard to Supplies, I noticed that there was a decrease in the 2018-2019 budget
down to $6,900; it's actually brought back up now, the budget for this year is
$12,900 for Supplies. What would that be?
MS. HAYES:
The decrease was revised for
(inaudible) office and NAP station supplies.
MR. J. DINN:
Sorry, office and what?
MS. HAYES:
Nap, N-A-P.
MR. J. DINN:
NAP and that stands for? I
know I enjoy naps but I'm just curious as to what this means.
MR. MICHIELSEN:
It's National Air Pollution
monitoring stations located throughout the province.
MR. J. DINN:
Where would they be located?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
There are six or seven
located in the province. There's one in downtown St. John's, one in Mount Pearl,
Port au Choix, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Marystown.
MR. J. DINN:
Would that be some of the
funding that's used in the monitoring and maintenance for the travel fund,
monitoring and maintaining those sites?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
Yeah, there's an employee
who goes around and calibrates and monitors and changes out equipment. It's part
of the federal-provincial agreement. They pay for the equipment. We pay for the
operator and maintenance.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, that would be
reflected in the Transportation and Communications line then, right? Okay.
Professional Services, I was looking at a few questions there with regard to
what it's used for, but in terms of Professional Services there's been a notable
decline. In 2018-2019, it jumped from $518,000 to $736,000 just about, and now
it's budgeted this year at $18,000. That's a significant variance.
MS. DEMPSTER:
A couple of things there. A
decrease of $500,000 reflects forecasted funding adjustment for cleanup of
former mid-Canada line military sites, and that's under a pending
federal-provincial agreement and there's an increase of $217,000 that reflects
cost for environmental assessment. The amount is higher than what had been
projected. The same thing in the next one, the increase of $213,000 revised
reflects higher costs for environmental assessment.
MR. J. DINN:
That would be environmental
assessment, Minister, of those military sites or just …?
MS. DEMPSTER:
No, those two would be
directly – Jamie can correct me – related to the Marystown Shipyard? Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, so just to make sure,
the $213,000 for the assessment of the Marystown Shipyard, for what needs to be
cleaned up there, in other words?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
If you could, the Marystown
Shipyard, was that provincially owned, privately owned?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'll let Jamie speak to the
details.
MR. CHIPPETT:
It's privately owned but the
province operated it through a Crown corporation years ago. So, any
environmental liability on the site, up to 1997, is the government's
responsibility. So the purpose of the site assessments that we're talking about
were to try to quantify the provincial liability with respect to the Marystown
Shipyard.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, before it was sold
more or less?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
So is there any interest in
recouping part of that from the new owner?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There is no new owner that
we're aware of yet. Discussions, I think, continue along that front. So we
haven't been apprised of that reaching a conclusion at this point.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, I'm just wondering,
eventually when there is a new owner, and if it's a private owner, would there
be some attempt to recoup the assessments since there's a benefit to them?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I would just say from the
perspective of the polluter-pay principle, it would be difficult to recoup
things that related to the government's liability from 1997 and before.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
I'm
looking here under the description of Pollution Prevention, it talks about
dealing with environmental emergencies, pesticides and contaminated sites. I'm
just wondering, with regard to standards, does this include standards around the
use of therapeutic chemicals in aquaculture for treating ISA and sea lice,
things like that? Would you be responsible for that as well in this department?
MS. SQUIRES:
Any pesticides used in
industry have to be a regulated and approved pesticide. What the Pollution
Prevention division does is do the applicator's licensing for pesticides.
Fisheries and Land Resources also does some approvals and they would be required
to adhere to both provincial and federal legislation for aquaculture sites.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. So your department
would have a limited amount of input into that?
MS. SQUIRES:
We would have, yeah, input in the sense of training applicators – for licensing
applicators.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. You would be training
the applicators, and who would these –
MS. SQUIRES:
And licensing, in some
cases.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay. Who would be doing the
applications and the training? Not the training, but who would be – when you say
the applicators, would they be employed by the government or by the company?
MS. SQUIRES:
Not by the government. The
Pollution Prevention division assists with training industry. So there is a
requirement to apply for a licence and get one; if you're a lawn company, for
example, wanting to apply a pesticide.
MR. J. DINN:
So that's the service we
provide to these industries. Do we get that money back from them for the
services we provide?
MS. SQUIRES:
There are fees for
applications.
MR. J. DINN:
Excellent, that's even
better again.
I do
have another question but I'm going to leave it there and come back. It's going
to take a little bit longer than eight seconds.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Jim.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you once again for
coming and willing to answer our questions.
Just
while it's fresh in my mind; in reference to the pesticide jurisdictional, I
guess, oversight, would that not be under the federal department? Because it is
in an offshore water, it's not in an inland water. I'm very familiar with the
agricultural component of pesticide regulation and applicator's training and
licensing but I wasn't aware that the aquaculture industry was governed by the
same.
MS. SQUIRES:
There's an MOU with the
provincial government from the federal government to manage the oversight of
pesticides and do the licence applications, but the federal government does play
a significant role, of course, in aquaculture and pesticide use, as does the
Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. LESTER:
It seems to be a very – is
there like an exact definition as to who is responsible for what? It seems from
my understanding that the department is responsible for training the applicators
but the enforcement would fall under the federal jurisdiction. Is that correct?
MS. SQUIRES:
I think maybe a little bit
more broad than that. There are multiple roles. So, for example, veterinarians
with the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources would also govern the amount
of pesticides applied in aquaculture projects.
It
certainly, would be my understanding, is a conversation between what the
veterinarians feel is required and what, of course, the pesticide application
allows for.
MR. MICHIELSEN:
I'm just speaking because I
was in a previous role there as well.
The MOU
with the federal government is for inspections under the federal regulations.
The pesticide, the approval of the products, which products can be used is
federal jurisdiction. So there's actually revenue – you would notice some
revenue under the Pollution Prevention. They actually pay the Pollution
Prevention division pesticide inspectors to do inspections at the aquaculture
facilities on behalf of Health Canada.
MR. LESTER:
Does the department actually
do any monitoring of residual build up in non-targeted species or native species
or products within the environment around these sites?
MS. SQUIRES:
We would expect that
pesticide applicators would apply the pesticide as required by the instructions
on the pesticide, but I'm not aware that we do any sort of testing as you've
described.
MR. LESTER:
Pesticides never disappear,
they just get smaller and smaller in quantities. Once we continue to apply them
over and over again at higher doses we will get that kind of a build up in our
environment. I think that would be a very important action to start to undertake
to prevent this build up and possible resistance by the pests that we are
applying it to.
In
reference to the outdated or antiquated pesticide collection, is that
administered through this department?
MS. SQUIRES:
The collection of outdated
pesticides is a hazardous material or a waste product you mean?
MR. LESTER:
Yeah, I can remember myself,
actually, dropping off products that the label had come off it and was an
outlawed chemical at the time because of different legislative changes. Is that
still administered by the department, or is that a federal responsibility as
well?
MS. SQUIRES:
Work is completed in part
through the MMSB, and waste would have to be managed in a manner that adheres to
the hazardous waste or particular waste stream associated with that product.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
Pollution Prevention, okay, section 4.1.01. In regard to Pollution Prevention,
I've asked questions on the plastic bag ban in the House. Do we have a defined
implementation date and goals set out within the department to accomplish this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We don't have a specific implementation date. We do know that the next step in
the process – of course, you're aware, we amended the legislation. The next step
is to bring in a regulation. So we hope to have the regulation in place before
the end of the summer.
One of
the things that will be covered in that will be the implementation date, and
primary consideration around that is really giving retailers, in particular,
time enough to use up some of their existing stock.
MR. LESTER:
So the regulations that are in development, will the public, or we, as
Opposition, be privy to those before they come into force or will it be just
brought forward in legislation that we vote on in the House?
MS. DEMPSTER:
We actually went out with consultations, and I think I mentioned in the House
that day, we had over 3,000 responses, which was higher than anything we've gone
out with before, even in areas of health and like that. The questions in the
consultation process were pretty direct and detailed, giving opportunity to the
general public to come back to us with recommendations on how they wanted that
to proceed.
Now as
we work through the regulations – as I mentioned, there's no reason why people
can't stop or reduce their use of plastic already; but, to implement it
overnight, potentially that could have an impact on small businesses and rural
communities. So it's important that we have this little transition period, I
believe.
