[Page 137]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Supply, the estimates debate for the fiscal year 2002-03 to order. The time is now 2:08 p.m. We are continuing to debate Resolution E6. While the minister is still here, we can also deal with Resolutions E23 and E25 in regard to the Nova Scotia Securities Commission and the Utility and Review Board. Will you be prepared to answer any questions on that today, if asked, or do you want to wait for another day on that?
The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour.
HON. DAVID MORSE: We would be happy to entertain questions on anything that falls under the department's umbrella.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was looking at your portfolio's responsibilities, so I was looking at Resolution E23 and Resolution E25.
Those are the three resolutions pertaining to your responsibilities.
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As of the conclusion the other day, we had 30 minutes remaining in the time allotment for the NDP.
137
[Page 138]
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, the other day we were having a discussion about air quality. I had identified this as a crucial issue in the Environment portfolio and, of course, a crucial issue to all Nova Scotians. I had gotten to the point of really wanting to know the approach of you and your government to implementation of effective steps to move towards the kinds of standards that were embodied in the Kyoto Protocol. In particular, what we had started to discuss was what kinds of steps might effectively be taken in order to reach effective goals in order to address the range of questions having to do with air quality and, of course, with global climate change. Associated with that was the question of potential costs to our economy, since that is something that's had a great deal of publicity recently; and I reminded you of some statements that had been made by other levels of government.
It was particularly that part of the air quality issue that I was wondering whether your department had yet had the opportunity to look at. I was struck by a statement that you made in giving your introduction. I believe it may even have been the same words as appeared in the provincial energy strategy that was issued in December. It was essentially to the effect that the province was prepared to take steps but at the same time didn't want to unduly burden one jurisdiction with the costs. I think that was a phrase that you used and I think it's almost exactly or may even be exactly the same words that appeared in the energy strategy that was issued in December.
I'm a little puzzled by that statement, as well as to what exactly the government had in mind. I was struck by that phrase when I first read it in the energy strategy, and it wasn't clear to me what the government had in mind. Could we maybe just start with that piece and see if you can help me understand what it is that the government's thinking is about this?
MR. MORSE: Absolutely. The member touches on an area which is particularly important for Nova Scotia. That particular phrase comes from an agreement that was reached between the First Ministers, that being the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the leaders of the Territories. When there was agreement on moving ahead on addressing climate change one of the concerns that was brought up was that no individual jurisdiction would be unduly burdened with the cost of making the necessary changes to achieve the Kyoto targets, which the member pointed out quite correctly last time is really just the first step in addressing climate change.
This was a commitment that was made by the First Ministers and, indeed, being able to reduce that to a framework agreement to go forward has been one of the stumbling blocks as the joint ministers have been meeting, as the member would be aware, on a more infrequent basis. In the last six months I have been to two of these joint ministers meetings, the last one being in Victoria, where I felt we almost got agreement on addressing the distribution of the burden, or at least a framework to go ahead with addressing the burden.
[Page 139]
As the member would be aware, Nova Scotia is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, particularly for electrical generation, and unlike some of the other provinces, such as Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia which are blessed with a much larger proportion of hydro power, which of course does not emit greenhouse gasses, other than perhaps the water vapour that comes up at the bottom of the falls . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: Which is going to be there anyway.
MR. MORSE: Yes. They are not faced with the same financial burden that we would be faced with in Nova Scotia.
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: If I may ask, it's not clear to me exactly why this is a financial burden to us. At the moment, although it's certainly the case that we burn a lot of coal in order to generate our electricity, the situation at the moment is that for the most part we're not burning our own coal. There's certainly some coal mining that does carry on in Nova Scotia, but I think that the balance has now tipped so that a majority of the coal that Nova Scotia Power is purchasing and burning is imported from somewhere else. Is it the case that what you have in mind when you think about a potential for undue burden on Nova Scotia is coal mining jobs that might be lost, or that activity, is that the nature of what your comment meant? I wasn't sure.
MR. MORSE: I would like to comment on the coal. Some Nova Scotia coal - as the member would be well aware, probably better than me - has a high sulphur content, is more prone to mercury and there are problems with addressing the pollution caused by the burning of some of Nova Scotia's coal deposits. That's not to say that they cannot be overcome in time, but, at the present time, it would tend to mean that we would be pouring a disproportionate amount of air pollution in as a result of burning the coal.
The distinction that we want to make here is that Kyoto is about greenhouses gasses, and greenhouses gasses, that would be carbon dioxide. I would think that regardless of where the coal comes from there is still going to be carbon dioxide emissions as a result of burning it; even if it is a cleaner burn it's still going to be creating greenhouse gasses. So if you were take it on the amount of greenhouse gasses that is required to power the Nova Scotia economy, including the running of Nova Scotia Power's generating plants, if you're burning any type of fossil fuel it's going to create more greenhouses gasses, significantly more greenhouses gasses than say Manitoba, which I believe is 96 per cent hydro.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think we're beginning to clarify it, but just to nail this point down in particular, it would mean, for example, it wouldn't be seen by your government as a barrier to have our electrical generation rely less on coal regardless of where that comes
[Page 140]
from, due to potential loss of coal mining activity here. I take it that's not the nature of the undue burden that you have in mind, so it's something else.
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: The minister is saying yes. The something else doesn't sound like emissions controls. Then what's the undue burden? The undue burden is what, the stranded costs in the existing power plants?
MR. MORSE: Stranded costs in existing power plants certainly are a concern, and in the energy strategy there's a commitment that as these large facilities reach the end of their useful life - there is certainly an expectation in order to get their environmental approval - that they're going to have to go to a more environmentally-friendly way of generating power. It really gets back, again, to how are we creating that power, that electricity. If we're using fossil fuels, particularly coal, then that is going to generate more greenhouse gas, not necessarily pollution, because there are means of addressing the pollution concerns, one of which is to burn cleaner coal, which is currently being done in the province. It's good not to be creating acid rain and poisoning our lakes on the Eastern Shore and killing off the local fish population. We've made strides in that area.
The move to burning more natural gas certainly helps as well in reducing the air pollutants, but burning any type of fossil fuel is going to be more prone to creating carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gasses, and since we do require power to operate as a 21st Century society, where do we get it from? If we're not getting it from fossil fuels, then it has to come from somewhere else. There's the conundrum for Nova Scotia. We have an economy that is by and large built on fossil fuels, driven by fossil fuel.
MR. EPSTEIN: But the problem is transformation. How do we effect a transformation? The problem is how do we effect a transformation to something else. It's clear we're going to have to move away from that, and the problem is what steps we take over what period of time in order to move away from that.
Can I just go back to the kinds of negotiations that are going on amongst ministers. The initial agreement, you told me, was one worked out by the First Ministers. Is the implementation that you talked about in terms of a framework agreement, that's being worked out by the Ministers of Environment along with Ministers of Natural Resources, perhaps, could you just tell me who is talking about it?
MR. MORSE: I am delighted that the member is talking about this. It's something that we should have been talking about for a long time. The member is doing a service to the public by bringing it up here in the estimates. The joint ministers meetings are the meetings of Energy Ministers and Environment Ministers; each province, each territory and the federal government sends two representatives. In the case of Nova Scotia, until such time as the
[Page 141]
Premier appoints the Energy Minister, the Nova Scotian representative for the energy sector is the Minister of Natural Resources, and of course I'm the representative for Environment as the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can you give us any idea of how far along discussions are towards reaching a framework agreement?
MR. MORSE: This is probably not unlike negotiating any potentially contentious issue, because each jurisdiction brings its own perspective to the table. I was very disappointed that this past February, in Victoria, we came within one minister of getting consensus. The consensus broke down on whether the equitable sharing of the burden would be discussed or determined. We felt that we had a commitment that it would be determined, and the ramifications for Nova Scotia's economy are considerable, as they are for some of the other jurisdictions that were present. We came within one, and it's a real shame because back in September there were a few dissenters, and it seemed that a lot had been accomplished in the meantime, but there was a change in the minister in this particular portfolio. Regrettably, in my opinion, for his own reasons which perhaps I'm not fully appreciative of, there was a veto.
MR. EPSTEIN: When do the ministers meet again?
MR. MORSE: We are meeting again in May in Prince Edward Island. The host minister is the honourable Chester Gillian, who is P.E.I.'s Minister of Environment. He is currently the Chair of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and that's why it's being hosted in P.E.I.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can I ask again about exactly what kind of costs to the Nova Scotia economy you would foresee in transformation to a more sustainable form of energy generation here? Has that kind of analysis been done in terms of either specific programs or in terms of adjustment costs? Can you give us some idea of what kind of picture you have of what the transformation would actually entail for Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: The member has asked a fairly specific question, but I might, with his concurrence, embellish the answer somewhat to take it back yet again to that higher level that he started off his questions on Tuesday. In terms of the individual analysis, a lot of this actually would have been accomplished through the energy strategy. One very tangible example of that, as I am sure the member would be aware, and I suspect certainly would approve of based on our shared passion for the environment, would be the wind energy. There's currently a 2.5 per cent target that's incorporated in the energy strategy which is tentative at this point in time but it's expected to eventually get put into regulation. As the member would know, there's some exciting advances in technology in lowering the cost of wind energy and wind energy generation.