MR. LESTER:
In light of the federal government's recent announcement regarding the
single-use plastics, is this government considering it as well, or will we wait
and see what happens federally?
MS. DEMPSTER:
We're certainly sitting at a FPT table for ministers working toward a zero
plastic strategy. So, no doubt, as we become more aware of the implications of
climate change and the adaptation and mitigation piece, then we will be – it's a
global problem, but everybody has a role to play, and we'll certainly be
encouraging the reduction of plastics. That's the direction we're moving in.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
In
reference to the assessment and actual physical clean up of the Marystown
Shipyard, what is the total, either spent or projected, for the completion of
this project?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Under Professional Services
here in 4.1.01, the $217,000 and the $213,000 would be what has been spent to
date.
MR. LESTER:
Do we have a budgetary
figure as to what it would cost to complete?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The environmental site
assessments that we've referenced throughout point to a cost of about $1.4
million.
MR. LESTER:
Will there be any efforts to
recoup this cost through the private sale? Will this appear as a lien to recoup
in sale?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Well, I guess the deputy has
explained to the Member for St. John's Centre earlier if somebody is looking for
a sale, they're not really going to have an appetite to pay for an expenditure
that they don't feel is theirs, right, if you go by the builder pays. That was a
government responsibility up to 1997.
MR. LESTER:
I guess I'll probably call
it there for right now.
CHAIR:
Okay, the other Jim.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much, Chair.
I just
want to carry on with 4.1.01. I want to pick up on an observation by my
colleague with regard to pesticides and chemical treatments in aquaculture. I'm
asking this because I understand when it comes to Municipal Affairs EIS
regulations it's usually your department that administers that, that appeals of
any decision go. I know with regard to Grieg aquaculture and Marine Harvest,
primarily that's where the appeals went for this.
I see
there pesticides and contaminated sites. I know there have been some documents
and some articles lately that demonstrate the negative effects on shellfish and
that of salmon aquaculture, open sea-pen aquaculture sites, especially related
to the use of chemical treatments for sea lice and ISA. I'm just trying to
think, what would the role of your department be in monitoring and preventing
that, in monitoring the use of chemicals? Or would that, again, more fall under
the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Land Resources?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm going to defer to staff
in a moment but you did mention Grieg at the opening. I will say that I believe
they have gone through an extremely stringent environmental assessment process.
When that project was released from EIS, it was released with quite a number of
conditions that they have to meet and will have to, at the release, meet, but
also meet at various stages throughout the project.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Our involvement, primarily, would be through the Environmental Assessment
Division, and depending on, what I'll call the level of assessment that is
happening for a given project, we would be responsible, for example, if there's
an environmental impact statement for setting the guidelines for how that
assessment would be conducted and what information the proponent would provide.
Obviously, different projects require different levels of assessment. Generally,
an aquaculture project going through an environmental assessment process would
be treated exactly the same as any other project in terms of the amount of time
for public consultation, the amount of time, for example, the department would
have to prepare guidelines and the amount of time the minister would have in
making a decision after public review periods have closed. All of those things
would be the same.
Obviously, depending on any particular project, whether it be aquaculture or
otherwise, the issues assessed would be different. If you're at those higher
stages of assessment, we would have the role of coordinating feedback from all
government departments and agencies to inform guidelines for those assessments.
MR. J. DINN:
Before I go on I do have to clarify something, Minister, though you weren't
minister at the time. Grieg aquaculture – measures were only in effect after a
judicial challenge was launched and then subsequently upheld. Grieg did not do
it on its own. I might say the department, at that time, fell down on its job as
well in monitoring that.
With
regard to the stringent measures, there's been some question as to whether
they're stringent or not by a number of environmental groups. My concern is with
the health of the wild Atlantic salmon population, which also provides a lot of
money to the economy. I think the fact is that the 7-million-or-so fish that are
proposed by Grieg will produce as much waste as the entire population of
Newfoundland and Labrador in a year.
I'm
just trying to get an idea with regard to the cleanup around those sites, on the
seabed. Would your department be responsible for the monitoring of that or would
you depend again on the good stewardship of Grieg to do that?
MS. SQUIRES:
You're referring to the
marine pens themselves?
MR. J. DINN:
I am indeed, yes.
MS. SQUIRES:
The process of selecting a
site for the marine pens, and the amount of time the marine pens are allowed in
a particular location, is governed under the
Aquaculture Activity Regulations by
the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources. There's a requirement to study
the (inaudible) habitat prior to the cage being put in place and ongoing
throughout. My understanding is there's a limit to how much waste can be on the
sea floor at a given time, but that's certainly advice we would receive from the
Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. J. DINN:
Those reports would be
available I take it. Well, you wouldn't be able to tell me that but I guess they
would be for public knowledge.
MS. SQUIRES:
There's certainly a
requirement to provide that in an environmental impact statement.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
I would
like to move to the Tata mine that's outside Schefferville. Recently – actually,
as of today – there have been reddish waters around these facilities. Tata mines
has been targeted for poor environmental practices at one of its mine dump
sites.
If I am
to understand correctly, the residents of the Innu community of Matimekush-Lac
John have raised concerns. The community actually launched a complaint with
Environment Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on May 18,
but have heard nothing about it since. That's around the time of the election we
just finished up. I'm curious as to what is the status of the investigation into
this spill or this reddish water. If the investigation is ongoing, what will be
the expected completion date?
MS. SQUIRES:
Yes, there is some concern
of what is commonly referred to as red water at the Tata site, which we
understand to be water that has a high iron content or level of iron content. We
have an agreement with Service NL, an MOU with Service NL, and they respond to
spills. They can be anything from a litter problem to a diesel spill. Through
the national emergency response line we were notified of the red water issue.
Staff
from Service NL and staff from Municipal Affairs and Environment, as well as
from Natural Resources in the Mines Branch there have visited the site. They've
identified concerns with the settling pond there and some snowbanks that cause
overfill of the settling ponds that normally prevent red water from leaking out.
They've identified some remediation work that has to be conducted this summer.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
The
services that we provide from the personnel, would that be recouped from the
mine, the cost of those services that we're providing for examining the settling
ponds?
MS. SQUIRES:
We have a fee as it relates
to approvals, but not necessarily every site visit.
MR. J. DINN:
I like to think there has
been a lot of talk about P3s. I like to look at this as P3s in reverse and
charge the private polluters for the costs instead of the taxpayer paying for
it, and that's where I'm going with that bit. I think if we're visiting a
company that's not exercising due diligence or environmental sound practices,
rather than the taxpayers pay for the visit, the airfare, whatever, then it
should be collected from the offender. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Thank
you very much for that. I'm going to go on – a few quick questions, just
generally. Has the Hopedale radar site remediation been completed?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I know we had moved forward
with a considerable amount of remediation. The minister referenced earlier that
the Professional Services budget had decreased because we were working on a
federal-provincial agreement. The hope is that not only some of the remaining
work to be done in Hopedale but also, on a number of other military radar sites
that the province took responsibility for some years ago, would be covered under
this new federal-provincial agreement.
MR. J. DINN:
Is it possible to have an
update on those sites, on the other site assessments and their cleanup then? I
guess I'd tie this into the next one as to what cleanup plans do you have for
2019? I guess that sort of dovetails nicely from what you just said.
MR. CHIPPETT:
We can certainly provide a
list of those sites and the site assessments that have been completed. This
summer past, because we still hadn't finished the federal-provincial agreement,
we did proceed, as did the federal government, in doing some additional site
assessments. We can certainly provide an update on the list of sites that we're
responsible for and any assessments that have been done.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
Quick
question – actually, no, I'm going to turn it back to my colleague and I'll come
back to this.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Lester.
MR. LESTER:
Section 4.2.01, Water Resources Management, would you be able to provide an
update as to how many communities are currently under a boil water advisory?
MS. DEMPSTER:
It's around 200.
MR. LESTER:
Around 200. And of the 200, what portion of our population does that represent?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I don't think we have that. You'd have to look at the communities and the
population of each community.
MR. LESTER:
All right.
Of the
200, is there a long-term plan to reduce this number, or is this a perpetual
number?
MS. DEMPSTER:
We certainly have a trend down. The numbers of boil orders are being reduced.
I'll let Jamie speak to it in more detail. I, myself, have been asking a lot of
question about this since I've been in the department, and there are all kinds
of reasons why communities could be on boil orders. We have some communities out
there that are on a boil water advisory because they don't want to chlorinate.