[Page 142]
While I was not totally enamoured of the last federal budget for Health and Education reasons, I would like to acknowledge that there was a very proactive step in subsidizing the cost of green power generation, specifically wind power, to help temporarily close that gap with a subsidy, until yet again we look forward to the day that technology will allow wind power to be competitive with the traditional fossil fuels. That is one example that's addressed in the energy strategy. I wonder, would the member like me to talk a little bit about some of the mechanisms that are under consideration from a national point of view and how it would impact jurisdictions and sectors?
MR. EPSTEIN: That would be a big help. I was aware of the 2.5 cents federal - I forget how it works . . .
MR. MORSE: I think it's per kilowatt hour.
MR. EPSTEIN: It's a tax allowance or subsidy, it may even be a direct subsidy, I can't remember. I was aware of that one. If there are other federal initiatives that I am not aware of, I would be happy to hear of them.
MR. MORSE: I was referring to how do we share out this burden, how do we divvy it up. Did you want me to talk on some of the mechanisms that are under consideration?
MR. EPSTEIN: What I'm really concerned about is what it actually means in Nova Scotia. If there are federal programs that are going to have applicability here then I would be happy to hear of them. I'm really keen to know - and of course I've read the energy strategy, so I know what's in the energy strategy, and what I'm concerned about is whether there are other measures that seem realistic, or whether you could even quantify for us what this might mean for the Nova Scotia economy. I have to say that didn't necessarily come across in the energy strategy. For example, when targets were set, even for Nova Scotia Power to switch over to other kinds of fuels or energy sources I guess is probably the more accurate term, it wasn't clear what this might mean, ultimately, to customers or to the economy as a whole.
My fundamental feeling is that if managed properly there doesn't have to be a negative impact on our economy, that in fact we can transform ourselves without undue negative impacts either on the economy globally or in terms of jobs or in terms of the rates that customers have to pay for their electricity. It seems to me that that's feasible. I'm wondering whether that's the same vision that the minister shares and whether there are steps that are going to be taken to move us along in that direction that we're not already aware of.
MR. MORSE: A few thoughts I would like to share, and also have been shared with me by our team here today, the first one is, in the energy strategy there was an expectation in terms of addressing the pollutant part of the strategy. So we're talking about SO2, NOx, mercury, the small particulate matter, that with the timeframe that had been set that the expected impact on electrical rates would be less than one-half of 1 per cent by the year
[Page 143]
2008. I would think that most Nova Scotians would feel that that was a pretty good return for a relatively small amount of money, that being clean air and hopefully rivers and lakes that are coming back to life. Although the member would also be keenly aware that 80 per cent of our air pollution is transboundary and, in a sense, we have to clean up our own act here in Nova Scotia in order to have the moral leverage to go to our neighbours upwind, downwind, to ask them to do the same.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: I agree 100 per cent. Well said.
MR. MORSE: But with regard to the specifics, this is in fact what is going on between the federal and the provincial governments in terms of doing the analysis. Again, we alluded to this the other day, how do you define jurisdiction? Well, is it a province? Is it a sector? How do you measure the impact on the jurisdictions? The specific analysis of how to go about this is now being determined by teams of scientists and this is also another thing that concerns all the ministers that this actually is happening simultaneously and it's not like when we go to these meetings that we've got well-documented material that says if you make this decision, this is what the ramifications would be. This is what we're working very hard on collectively as governments under the leadership of the federal government, as the one who has the authority to sign international treaties - in other words, Kyoto.
So, the honourable member and I, and indeed the entire department, eagerly await more of this information which will hopefully make the path forward clearer and we look forward to taking those steps. But, as the member would recognize, there's some very significant questions for which we need answers and we are collectively working to get those answers and he has articulated some of those questions.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can I ask what the minister's attitude would be if he were faced with a proposal from Nova Scotia Power or any other electrical energy generator to open a new coal-fired electrical generating plant?
MR. MORSE: The answer would depend very much on what the emissions would be. If they were able to come up with technologies that I suspect do not exist today, that would allow us to meet our targets that are going to flow out of this agreement, it would be hard pressed to disagree with them, to turn them down on that basis. My suspicion is that the fuel mix is going to dictate that it's going to be more problematic for them to move in that direction, so I think the practical answer is that it's going to be difficult for them to expand their capacity in that area, but really that's something that's up to the engineers. We are going to set up the guidelines and they're going to have to come within the guidelines.
[Page 144]
MR. EPSTEIN: So at this point it's not the policy of the province to require any additional capacity to be required to be from sources other than coal. It's not the policy at the moment?
MR. MORSE: When there's an identified need for extra generating capacity, that has to go out as a call for proposals. It's determined by the Utility and Review Board. You will recall that in the energy strategy, we're opening that up to competition and therein anybody who comes forward with a proposal is going to have to submit to an environmental assessment and that's where the department exerts some control over protecting Nova Scotia, indeed, we have to say the globe, from emissions. I think that's the member's concern.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'm perfectly aware that ultimately any such proposal would have to undergo environmental assessment. On the other hand, it would be a clear signal to Nova Scotia Power and to any non-utility generators that are interested in electricity and the electricity business if the policy were to be announced now that coal-fired plants would be discouraged and other forms would be encouraged and I hope the minister and his department will consider this along with his soon-to-be appointed colleague, the Minister of Energy.
What concerns me about what I have read so far and what I've heard from you today is not that there seems to be an absence of awareness of what the problem is, my concern is that the timetable that has been enunciated is way too long. The amount of time it's likely to take to move, even remotely, effectively is so extended that a huge amount of damage is going to be done in the meantime.
Given that it is likely to be a long time under that timetable, I'm wondering if the minister can help us understand whether there are any other effective steps that can be taken to impact on global climate change here? At this point, we should probably begin to move away from the electricity to perhaps things like transportation and heating and other forms of use of energy. Are there steps that can be taken by the private sector, by individuals and, if so, are there plans to try to advance the agenda there?
MR. MORSE: I guess I would first say that I met recently with Minister Anderson of the federal government and with regard to that, in the area of transportation, he is working effectively with his U.S. counterpart and one should never forget that when you sleep with an elephant - which I think was the term used to describe being the United States' neighbour - when the elephant rolls over, you had better be prepared to roll over at the same time. In that regard, since the automotive industry is so centred in the United States and the huge United States market practically, we are very much tied to them but we have moved in sync with that. The honourable member would be well aware and I'm sure he would applaud some of the reduction targets in terms of sulphur and whatnot in fuels and it's nice to see that in fact some of those refineries are moving ahead of time to meet the new targets.
[Page 145]
So, some of these targets are generated by the federal government and as long as we're on that subject, there is the awkward situation of being next to the largest economy in the world who has not signed on to the Kyoto protocol and the complications that generates in terms of clean energy exports. If we burn natural gas here in Nova Scotia to create a cleaner form of energy to send into the United States, unless we get some sort of credit for displacing coal-fired electrical power plant generation, we may in fact be increasing our own emissions and having difficulty staying within our cap. Yet, we are doing a net service to the global economy although the way the rules are structured today, we may not get any credit for it in terms of what we displace in terms of coal-fired electrical generation. Believe me, that is a subject that we always appreciate briefings on from Minister Anderson when we meet with him. Again, a couple of weeks ago, he briefed us once more on what he perceives is going on in the United States.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to say, I don't agree on that one. I don't think we deserve any credit for exporting something we get cash for if it's actually burned somewhere else and displaces somewhere else, they're the ones who get the credit - they're paying the money for it. I think we have to confine ourselves to what goes on in our borders. I've never been convinced on that one.
I see Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up here. I'll yield, I have other topics, of course, I want to get back to but I will yield to my colleague.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. The time is now 2:39 p.m. We have the honourable member for Cape Breton West to ask questions for the Liberal caucus.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, the other day I asked you about the permits for sewage sludge being dumped on agricultural lands. Do you have that detail?
MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment please. We have a suspension of our quorum just for a second.
MR. MACKINNON: I am not going to take issue if you folks aren't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's noted. Thank you.
MR. MORSE: Sewage sludge.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes. Sewage sludge that's being dumped on agricultural lands. The number of permits and do you have a list of them?
[Page 146]
MR. MORSE: Coming from municipal sewage treatment plants?
MR. MACKINNON: No, no. Just sewage sludge that's being dumped on agricultural lands. I asked for the list of the permits.
MR. MORSE: We're trying to get our definitions clarified so we could properly answer your question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We also have a quorum in the room again so we have no problem.
MR. MACKINNON: What do you mean, get the definition cleared?
MR. MORSE: We want to be clear on what you're asking us and we interpret what you're asking us to have an answer of 41 assorted sites. Now that could include agricultural land, it may include lagoons.
MR. MACKINNON: That's what I asked for, agricultural land. My question was quite specific.
MR. MORSE: In the total, we've got a list of 41 disposal sites, some of which would include agricultural land.