They don't want to spend the money on chlorination, for example, like a small
local service district or something. So then that would be the choice of that
community.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The province, in 2001, instituted a multi-barrier strategic action plan around
drinking water. And there was a lot of action across the country at the time,
because, of course, that would've been the year that the tragedy occurred in
Walkerton. At that time we had about 300 boil water advisories. So that's the
trend the minister speaks to.
Of that
200, there's approximately half – give or take on any given day, because the
number changes fairly regularly – where there are boil water advisories in place
because of issues that the municipality could control. So it might be the amount
of chlorine they put in the water; it might be if they chlorinate or not.
So
trying to work with municipalities in terms of getting them to institute certain
practices to reduce the boil water advisories is one of the things we do. And we
also have staff who travel to the different regions of the province in a mobile
training unit to actually provide training on site with the municipalities. In
some instances, the other boil water advisories, for example, are perhaps
infrastructure fixes or so on.
There
is a whole list of initiatives that we pursue, along with the training. Another
one, for example, with the regional service board is a pilot for the regional
service board to hire a water operator that works in a series of small
communities to provide that capacity where there was no capacity before. Like a
lot of the things we've talked about today, the capacity is very different
across the municipal spectrum but, obviously, we'd like to have that number
lower and that's some of the things we're …
MR. LESTER:
So is there a difference
between a boil water order versus advisory, or is it all encompassed between
advisory?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I mean there's a boil water
advisory that normally pertains to you need to do something different with your
water, boil it or what have you, but then I think there are non-consumption
advisories. You tend to see those when a municipal water supply has elevated
levels, for example, of certain metals like arsenic or lead.
MR. LESTER:
So boiling the water would
remove those?
MR. CHIPPETT:
No, not in those instances.
In terms of bacteriological issues, obviously boiling water would deal with
those issues. In terms of whether they're naturally occurring elements, like the
metals we talked about or by-products of chlorination, boiling won't do it. You
normally need some kind of infrastructure fix on the community level or in terms
of the individual households or what have you.
MR. LESTER:
Can you provide an update on
the progress made with flood risk mapping in the past year? Do you do flood risk
mapping for municipalities or is it just provincial lands?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We do them based on
watersheds usually. For example, in recent years we've done the Waterford area,
so that would take in multiple municipalities. Normally, it's a large scale than
just one community, but it often covers communities. There was a whole risk of
flood risk maps done I think it was in the '80s and early '90s. A lot of those
are now being updated. We're specifically in the middle of flood risk mapping
projects for Lower Churchill and that came out of the independent report that
was done on the flood there in 2017, and we're doing flood risk mapping on the
Exploits and in Humber Valley.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
Would
you have done flood risk mapping for the Long Pond basin here along Prince
Philip Parkway?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Not in the recent set that I
talked about in terms of being upgraded, but I know the city is doing flood-risk
mapping to inform certain projects that they're undertaking. For example,
there's a proposal to build a weir at the end of Long Pond, as an example. As a
part of that, through an environmental assessment process, the city is doing
flood-risk mapping for that area.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to the waste water treatment requirements imposed by the federal
government, how many of our communities will not meet those requirements by
2020?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I don't have a specific number because there are, as you know, three tiers of
risk; 2020 is the lowest tier of risk.
A large
number of our municipalities are still engaged or starting to engage in
monitoring. There's a threshold at which you're exempt or you don't have to go
through that process. So there are a large number of communities who are engaged
in that process. There are some communities who have temporary authorizations.
That's a step in the federal regulation until you get to meeting compliance.
We know
there are a large number – the biggest risk is associated with fresh water.
We've largely funded projects through infrastructure to deal with most of the
waste water treatment plants that would be discharging in freshwater.
MR. LESTER:
Will our department be speaking on behalf of those communities that do not meet
these requirements by 2020 and ask for extra time from the feds? I understand
their clerks are under the gun.
MS. DEMPSTER:
We'll certainly do what we can to support the communities that we're working
with in the province, absolutely.
MR. LESTER:
But as far as additional funding from the province, that is not on the table as
of right now. Is that correct?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Are you speaking to the ability to meet the infrastructure requirement?
MR. LESTER:
Yes, I am.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Okay.
The
Investing in Canada Plan that the minister had spoke to earlier, which is the
$550 million federal investment that would leverage, I think, a total project
value of $1.3 billion, the green stream of that agreement is about $309 million.
So, there's a significant budgetary investment in that over the next 10 years,
and with the cost-shared ratios being 90-10, there's certainly good opportunity
there for municipalities to apply and pursue infrastructure so they can be
compliant with the regulations.
MR. LESTER:
Just a couple of quick
questions, line by line.
Section
4.2.01, Professional Services, there was $620,000 less in this budget versus
last year. What did this $620,000 include?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That decrease reflects
partial completion, the $1 million flood-risk mapping and flood forecasting for
Mud Lake, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the Lower Churchill River. It was offset by
budget reprofile of funding for hydrometric climate program stations in
Churchill Falls and Mud Lake. There's a purchased service to reflect consulting
requirements there.
I don't
know if Jamie wants to add anything to that.
MR. CHIPPETT:
With the change in the new
procurement legislation, some of the services that we normally paid for under
Professional or Purchased Services changed where they should be accounted for.
That was the reprofiling the minister spoke of; moved from one heading to the
other, just based on that change. That again was another recommendation of the
independent report on the Mud Lake flood to have more monitoring stations on the
Lower Churchill.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I might
be asking you a question or two that might seem repetitive but I do want to
clarify. I do want to start though, Mr. Chippett, you talked about the
flood-risk mapping and you said in the Waterford area.
Are you
talking about the Waterford River or the site of the new Waterford Hospital?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Waterford River.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
Has
there been flood mapping done for the site outside the new Waterford Hospital or
the new mental health facility, sorry?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Similar to the response I
provided on the Long Pond area, that project – because flood management
infrastructure is a trigger under the environmental assessment process, the
proposal for the berm is going through the environmental assessment process. As
a part of that, the proponent, the Department of Transportation and Works, was
required to do flood-risk mapping around that area.
MR. J. DINN:
So with the proposed site
and the extension of the berm, I'm assuming that the flood-risk mapping would
include the extended berm. Would that have been done?
MR. CHIPPETT:
In fact, yes, in the middle
of the assessment the berm was registered, and I think that's actually the
reason we went for further assessment on it. It had initially been a
registration, which is the initial level of environmental assessment, but with
the changes, the minister at the time required an environmental preview report
and that includes the extended berm.
MR. J. DINN:
And that report is
available?
MS. SQUIRES:
Yes, the report is
available. Each project that goes through environmental assessment has a
dedicated page and that's there. As well, as Jamie alluded to, we went as far as
revising the guidelines for this project so it encompassed the change for the
new mental health facility.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
I'm
looking in terms of mitigation here with this next question, and I know that
when I attended a public consultation meeting when the original berm was being
constructed, and I forget the engineering firm that was doing the presentation
at the time, it will come to me, but at that time there was considerable concern
by, I think it was Ann Browne with the university, that the new core science
facility was now at risk of flooding, flood damage with the berm that was being
considered at the time. That's a multi-million dollar facility.
I'm
just curious now, as to flood mapping and considering that we've now extended
the berm and we had seen the possibility of where the flooding might go, have
those concerns been allayed or what mitigation measures are going to be in place
to protect a brand new facility?
MS. SQUIRES:
Part of the reason this
project has been in assessment for a number of years is to try to get at some of
the questions that you've raised. The proponent originally submitted just the
berm on the hospital side of that wetland area. We required them to complete and
show the impacts of the displacement of the water that would result from that
berm, both under one in 20 and one in 100 storm scenarios, but also adding
climate change and a 30 per cent sensitivity ratio. So we have four sets of
flood-risk maps for that berm.
Because
of the identified impact of the berm and where that water is displaced, their
most recent submission looks at that and actually proposes a berm on the Prince
Philip Parkway side of that wetland area. So, not the side closest to the
hospital, the side closer to the CBC building, for example, and wrapping around
Clinch Crescent to be on the opposite side of the road as the science building
to contain the water from going on to the Parkway and the area of the science
building.
MR. J. DINN:
If I may, I guess what we're doing is, to counteract the effects of the berm on
one side, we're building a berm on the other side, instead of maybe moving the
hospital to up north of the current site. If you look at any natural river, as
I've been doing, the way the flooding in a natural river takes place is far from
what takes place inside of a city because we constrict.