MR. MACKINNON: That's 41. Do you have a list of the names of those sites?
MR. MORSE: And five on agricultural land.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have the list of those names?
MR. MORSE: We can get you a list of the specific sites with the approvals.
MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps, just for edification, so we won't get hung up on time frames and stuff like that, what I requested of your previous colleagues, like the Minister of Natural Resources, is if you give an undertaking to supply some information anywhere from 30 to 60 days, is that a reasonable enough time frame? In some cases, you may have it at your fingertips and that's fine. But if not, 60 days, is that good?
MR. MORSE: That would be more than reasonable and my hope would be if we can pull it off the computer, it would be much sooner.
[Page 147]
MR. CHAIRMAN: In regard to information, I made the request of the past minister and I will make the request of all ministers that any information requested by either caucus be shared with all three caucuses and also forwarded to the Chair so the Chair can file it with Hansard, as information that was requested from this committee.
MR. MACKINNON: So you're going to provide a list of all the sites where there is sewage sludge.
MR. MORSE: There is five on agricultural land.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, what about the other sites?
MR. MORSE: Could we have a photocopy in case you have questions about the specifics? Have we got a Page?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a Page.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, that's fine. I notice that the expenses for the administration of your office and the deputy is down and that's good, obviously with the restructuring. But I notice that the cost of administration in the Public Safety Division is up. The cost of Administration in Labour Services is up. The cost of Administration in the Environmental Monitoring and Compliance is up. The cost of Administration in Environmental and Natural Areas Management is up. The cost of Administration for Financial Institutions is up. The cost of the Administration for Funded Staff, that's up. Why all the substantive increases? Why is there consistently an increase in the cost of administration?
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: What the honourable member has noted is that there's been considerable downsizing in the minister's office. But even with that downsizing in terms of FTEs, everybody in the Civil Service is expected to obtain a raise over time. We have made provision in anticipation of concluding contracts . . .
MR. MACKINNON: These increases are all due to pay increases?
MR. MORSE: This would go back over time and a great deal of it would be with the cost of salaries and wages.
MR. MACKINNON: The total cost of this department now, compared to last year when we had two separate departments, what's the total operating budget for this year, as opposed to the two departments last year? Is it up or down?
[Page 148]
MR. MORSE: The net estimate is $26.743 million. The $26.743 million is the estimate that we, of course, are debating here specifically for the Department of Environment and Labour. Now, last year, the estimate was $27.072 million, but we actually came in under budget, primarily due to vacancies within the department.
MR. MACKINNON: In which division were the vacancies occurring?
MR. MORSE: It is spread across the department, but if there was one area that had more vacancies proportionately it was probably in the Occupational Health and Safety Division.
MR. MACKINNON: With the Workers' Compensation Board, I notice that there's an increase in funding there. Last year - I stand to be corrected and you can give me the exact percentages - I think it was 81 per cent came from the employers and 19 per cent from the department?
MR. MORSE: It was 82 per cent and 18 per cent.
MR. MACKINNON: Has that changed?
MR. MORSE: Yes, under the legislation, we're able to take out the federal employees in using the formula and we've done that this year.
MR. MACKINNON: Did you say federal employees?
MR. MORSE: Yes, that do not fall under provincial jurisdiction for occupational health and safety. So, accordingly, it is going to be 91.9 per cent, which is what is allowed under the legislation. That is the legislated formula. We are going to go to the 91.9 per cent.
MR. MACKINNON: So you're increasing the employer's contribution. Now, was there any consultation with the employers on this?
MR. MORSE: It would not be appropriate to be discussing budget matters in advance of the announcement.
MR. MACKINNON: But certainly it's their money. It's not the taxpayers'. It's their money.
MR. MORSE: Clearly, provincial budgets impact all Nova Scotians. It's not appropriate to discuss in advance decisions that have been made prior to the budget date.
[Page 149]
MR. MACKINNON: I can appreciate that when you're dealing with matters of public policy, but this is not taxpayers' money. This is money that belongs to the employers, the no-fault insurance fund. I guess you've answered it. You've said that you did not consult. Just to be clear, you did not consult with the employers before you clawed back the additional dollars?
MR. MORSE: We certainly made them aware, once we had made the decision, just at the time of announcing the budget, but we are now applying the legislated formula that's in place to determine their contribution towards the cost of occupational health and safety.
MR. MACKINNON: I noticed with the Pay Equity Commission, there are zero dollars allotted on that line item. Is that now defunct, or what?
MR. MORSE: The feeling is that they've accomplished what they set out to accomplish, which is pay equity within the Public Service.