I just
can't help but think, looking at the amount of money that's going to be going
into this, if we – the whole purpose of wetlands would be sort of a natural
mitigation, all that, but it looks like we're now adding a third berm to take
care of the extended berm.
MS. SQUIRES:
If I could clarify that.
MR. J. DINN:
Sure.
MS. SQUIRES:
The area that was flooded – if we think of, for example, Igor in 2008, there was
water on a significant portion of the Prince Philip Parkway, as well as up to
the Health Sciences Centre. Pre-any conversation of berm, there certainly was
flooding and there would be flooding in the area of the Core Science building,
the Prince Philip Parkway and the Health Sciences Centre.
The
berm, in and of itself, does not cause that level of flooding. The proposed two
berms work together to actually lower, even under a low storm scenario of 1 in
20, less flooding on the Parkway and near the Science building.
MR. J. DINN:
No and I understand that. My point is that in the development of the river, the
straightening of the river that used to go there and the increasing development
around that river, what we've actually done is we've eliminated the methods by
which water is absorbed and so now we're trying to mitigate that by building a
berm. That's my point.
We're
adding more construction there and less ability for the water to run off and be
absorbed naturally. I understand that, but then, if you look at the whole area
there, part of that river runs under the Avalon Mall. It's been gradually
encroached upon by development and therefore it has affected its ability to
absorb these hundred-year storms.
What's
the risk level then to the new Core Science Facility as a result of this? Have
you determined what the risk level will be? Is it 10 per cent, 5 per cent, zero
per cent in protecting that new facility?
MS. SQUIRES:
The information is not presented in percentages, but the projected flood maps
are presented on the project website in the environmental preview report
document. They show the anticipated level of flooding with berms present and
without the berms and that's still under review. So no decision has been made on
the final outcome for that project.
MR. J. DINN:
I'm just wondering if I were a homeowner and say I'm going to get an insurance
company for this, what would they say to me. Would they say no way, your risk
level is too high? That's what I
would be looking at here, the potential of risk to a multi-million-dollar
facility along with the infrastructure as well.
The
department monitors transmission line construction such as the Labrador Island
Link. I'm just curious, what monitoring activities will continue after, now that
it's completed? I'm just wondering what the monitoring activities are for that.
MS. SQUIRES:
The project was released
with a number of conditions – eight if I recall correctly. There are a number of
environmental effects monitoring plans associated with that project and those
set out the follow-up monitoring that's required and reporting structures.
MR. J. DINN:
If I may, what will be
monitored in that?
MS. SQUIRES:
There's a list there.
Everything from avifauna to fish habitat and things.
OFFICIAL:
Caribou.
MS. SQUIRES:
Caribou – yes, certainly.
There's a list of things they have to account for.
MR. J. DINN:
Finally, this question has
sort of been asked and I just want to clarify though. I know your role in
monitoring aquaculture sites – and I talked a little bit about the use of
therapeutic chemicals and waste management. I understand also that FLR,
Fisheries and Land Resources, do monitoring, but I'm curious – just to nail down
to clarify – specifically what your department, Minister, is responsible for;
our role in monitoring aquaculture sites.
MR. CHIPPETT:
Largely, as we talked about
earlier, our major intersection with aquaculture development is through the
environmental assessment process. For example, in the case of the Grieg project,
one of the terms and conditions of release was that Grieg pay for a monitor that
would be a staff member of our department. I think it's for a period of 10
years.
MR. J. DINN:
For 10 years, okay. How
often do these sites get monitored then? What would be the schedule?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I don't know that there is a
specific schedule at this point in time. Obviously, the monitor needs to be in
place before there is anything going in the water. That would be something that
would be determined between now and then.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay, time is up.
MR. LESTER:
Section 4.2.02, the Water
Quality Agreement. Could you provide some explanation as to the breakdown of
both federal and provincial revenue?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I have a list of revenue
once I find the right one. There are 35 real-time water-quality stations for
industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and they pay for those stations. That's
frequently a condition of environmental assessment that they enter into one of
these agreements with us and pay for it. That's the provincial revenue you're
seeing there.
Then,
the federal revenue relates to participation in special projects under the
Canada – Newfoundland and Labrador Water Quality Monitoring Agreement. That
agreement has been around for a large number of years. There are things such as
the development maintenance of the national water monitoring program, chemical
management plans and northern monitoring programs. There are numerous special
projects that we enter into with the federal government based on the Canada –
Newfoundland and Labrador Water Quality Monitoring Agreement.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to Supplies
under the same section, could you just give me an explanation of what supplies
would be included in this?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There's a lot of technical
equipment involved in this particular branch. For example, a hydro lab, which
would be used to drop in the water to test the number of chemical parameters at
the same time, from time to time those are replaced or we might have to purchase
warranties and so on for those. That's really what's encompassed there.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
I guess
while we're on the topic of water, can you provide an update on the
methylmercury file?
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Premier wrote to
Indigenous organizations and governments in early April to request a meeting.
There was a meeting on June 11 with the groups. The department had drafted a
draft terms of reference to work on implementing recommendations, in particular
around monitoring and health management.
Two of
the groups have now responded. I know the Premier spoke to it in the House
today. Since today, a second group has responded and we're waiting for feedback
from one additional group. Then the idea would be to get the implementation
committee in place and to start work on implementation of those recommendations.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'd like to add to that, if
I could, and it's something that I guess don't get talked about, is that there
is a monitoring plan that was agreed to by all the parties and the IEAC
certainly applauded the design of that. So there's water monitoring that happens
and the results are posted online.
There
are over 1,200 samples since 2016, maybe, that have been posted. Of those 1,200
samples, the current levels of methylmercury in Lake Melville are very low and
quite a number of the samples were actually below the limit that could be
detected. Out in the public, in the media, we heard people like the Calder group
talk about things we needed to be concerned about. We are not even yet with a
level of water at 23, I believe, where they actually started – where they said
we would be from their starting, we're not there yet.
The
data, for anybody who's interested in following that, there's a lot of science
that's been gathered and the data is open and certainly on the website. We're
going to continue with that water-monitoring plan because, obviously, the health
of the people trumps everything.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
When we
do hit this critical level, because undoubtedly the levels will rise as the
material decomposes under water and releases into the water body, do we have a
plan as to how we will compensate the individuals who may be affected by being
no longer able to access that food source?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The people who've been here
longer than me can correct me, but I don't think there's any data or any science
or any indication yet, to date, that people are not able to eat the food in the
area, from everything I've understood and from the reports that I have read.
We're going to continue with the water-monitoring plan and I guess the future
results, what happens down the road, will certainly inform public education,
public health around methylmercury and food in water, should we get to that.
MR. LESTER:
Very good.
In
reference to the environmental assessment process review, I understand
consultations are under way. Are you getting much response to that review?
MS. SQUIRES:
We have a few dozen emails
directly into the email system, but we've not got results from the EngageNL
survey. So I'm not sure at this point how many people actually responded to the
survey itself. But from emailed letters, for example, we got a handful, or up to
a dozen. But most people, I imagine, are completing the survey directly online.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
Section
4.3.01, in relation to the Salaries there was almost $120,000 less spent last
year than was budgeted and there is more budgeted for this year. What would that
be just vacancies within the department or …?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The decrease of $125,000 reflects lower salary cost for the Bay du Nord Project
and lower cost due to recruitment period for vacant positions.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
In
reference to Supplies, there's a steady decrease. What is included in that? Does
that have to do with more services being contracted out? Because it's not
referenced in the budget.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, that's actually tied to the Bay du Nord as well. The decrease of $3,300
reflects forecasted budget reduction for the Bay du Nord Project, plus
zero-based budgeting adjustment – that was just $300. And, again, the decrease
of $2,700 reflected lower supply cost for the Bay du Nord Project offset by
higher divisional office supply cost.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to the environmental permitting process, it was also indicated that
the department would be reviewing the environmental permitting process. Can you
provide some details on your plan?
MR. CHIPPETT:
One of the things that we said we would look at, through a lean process, was our
environmental permitting processes. So we've been through a review, for example,
of water resources permitting requirements and I think made some small changes.
But the bigger change would involve new software and so on for tracking. So that
would have to come with a budgetary approval at a later date.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to composting, we've seen several composting projects basically
stalemated by public pressure. Is the department going to clearly define where
and how people can propose composting operations?