MR. MACKINNON: Did they accomplish pay equity in the Public Service, or did they just accomplish making recommendations to the minister and the department?
MR. MORSE: Well, I kind of suspect that you might be able to fill me in. Who was the minister at the time? I believe this goes back to Premier Cameron, the establishment of the Pay Equity Commission, and now the mandate has run out for the commission.
MR. MACKINNON: What's the status of those recommendations?
MR. MORSE: My understanding is the commission completed their mandate in 1997. That's a good news story, because we feel that they have been successful in accomplishing what they set out to do, which was pay equity within the Public Service.
MR. MACKINNON: I notice that the fire training school, there's an allotment there of approximately $190,000. Are you familiar with the pre-employment course that's being offered by the officials at the fire school out in Waverley?
MR. MORSE: We are collectively aware that it goes on, but in terms of the specifics of the course, I'm not familiar with the intimate details. I just know that it goes on.
MR. MACKINNON: Has long as this been going on?
MR. MORSE: We would say that the fire school has been there for decades so . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No, that wasn't my question. I'm talking about the pre-employment for professional firefighters. How long has that been . . .
[Page 150]
MR. MORSE: We will endeavour to get that answer.
MR. MACKINNON: Does anyone in your department know?
MR. MORSE: Yes, but that person is not here at the moment . . .
MR. MACKINNON: So the deputy minister is not aware of it?
MR. MORSE: . . . we are going to get that information. As the member would be aware, the department covers quite a range of services . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Are you aware that they're running a private trade school out there, the equivalent of a private trade school?
MR. MORSE: Am I aware that there's a private trade school for training . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Out at this training centre. Are you aware of that?
MR. MORSE: No, I'm not aware that it's a private trade school.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, let me update you. The pre-employment for professional fire service training program has been going on for two years, to the best of my knowledge. They charge a fee, approximately, between $8,000 and $8,200 per student. I believe between last year and this year, there were approximately 70 individuals who had gone through that program. The second group is in there now.
MR. MORSE: Seventy?
MR. MACKINNON: Seventy. You take 70 times $8,000, that's $560,000. What they seem to be doing, and this is licensed under the Department of Education, through the private trade schools. I'm a little disappointed you weren't aware of that. I'm just curious as to why they would continue to receive this grant if they're generating a pretty substantial revenue source, particularly when we have volunteer fire departments across this province that are struggling to meet their bottom line.
MR. MORSE: I think we have to draw the distinction between the aspiring professional firefighter and the volunteer firefighter.
MR. MACKINNON: I just did.
MR. MORSE: The $190,000 is intended to assist the volunteer fire departments to train their personnel.
[Page 151]
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, okay, that's fair enough, but if that's the case, why is that facility being used to conduct those services when in fact it could be used for training volunteer firefighters?
MR. MORSE: I think the member should recognize that the cost of carrying out those activities is well beyond the modest amount that we are able to give them in terms of an annual grant from the department.
MR. MACKINNON: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the facility out there that was set up to help volunteer firefighters is being used as a private trade school to generate revenue streams for paid fire service. That's a detriment to the 8,000 volunteer firefighters in this province. That's the point I'm making. I appreciate that you may not have all the details at your disposal. That, plus I think you will find that some regions of the province have a disproportionate number of students attending there versus other regions of the province, particularly rural and mainland Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. For example, between last year's class and this year's class, there is only one out of 70 from the Island of Cape Breton. I would submit that perhaps you may want to review that particular situation, so we can move on to another one, if that's okay.
MR. MORSE: I would just say that assuming that they're paying the full cost of their course that where their clientele comes from really has no impact on the taxpayer, as long as you're paying the full cost of the course.
MR. MACKINNON: Oh, but it does. It certainly does, because the head of the training school out there is very much involved in that. Using that facility, which is funded by the taxpayer through this $190,000, to be able to provide the training facilities for them, when in fact at the same time they could be used to help volunteer firefighters. I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but the fact that we have the oranges in the apple barrel is taking away from the volunteer fire service and putting them at a severe disadvantage.
MR. MORSE: One would hope there would be certain synergies from doing this. I'm not familiar with the specifics of their business plan. We have cut that grant back from a much larger amount, I understand, in years past. It has been maintained at $190,000, and we feel that Nova Scotians get good value for it for the training that's provided to the volunteer firefighters.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I agree, but if it's going to be used for a specific purpose under the Private Career Colleges Regulation Act, then in fact the volunteer fire service will suffer eventually. I don't think that's really what the intent was. I can appreciate them trying to generate some additional revenue, but not to the detriment of the volunteer fire service. That, to me, would be a concern.