MR. CHIPPETT:
So there is one project currently under environmental assessment which is
proposed for the Long Harbour area – same proponent that was looking to do it on
the Argentia Access Road. That will go through the same type of process, because
obviously with a new location there are new considerations around the distances
as you reference to towns or municipalities or cabin owners or what have you.
I do
know that, from a waste management perspective, there are set boundaries in
terms of how close you can have a landfill, for example. I'm looking to Dan or
Susan to help me out in terms of whether anything exists for composting
projects, specifically.
MS. SQUIRES:
There's nothing for composting facilities specifically. Not having an industrial
composting facility like this in the province before, we have looked other
jurisdictions, and they actually can be very close, much less than a kilometre
to even things like residential areas. So composting, if done correctly, should
have no odour whatsoever. But as you've alluded to, certainly we've had some
public interest in these composting facilities and some concern around odour,
quite far distances, actually, away.
CHAIR:
Your time has expired.
Mr.
Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
follow up on 4.2.01, two quick questions on that. Minister, I think you had said
with regard to the EIS conditions set on Grieg there about 15 or so. Would your
department be responsible for monitoring compliance of those conditions? And
would that be through the proposed person that they're going to hire for that?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I don't think it is a specific number, for the record, I just said there are a
number of stringent conditions. I didn't actually say a number, but (inaudible)
–
MR. J. DINN:
No, I'm just wondering, will your department be responsible for monitoring those
–
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
– compliance with those conditions, regardless of the number?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, and will that be with the person that's hired on?
MS. SQUIRES:
The person that's hired on, and the proposal for that person, certainly will
assist in providing oversight and adhering to those conditions. In part, due to
the scale of the project, is the reason why we have that person. But certainly
not all projects have an environmental monitor, so the Environmental Assessment
Division is responsible for making sure proponents submit the required plans or
adhere to conditions as set out.
MR. J. DINN:
I think you indicated that that person was going to be in place for 10 years?
MS. SQUIRES:
Yes, the reason for the 10 years was the proponent described a phased-in
approach of going to their maximum production scale, that would take upwards of
eight years to reach that phased approached. So the reason for the 10-year mark
was to make sure we were reviewing the project up until peak production.
MR. J. DINN:
Who will be responsible for
monitoring those conditions after that if we don't have a person on site?
MS. SQUIRES:
The various conditions that
they adhere to would still be the responsibility of environmental assessment
division and the proponent. We'll evaluate the types of compliance and types of
oversight that they would be required to have, but the proponent will also be
responsible to answering any questions we have on compliance.
MR. J. DINN:
Very good. Because I know
there are a number of production stoppages due to ISA breakouts and the
rendering of fish, so I would recommend that continue.
I'm
sorry, I hate to say it, but I would like to see something other than the fox in
charge of the henhouse, and that would be – I think it's good to have government
an independent oversight paid for by the company to watch what they're up to.
With
regard to waste water, one last thing, waste water management. I guess you're
familiar with the waste management facility in Gander, Glenwood, there on the
Gander River, which I must say is pretty impressive. Certainly, it has cleaned
up the water enormously there. I'm just thinking in terms of as an investment,
to me it looks like low cost or low maintenance in many ways compared to the one
that's down in St. John's Harbour there.
How
well has that been doing? Is there a plan to bring it to other communities?
Especially this waste water being dumped into waterways. I'm thinking of the
Exploits, in particular.
MR. CHIPPETT:
The Abydos system, I believe
–
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
MR. CHIPPETT:
– is the one you're speaking
to in Glenwood. I think it has worked relatively well. We have funded similar
such projects. I don't know if it's Abydos for sure, but that type of a lagoon
system has been funded for, I think, Grand Falls-Windsor, and Stephenville as
well.
Normally, we don't push a particular technology or what have you, but certainly
we've had numerous communities come to us to apply for those projects.
Obviously, I think generally we agree with your assessment in terms of their
effectiveness. There's certainly the Investing in Canada Fund, I talked about
earlier, that would be certainly an eligible project cost under that.
MR. J. DINN:
From a cost-benefit point of view, how do they compare with other systems? I
mean, the easiest thing is you just dump the sewage into the water. That doesn't
cost you a whole lot except building – but I'm looking at other, more or less,
say, elaborate structures such as the one here in St. John's, which is dealing
with a much larger area, but I'm just looking at other treatment options. Where
does it compare?
MR. MICHIELSEN:
It really depends on the size of the community and the volume of waste water.
These types of systems do require a significant amount of real estate that
wouldn't be available in the City of St. John's or the metro area, for example,
in terms of where the flows go now. They're really much less the operational
cost than traditional, but, again, they have their limitations in terms of size
of communities that they can service.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
4.2.02;
I think for the most part that's covered.
4.3.01;
Transportation – and I think some of this has already been covered by my
colleague, but Transportation and Communications may not have been, or I didn't
hear it. A decline last year of – well, actually, a decline of almost $60,000
for Transportation and Communications. I apologize if that's been asked and
answered.
MS. DEMPSTER:
That's okay. Yes, and I did answer your colleague.
The
decrease reflects forecasted budget reduction for the Bay du Nord project, plus
a zero-based budgeting adjustment. Then there was also lower travel and
communication cost, again, related to the Bay du Nord project.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, and I actually do remember that answer.
With
regard to – and I think we've talked about this already – the deadline for
public consultations for the environmental assessment review is early July. I
think you had mentioned, Minister, there was an overwhelming response, but I
took that to mean to the plastic bag consultation.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes, correct.
MR. J. DINN:
I'm looking here for the environmental assessment review. What's the next step
for that? And I think you said this, but will you publish a What We Heard
document in relation to that?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Yes. So we had gone out to start the consultation, I believe – that predates me
– and then we were in caretaker mode for a little while in the province, and
since we just recently opened up the consultation process again until the third
of July, right? And then we will produce a What We Heard document.
MR. J. DINN:
And what has been the response so far?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm going to look to Susan.
MS. SQUIRES:
We got about, approximately, a dozen responses into our email that we set up for
the review. I haven't received an update from EngageNL.
The
Public Engagement division monitors and sets up those online surveys that are
conducted through the EngageNL website. They have that data. I haven't received
an update from them on how many have responded, but we certainly could get that.
They will provide us that when they provide us all the data at the close of the
public consultation period. So we will certainly have it. We just don't have it
yet, because the public consultation is currently open.
MR. J. DINN:
So the feedback is solicited
primarily through online?
MS. SQUIRES:
Yes, because –
MR. J. DINN:
Text based.
MS. SQUIRES:
Pardon?
MR. J. DINN:
Text based, like typing. You
can type in –
MS. SQUIRES:
Yes, correct.
MR. J. DINN:
Has there been any other
ways in which information or feedback has been solicited, in public forums or
anything like that?
MS. SQUIRES:
The discussion document that
we've placed online is available for people to fill in and they certainly can
mail us in a copy. They can scan in a copy and send it in as well.
MR. J. DINN:
Has there been any thought
given to – when you're looking at using video response where people can actually
email a video that can be captured online. Sometimes it's much easier, as you
know, to give an oral presentation, but even if – if it's going to be online,
you can easily do that through your computer as well or iPad, just send in a
verbal, oral, an audio oral response. Any thought to that?
MS. SQUIRES:
EngageNL web-based program doesn't allow for a submission like that, but if
someone sent us in a video through the website we set up,
eareview@gov.nl.ca,
we certainly could take that.
MR. J. DINN:
It's just a thought.
MS. SQUIRES:
Yeah.
MR. J. DINN:
I always like multiple ways
of seeking responses. Not everyone is a text-based individual to respond, and
writing is a vastly different experience than speaking, too. I know, I taught
it.
Okay.
I'm done with 4.3.01. That's it, and I have no more questions on that.
CHAIR:
Mr. Lester.
MR. LESTER:
Just a couple of questions
regarding 4.3.01. In reference to the provincial revenue, what would be included
there? And what explains the $148,000 decrease in the revised from last year?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The revenue decrease of
$148,000 reflects forecasted budget reduction for the offsetting revenue for the
Bay de Nord project. Again, the same amount, the revenue decrease of $148,000
reflects lower revenue from the Bay de Nord project.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
That's it. There are no
other questions for 4.1.01 to 4.3.0.1, Environmental Management and Control.
CLERK:
4.1.01 through 4.3.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.3.01
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.3.01 carried.
CLERK:
Climate Change, 5.1.01 and
5.1.02.