[Page 152]
Mr. Minister, I noticed that in the export of water here in Nova Scotia - we export water - how many companies or how many individuals or groups of individuals export water from Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: I think it would be hard to come up with such a number, but we do know that the water . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Are you telling me your department doesn't know who or how many export water from Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: The Water Resources Protection Act, which was passed by this government a couple of years ago, limits the bulk export of water to containers not greater than 25 litres. I think the honourable member asked me that question in the Legislature a couple of weeks ago. This is a way of ensuring that we do not undertake commitments that would bind us to continue to export our water.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have a list of the companies or individuals that export water from Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: The member asks a question that would impact, possibly, every company in the province that exports. If you export . . .
MR. MACKINNON: That's what I'm looking for.
[3:00 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: If you export fish to the United States and you do it on ice, then in fact you've exported water. But it is felt that the amounts that are talked about or contemplated here would not impact our security of supply. We do have a list of those that withdraw more than the 23,000 litres per day. There are 235, but of course I don't think those are the type of companies that the member is asking about.
MR. MACKINNON: No.
MR. MORSE: I think he's looking for . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I'm not going to split hairs about blocks of ice. Let's be realistic. Do we have any idea how much water is being exported out of Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: We know that we have banned bulk water exports, and accordingly we are comfortable that the amount that would be going on, whether it's through beverage, bottling companies or other means that would go to the States, such as ice accompanying
[Page 153]
vegetables or whatever means, it would not significantly impact the supply of drinking water in Nova Scotia.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm talking specifically of water that's drawn from the aquifers, specifically with the intent of exporting it from Nova Scotia, whether it be bottled, in a bag, in a hat, whatever. I'm not getting into what Cape Breton Beverages might do or Coca Cola, that sort of stuff. We're talking of a different situation. Do we know how much water, whether it's bottled or bulk or whatever - I think you have addressed the issue of bulk - is being exported from Nova Scotia? Yes or no.
MR. MORSE: The member . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Just a yes or no would be fine.
MR. MORSE: The member is bringing up the importance of being able to quantify our water resources and what we're doing in terms of water withdrawal permits, and in fact that is exactly the sort of thing that's being contemplated with the water strategy. He is drilling down to companies that we consider not to be those that would put the major pressure on our finite water supplies. We're trying to deal with the big ones first, before we address the smaller ones. The member does bring up a legitimate concern. We are addressing it in the water strategy, but we start with those that are the larger withdrawers of water, being at 23,000 litres per day.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, you haven't answered my question. Do you know how much water, or do you have any proximity of how much water is being exported from Nova Scotia in bottle form?
MR. MORSE: The member identifies a question which has not been answered before in this province and, in fact, this is something we are addressing through the water strategy.
MR. MACKINNON: So the answer is no?
MR. MORSE: We're starting to get an estimate. If he is trying to say, how many litres of water are extracted from the groundwater supplies or the surface water supplies in the province, I don't think that anybody would realistically expect government or any organization to have that specific number.
MR. MACKINNON: If that's the case, how can you take a comfort level that we're not drawing down on rather precious aquifers? You're now conceding that you don't know how much water is being exported from Nova Scotia. That's consistent with a letter I received from your department on August 14, 2001, which states that your department does not have custody and control of the records of the amount of water that's being exported. I will certainly table this.
[Page 154]
MR. MORSE: Could you speak up, please?
MR. MACKINNON: What you've conceded is that you don't know how much is being exported from Nova Scotia; correct? Just a simple yes or no.
MR. MORSE: We know that bulk water exports are not allowed from Nova Scotia.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm not talking about bulk water. Do we know how much bottled water, in total volume, is being exported from Nova Scotia? Yes or no.
MR. MORSE: No. We consider the amount to be minimal. We are trying to address those that take a larger . . .
MR. MACKINNON: How do you know it's minimal if you don't know how much it is?
MR. MORSE: Because it's pretty easy to identify the companies that rely on a large quantity of water.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you get a record from those companies as to how much water they export?
MR. MORSE: Those companies are not able to export water in bulk.
MR. MACKINNON: Without a permit.
MR. MORSE: No, they're not able to . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No, no. Bottled water.