CHAIR:
We'll start off with Mr.
Dinn.
No,
sorry, Mr. Lester.
MR. LESTER:
Some general questions in
reference to line by line.
Section
5.1.01, what would be included in Purchased Services and why would there an
extra, almost, $20,000 spent last year?
MS. DEMPSTER:
The increase of the $18,300
reflects consultant contracts that was actually reimbursed by Natural Resources
Canada.
MR. LESTER:
In reference to the Grants
and Subsidies, what is included in the Grants and Subsidies?
MR. CHIPPETT:
This is one of the energy
efficiency programs that are available under the Climate Change Branch.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
A
question on Salaries, would any of these salaries be, I guess, appropriated to
the province's requirement of protected environmental spaces as dictated by the
feds?
MR. CHIPPETT:
No, I don't think so.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
Why was
$1 million less spent last year then budgeted when it comes to the Grants and
Subsidies?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Go ahead.
MS. DEMPSTER:
We're all pretty eager given
the hour of the day, Mr. Chair.
The
decrease of $1 million reflects a lower uptake under the Energy Efficiency Loan
Program.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
What
would explain the increase in the budget this year if last year we did not spend
$1 million?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'll turn it over to Jackie.
MS. JANES:
The maintenance of the
subsidy line this year is because government announced in their pre-election its
intention to bring forward a new program, a heat pump replacement program. That
would be additional to the ongoing Energy Efficiency Loan Program. So that will
make up the residual spending.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
In
reference to the carbon tax, do we have an idea of how much has been collected
to date in the form of revenue?
MS. JANES:
I don't have the figures in front of me. The revenue for the first period of the
carbon tax is fairly low, because the carbon tax only came in on the 1st of
January, 2019. So there are only three months of that fiscal year. That's one
reason why the revenue would be lower. Obviously, in 2019-2020, you'll get a
full fiscal year, so revenues will be higher, but I'm afraid I don't have the
figures in front of me.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
So,
really, we won't expect to see any increase, it would just be – right now
we have a proportionate sample of six months of tax collection. So if we go in a
year, well, it will be twice what we collected in six months. Am I correct in
assuming that?
MS. JANES:
That will depend on whether the carbon tax rate will increase in future. The
provincial carbon program, the government said that it would only increase the
carbon tax rate if there was headroom once the calculation had been done of what
increase had occurred across Atlantic Canada to try and ensure parity from a
taxation and a trade perspective, and maintain competitiveness. So that will
need to be done for future years for 2020 and beyond.
For the
calendar year 2019, the rate is $20 a ton, which on a litre of gasoline
translates into 4.42 cents a litre.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
The
Parliamentary Budget Office projects by 2030 – as it pertains to emissions –
we'll be looking at $52 a ton in order to meet the Paris targets. Does our
department think that's reasonable that we'll also have to follow suit? We're
looking at $50 a ton when it comes to the fuel charge as well.
MR. CHIPPETT:
As Jackie outlined, the position of the government in development of its carbon
program, which included the price on carbon for the carbon tax, was that the
province would not adjust upward unless it could do so and retain parity with
the Atlantic Provinces from a taxation perspective.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
Do we
have a schedule of projection as to what positive effect this will actually have
by reducing our emissions and production of CO2?
MS. JANES:
We do. There are two
components to the provincial carbon program. There is a carbon tax that applies
to electricity and building fuels, although there are exemptions to the
application of that tax, and then the second part of the system is a
performance-based system that applies to large industrial emitters. So a large
industrial emitter is a company that emits in excess of 25,000 tons of
greenhouse gas emissions a year.
For
those large industrial emitters, under the performance-based system, they have
been given a legally binding greenhouse gas reduction target. It starts in 2019
and it's a 6 per cent reduction against the defined baseline, which is the
historic emissions, and it will increase by 2 per cent a year until it reaches
12 per cent by 2022. We have calculations for the estimated greenhouse gas
reductions that will be delivered through that measure.
With
respect to the tax, there's a kind of short-, medium- and long-term story to
that. A tax is meant to send sort of an economic signal into the economy that
the polluter pays for the damage done by the greenhouse gas emissions. That, we
hope, will influence people's behaviour so maybe people won't idle their car,
for example, or they'll put in LED light bulbs in their house. Those types of
measures.
In the
medium term, you would hope that you would see a more significant shift on
behaviour. So, for example, whilst in the short term you might choose not to
idle your car or to car share to get to work, in the medium term if you're
choosing to purchase a new vehicle, you may think about the fuel economy of that
vehicle and select a vehicle that might be a little bit more fuel efficient.
Then in
the long term you would hope that the carbon pricing signal has created an
incentive for greater innovation into low carbon technologies. You would see
more transformative things happening in society. A good illustration of that in
the transportation sector might be, for example, increased penetration of
electric vehicles. As the availability of those vehicles increases, the price of
them falls, the range improves so you might see greater penetration of those.
It's
difficult to assess with the carbon tax exactly how much reduction we would see
in the short term. It's more of a sort of long-term game to try and achieve
reductions out to 2030.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
Is
there a defined mechanism within the Department of Finance to collect and
segregate the monies collected via the carbon tax? Subsequently, is there a
program designed to administer those funds into projects that will accelerate
our compliance with the Paris accord?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I think questions around taxes and finance would be best answered by Finance.
MR. LESTER:
Is there a defined program which consumers or businesses can apply to access
these funds that had been collected in efforts to reduce our impact?
MS. DEMPSTER:
As you probably will recall, in March we announced our five-year action plan on
climate change that was $89.4 million. That includes a number of pillars, some
that Jackie has already alluded to: Energy efficiency, the heat pumps, a number
– I'm not recalling them right now.
We've
put in place a program that we're pretty proud of actually, because it is a
polluter-pay, it's looking at large industry paying. We've exempted things. Home
heating is not being hit; I believe airline travel is not being hit. Had we not
implemented our own hybrid program and the federal backstop came down, that
would've been four times the cost of what we were able to negotiate.
CHAIR:
Okay, your time is up.
Mr.
Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
I'll
start off by saying this: As the owner of a pickup truck, I'm quite happy to pay
the carbon tax and whatever comes with it. If nothing else, anything that's
going to be helpful to protect the environment, I'm fine. The next truck vehicle
might be an electric one when they're here.
With
regard to the Grants and Subsidies, there was a statement made that there was a
lower uptake on the Energy Efficiency Loan Program. I'm just curious, has there
been any analysis as to why there was a lower uptake on that? Is it a lack of
awareness or the application process too cumbersome? I'm just trying to get an
idea of why that drop.
MS. JANES:
When we designed the program we had no prior information on how it would be
received in the market. Government voted an amount of money to support the
program in the budget and we worked with the electric utilities, Newfoundland
Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, to design and to deliver the program.
The way
we did calculations, based on the uptake was, we have X amount money, we need a
percentage of that to cover the administration costs of the program and the
remaining amount of money will be available for grants. But until we went into
the market we didn't know what demand there would be for that program. We
started with giving people a preferential interest rate, but it is still a loan.
People apply; they can borrow up to $10,000 over a five-year period to pay for
either improving their insulation, heat pump installation and purchase of a heat
pump, or a home energy assessment.
Whilst
there hasn't been as much demand as we had money available, the program has
still been extremely successful. To date, since its launch in October 2017,
we've helped over 353 people invest through these loans, up to $2.8 million, to
cover the upfront costs of purchasing energy efficiency upgrades. That's the
explanation for why the spend has been lower than the budgeted amount.
MR. J. DINN:
No and I understand that,
I'm just trying to get a reason. Is there any analysis as to why the uptake has
been – what's preventing people? Is it just a lack of knowledge, the awareness
of it? The fact that it is a loan and they have to pay it back, maybe with some
interest.
I guess
that's what I'm looking at. I understand that, I'm just curious. Have you done
an analysis as to why the people haven't been taking up on that offer? Is there
a plan then to respond to that and maybe increase the uptake?
MS. JANES:
We have looked at it with
the electric utilities. You're absolutely right; loans generally are not as
attractive as grants. People prefer grants. One thing that we have looked at is
the interest rate and maybe the prospect of potentially lowering the interest
rate to make the cost of borrowing less, which may improve the attractiveness of
that program and increase uptake.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
The
interest rate is what?
MS. JANES:
The interest rate is – hang
on I have to remember it. I think it is prime minus one. I'm sorry; I'd have to
double-check that. I can't remember off the top of my head.
MR. J. DINN:
It sounds like a pretty good
interest rate.
MS. JANES:
Yeah, it is competitive in
the market. Still, people who have collateral – like say you have a house that
you can borrow against – can still get a more attractive rate than that. That
might, in part, answer your question.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay.
With
regard to some general questions, why were home heating fuels exempted from the
carbon tax instead of providing a low income rebate?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I know some of the consideration, obviously, around the taxation would be with
Finance. One of the initial pillars of consideration was to mirror any
exemptions that already existed under the gasoline tax.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
Are you
working on measures for reducing emissions in the transportation sector – and
maybe even in government's own fleet for that matter – beyond the carbon tax?
I'm thinking electrification of vehicles and the like.
MS. JANES:
Yes, one of the programs that Minister Dempster mentioned that was rolled out
under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership program is targeted at the freight
transportation sector. It's to help part fund, through rebates, the cost of
devices that can improve the fuel economy of those vehicles: skirts that go
along the bottom of freight vehicles or aerodynamic devices that go on the cab,
those types of things. That's one measure that's specifically targeting the
transportation sector.
Another
measure that government announced prior to the election was the investment of $2
million to invest in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. As you'll be
aware, one of the concerns that impedes uptake of electric vehicles is range
anxiety, the fact that the vehicles need to be charged every 150 kilometres or
so. Money is intended to be invested in improving charging infrastructure, both
Level 3 charging stations, which are the fast-charging stations that can fully
charge a car in less than half an hour, and Level 2 charging stations, which
take a little longer. They take three to four hours to fully charge a vehicle,
but might be good to deploy, for example, at people's places of work or shopping
centres or leisure centres where people tend to go and park their car for a
number of hours at a time.
Those
are the two initiatives that are currently being driven forward.
MR. J. DINN:
Are you tracking the number of electric vehicles that are sold or purchased?
More importantly, is there a plan by government to electrify its vehicle fleet?
MS. JANES:
With respect to your first question, we do get data from Service NL on vehicle
registrations. It's a little complicated because, of course, there are different
types of electric vehicles. There are some that have a combustion engine and an
electric component, and there are other electric vehicles that are pure 100 per
cent electric and that you have to plug in.
The
challenge that we have with data is the vehicle registration system lumps
together those sort of hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles that also have a
backup combustion engine. There's one VPN for those vehicles. There's a separate
one for fully electric vehicles. So whilst we have a broad idea of the number of
electric vehicles in the province, it's not absolutely precise.
With
respect to government's plans; I understand the Department of Transportation and
Works is looking at procuring two electric vehicles for government, and the
Department of Natural Resources has installed two electric vehicle charging
stations at its building on Elizabeth Avenue. So those types of initiatives are
being advanced as well.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
Are the
major emitters likely to meet the required 6 per cent emissions reduction in
2019 as required by the Management of
Greenhouse Gas Act?
MS. JANES:
It's a legally binding
target, but they have a number of mechanisms through which they can comply with
that target. They can achieve reductions at their facility or they can purchase
reductions from another industrial facility that has overachieved its target and
has surplus reductions to sell.
It is a
legally binding obligation, so our expectation is that the industrials will
comply with it. We did develop the performance standard system in close
consultation with industry, and it seeks to achieve real greenhouse gas
reductions to help tackle climate change whilst also being cognizant of the fact
that these large industrial companies all export into international markets.
So
they're competing with companies that are located in countries that are not
subject to carbon constraints and their price take is on international markets.
We're seeking to drive down emissions, but, of course, retain the
competitiveness of those large industrials at the same time.
MR. J. DINN:
If a facility can't make the
reduction target it pays into a greenhouse gas reduction fund, as I understand
it. I'm just wondering if that fund has been established. And, if not, when will
it be and what will it be used for?
MS. JANES:
You're correct. One
mechanism through which large industrial companies can comply with their target,
if they fail to make reductions at their site, is to pay into a greenhouse gas
reduction fund. That fund is not part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is
earmarked. Any money that goes into that fund has to be used, under the
legislation, to invest in greenhouse gas reduction opportunities elsewhere in
the economy.
The
fund has yet to be established. The reason for that is companies who are
obligated to reduce their emissions under the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act,
that 6 per cent target applies to 2019, but they have to demonstrate compliance
with that by November of 2020. So it's only at that point companies, when they
do their true up, will determine if they're short greenhouse gas reductions and
at that point be required to pay into the fund.
So it
will be set up, but it's not needed as of today.
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Your time has expired, Mr.
Dinn.
Mr.
Lester.
MR. LESTER:
Okay. You just referenced to competitive necessity. Who decides where we draw
the line between competitive necessity and regulatory compliance? Is that done
within the department? Is there specific staff that would examine that?
MS. JANES:
We look closely at the companies, the extent to which they export. The large
industrial companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, most of them export 100 per
cent of their product into international markets. Probably the least trade
exposed company is actually the refinery, which exports only between 80 and 90
per cent of its product.
The
reason why it's so important to consider competitiveness is if you develop a
system that puts a very severe carbon constraint on large industrials, what you
could do is you could drive that company out of business, because they're
dealing with an additional cost base that their competitors – say, the refinery
is competing with a refinery out of India – don't incur. Therefore, the Indian
refinery might be able to sell its product more cheaply. In that instance – this
fictional instance – the refinery could close down.
From a
greenhouse gas perspective, the globe would be worse off, because in
Newfoundland and Labrador that refinery is required to be efficient and drive
down its emissions. The refinery in India may not be subject to any such carbon
constraints. So, as a result, global emissions may increase. But from an
economic perspective, we in Newfoundland and Labrador have lost hundreds of
well-paying jobs that are important, contributive to our economy.
So we
do work very closely with the Department of Finance. We do modelling to
understand the impacts of different prices and carbon constraints on companies
to try and find that balance that Cabinet can determine to make real reductions
whilst ensuring the economic health of our economy.
MR. LESTER:
I think you just explained why C-69 is not a very good bill, but anyways.
How
many industrial organizations are in Newfoundland and Labrador that would meet
the level of 25,000 tons?
MS. JANES:
The number of companies,
whilst I mentioned 25,000 tons, there is an opt-in clause under our
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act. So
if a company emits more than 15,000 tons it has to report to government, and it
can choose to be regulated under the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act rather than be subject to the carbon tax.
When
you take into account those potential opt-in companies – like, potentially,
Fluorspar down in St. Lawrence might opt in to the system, you're talking
roughly about a dozen companies, and they include both onshore and offshore
large industrials. So all four of the offshore platforms are regulated under the
system.
MR. LESTER:
Is there a ratio of what of
those companies will be able to reach the targets versus the ones that won't by
the set deadlines?
MS. JANES:
Our expectation is that they
will all achieve their target because the system provides for flexible
compliance option. As you'll appreciate, climate change is a global problem;
therefore, from an environmental perspective it doesn't matter where the
greenhouse gas reductions occur, so long as they occur. However, from an
economic perspective, it does make sense to reduce those emissions where the
cost is lowest.
Our
system applies across the province, the industrial players within the province.
However, we know the marginal cost of abatement and the cost of reducing a ton
is very different for the different industrial players. An illustration of that
would be an offshore facility. Once you've sunk that capital and you've put that
platform 300, 350 kilometres out into the ocean, it is very, very difficult to
do major retrofits. You're space constrained, you're weight constrained and you
can't just tie into a renewable electricity grid; therefore, the cost of
complying, reducing emissions there is going to be very different, for example,
to a company that might be doing a major turnover and a major retrofit or can
possibly hook into the grid and use more renewable electricity to displace
diesel or fuel.
As a
result of that, we've created alternative compliance mechanisms. So the offshore
facilities, if they can't achieve cost-effective reductions on their platform,
they can purchase reduction credits through the greenhouse gas fund that we
previously discussed, or purchase reductions from large industrial emitters that
have got surplus reductions because they've reduced their emissions by more than
target. By building in these different flexible compliance options, we're trying
to ensure that all companies have a cost-effective way to reduce their emissions
to maintain their competitiveness, while at the same time they all contribute to
the greenhouse gas reductions that we need to achieve.
MR. LESTER:
Would an example of investment in – if they couldn't comply within their own
organization and they invested outside – I remember probably a decade ago when
this was first talked about a lot of farmland was purchased in the Maritimes, in
through Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by large oil companies, and part of their
credit was to reforest this farmland. Yes, that sounds great in theory, but,
basically, what it did was it tied up a lot of the province's ability to produce
its own food and become more sustainable.
Would
that type of activity also be considered in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MS. JANES:
Although the legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador, the
Management Of Greenhouse Gas Act,
does provide potentially for the use of offsets, which is what you're
describing, which is certified emission reduction projects that occur in sectors
that are outside the large industrial regulated facilities like forestry,
agriculture and waster, that is not a part of the system we have developed
regulations or brought into effect at this point. So that does not apply at this
moment in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. LESTER:
Okay. Will that be something that the department would consider in the future?
MS. JANES:
It is provided for in the legislation, so further work will be done to look at
the cost and benefits of that system for consideration by government.
MR. LESTER:
Okay.
All
right, some quick line-by-line questions in reference to 5.1.02. Why was there
no Salaries spent last year?
MR. CHIPPETT:
There are a couple of places where, obviously, there's a lower revised budget
figure than the original budgeted one. So, just in terms of the set-up of the
$89.4 million that the minister reference earlier, that's an agreement with the
federal government on the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund.
When
budgeting was done last year it was anticipated that agreement would be signed
in the spring of 2018 but it was actually signed in September of 2018. So, once
you sign the agreement, there's a process you go through to have individual
projects approved, again, through Environment and Climate Change Canada. Some of
those programs were rolled out on January 25, 2019 and March 8, 2019 and
actually two other ones rolled out on March 15, 2019.
So,
because it was so late in the fiscal year, based on when the agreement was
signed, that's why you get those lower figures throughout the revised budget in
that area.
MR. LESTER:
The federal revenue
contribution, what program would that be coming from?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It would be any of the
projects I just listed. Generally, it's the cash flow for the $89.4 million, but
in terms of the federal revenue, for example, in '19-'20, there would be
expected expenditures under those four or five programs that I just listed.
MR. LESTER:
Has there been any study to
the carbon footprint created by our bottle and container recycling program?
MS. JANES:
I'm not aware of any
specific analysis that's been done on that program. There has been analysis done
on some of the carbon footprint aspects of waste management but I'm not aware of
anything on that particular component.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
That
will be all.
CHAIR:
Mr. Dinn.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Chair.
With
regard to 5.1.01, it was just in the news very recently that Ottawa has
earmarked $50 million for school retrofits in provinces that fought climate
change. I'm just wondering, we're not one of the provinces that did that, but
would there be a possibility of using the green fund or the carbon taxes towards
retrofitting schools in the province to make them more energy efficient? Whether
that's about putting better insulation in, windows or converting from oil
burning. Is that a possibility or a use of the fund?
MS. JANES:
Obviously, that would be for
consideration by the Department of Education. Work is being done through the Low
Carbon Economy Leadership Fund to look at improving the energy efficiency and
fuel switching in public buildings, and I know that there are some educational
facilities being retrofitted through that initiative.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
Just so
you know, in some schools the way of making sure air circulation was taken care
of was to basically open windows in the dead of winter. It might've brought in
fresh air, but I don't know what it did for the heating bill for that month.
With
regards to new charging stations; with $2 million for new charging stations will
government ensure an adequate number of Level 3 quick-charging stations to be
made available along the TCH for access to rural areas and the possibility of
travelling for longer distances? Is that a possibility?
MS. DEMPSTER:
That's something that's in the budget and something that'll certainly be looked
at longer term as we go forward. That's the whole idea, we want to start in the
more populated areas and spread out.
MR. J. DINN:
Yeah, it's sort of like a chicken and an egg as to what you need first.
Will
these stations be operated by private companies, and will the rates at these
stations be comparable to residential electricity rates?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I would say that's to be determined.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you very much.
I have
just a few other questions now, not many more. One that I did miss that my
colleague asked had to do with the – if you wouldn't mind repeating it –
reduction on Salaries in the 2018 budget.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Are you in 5.01 –?
MR. J. DINN:
Sorry, my apologies, 5.1.02.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Okay.
The
decrease of the $198,000 reflected requirements of the Low Carbon Economy
Leadership Fund and building regional capacity and expertise. So, there was
salary cost. I believe that's the one that only came into effect – the agreement
was signed in September, so we were well into the calendar year before that was
finalized.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, thank you very much.
One
quick question, I'm just thinking, if any of you've gone done the Argentia
highway by Dunville and the huge mound of tires, I'm just wondering – years ago
I had seen a documentary on this about using recycled tires in asphalt. I know
now, currently, I think they're shipped out to Quebec and we pay them, do we
not, to take the tires and burn them?
MR. CHIPPETT:
We pay the shipping charge to have them moved to Quebec and for them to be
burned by Lafarge.
In
terms of the notion of use of tire-derived aggregate, I know the Multi-Materials
Stewardship Board, MMSB, they've undertaken some work this year on a study to
look at how well tire-derived aggregate could be used in Newfoundland and
Labrador. One of the big challenges with tires, of course, is the volume. It's
difficult to have a steady supply of aggregate for any other projects.
MR. J. DINN:
A quick question: How much
do we pay for the shipping of tires up to Quebec? It seems like it's a pretty
good deal for them.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I don't recall what the
number is. We wouldn't have that number. The Multi-Materials Stewardship Board
would have that.
MR. J. DINN:
Would it be possible to get
that from you?
MR. CHIPPETT:
Yes.
MR. J. DINN:
Okay, I appreciate that.
As a
commentary, if we're paying to ship tires to another jurisdiction so that they
can burn them, I'm assuming for their own energy purposes, or is just simply
disposal?
MR. CHIPPETT:
It is for their own energy
purposes.
MR. J. DINN:
So we're actually
subsidizing another province's or another jurisdiction's energy needs. I'm just
wondering if we could use that money towards investing in some local technology
and innovation and maybe hire people – that's where I'm going. We talk about
efficiencies, zero-based budgeting and all that stuff, rightsizing and so on and
so forth. I think here is an opportunity where we can take that money and become
innovators in that way, in that field, and look at how we can take the recycle
tire aggregate and mix it in with the rest of the aggregate.
I
didn't realize it, but that technology has been around since, I think in the
States, 1960. I guess all good things come to those who wait. We've imported a
lot of other ideas from the States; this sounds like a good one.
MR. CHIPPETT:
I know there's an interest
in finding a provincial solution but, obviously, if you go back to the
stockpiles that we talked about, there was a considerable fire risk associated
with those. I think one of the cost-benefit pieces to this would be how much
would you have to invest, given the volume. I'm aware of pilot projects, for
example, of people involved with glass as an example because we know we can't
recycle our glass bottles right now either, aside from the alcoholic ones.
It
always becomes a question of volume in terms of supporting some of these
initiatives. So, certainly if there's a solution and that's why MMSB has been
doing a fair amount of work on tire-derived aggregate and so on to see if there
would be some way that we could utilize it cost effectively here.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Are you finished, Mr. Dinn?
MR. J. DINN:
That's it.
MR. LESTER:
Just a couple of quick
questions while we're talking tires. So if a company or an individual decided to
use those tires here in this province as either a form of fuel or electrical
generation, would they also be subject to a carbon tax for the consumption of
those tires?
MR. CHIPPETT:
I could ask Jackie to step in if I miss the point, but it would depend on their
level of emissions. Obviously, if it was lower than the opt-in level Jackie
talked about, which I think is 15,000 tons, then they would be subject to the
carbon tax.
MR. LESTER:
Okay. I guess that's basically it for me. Once again, I'd like to thank
everybody for offering the knowledge that we received tonight. If you'd be so
kind to provide all your documentation and briefing notes, it would be greatly
appreciated.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Week's
in, it was somewhat of a good briefing for me too. So I want to thank the staff
for answering all of the questions that they did. Thank you, guys.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
I'm
going to text Kevin Parsons and let him know I got this right now.
CHAIR:
Do not share it with him.
MR. LESTER:
Only a copy for me, that's it.
CLERK:
5.1.01 and 5.2.02.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 and 5.1.02
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 5.1.01 and 5.1.02 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the totals carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
for the Department of Municipal and Environment carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
I, too, would like to thank
everybody for their co-operation tonight and all the valuable information that
you shared.
I will
now ask for an adjournment.
MS. STOODLEY:
Motion to adjourn.
CHAIR:
Sarah.
We are
adjourned. And everyone have a great night.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned sine die.