MR. MORSE: Bottled water is considered to be like a food, so it comes under the Food and Drug Administration. That falls under a federal jurisdiction, so they would be responsible for licensing those people and presumably tracking their exports. I guess what I'm saying is that it's possible that some of your answers may be available through the federal government, through the Food and Drug Administration.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm totally confused because on one hand your department officials are saying one thing and you're saying something different here today. You're saying it is a federal responsibility, and a little earlier you indicated that you issue the licences, the permits. Your department officials also seem to think that the Department of Economic Development should be the department that has custody and control of such records. They write to me and they say no, it's the Department of Environment and Labour. They have no record. They say, we do not have any records that respond to this portion of
[Page 155]
your application - which is essentially the amount of water being exported - and confirm that we are not aware of any provincial monitoring process for the export of water from Nova Scotia, bottled or otherwise. Which is it? Either you know or you don't know.
MR. MORSE: We absolutely know that all large drawers on our water supply, that being over 23,000 litres per day, have to have a permit, and we bill them for what use they make of our water supplies. Those underneath that amount, which would be like bottled beverages, would fall under the federal FDA. We take care of the big ones, which is the member's concern, and if there are some smaller ones, which at this point in time we feel are of no great consequence, we have a comfort that they are not unduly tapping our limited water supply.
MR. MACKINNON: But how can you say that if you don't know how much they're exporting? How can you actually say that you have a comfort level when you don't know how much water they're sending out of Nova Scotia, and your own department officials say that?
MR. MORSE: I think that it's not too hard to reach that logical conclusion, based on the type of businesses that are operating in the province and to identify those that would be more apt to draw on the water supply.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, let's put it this way, Mr. Minister, would you give an undertaking to members of the committee and to all members of the House that you will start a monitoring process for these companies that are exporting water from Nova Scotia, so that we will know how much water is being exported from Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: I would give the commitment that this department will use its resources wisely, and it will monitor and make sure that there is compliance with those that draw more heavily on our scarce water supplies.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, wait now. You just said you had a comfort level, even though you didn't know how much water is being exported, you have a comfort level that they're not taking out too much. You've also conceded you don't know how much they're taking out. Now you're telling us that there are scarce water supplies. Which is it, a, b, c or d?
MR. MORSE: Scarce in the sense that it's finite. Indeed, the water in the Pacific Ocean would be finite but it's considerable. That's not our luxury here in Nova Scotia. The member has brought up the need for a water strategy, and indeed the member will soon be pleased to see that a very comprehensive water strategy is going to be announced that will coordinate all the various levels of government and departments that can assist in protecting and preserving this very precious resource, one that is going to be of great concern, globally, in this century.
[Page 156]
MR. MACKINNON: Will that include monitoring the amount of water that's being exported from Nova Scotia, by volume?
MR. MORSE: The commitment that I undertook a couple of minutes ago and which I repeat is that we will make sure that the resources of this department are applied judiciously to address those that draw on the water resources of this province in significant amounts. Those that are minor users of our water supply, at this point in time, as long as they comply with the legislation, we have comfort that it will be no problem being able to address the needs of Nova Scotians and Nova Scotian businesses for water. That will not unduly impact our ability to provide water for those citizens and businesses.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm more confused now about your answers than ever. You're saying, one, you don't know how much water is being exported from Nova Scotia; two, you have a comfort level even though you don't know how much water is being exported from Nova Scotia; three, you don't know how much each one of these companies is exporting; and four, you're concerned about a shortage of water. Are you monitoring the aquifers that they're drawing these waters from?
MR. MORSE: Actually the honourable member will be pleased to know that, in fact, those initial steps are being taken, and it's being coordinated under the evolving water strategy, again, which is going to be released soon. It's very important to quantify our sources of supply and what water withdrawal approvals or permits have been given to draw on those resources, so that we start to get a picture of the resource that's available and how we're drawing it down. The member has actually made a very eloquent speech to highlight the importance of exactly what we're doing as a government, and that is coming out with the water strategy. For that, I thank him.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, if my memory serves me correctly, your boss, the Premier indicated that that strategy would be unveiled last October and we're still waiting, after close to $1 million expenditure. It will be refreshing to find out if the department will take steps to monitor the amount of water that's being exported from Nova Scotia.
Just quickly, before I drift too far away from the workers' compensation issue, the fact that you're now clawing back 10 per cent more from the employers, you've gone from 82 per cent up to 91 per cent, is it, or 9 per cent, have you written or has anyone in the department or from the Workers' Compensation Board communicated and received any feedback since the budget was tabled?
MR. MORSE: Absolutely.
MR. MACKINNON: What feedback did you receive from the employers?
[Page 157]
MR. MORSE: The Workers' Compensation Board speaks for both the employers and the employees. My sense was that they were almost expecting some of these measures, and we certainly felt that they had some comfort with the reasonableness of what had been done.
MR. MACKINNON: Did they express their opinion in writing, as to how they felt about that clawback?
MR. MORSE: We have spoken with three different officials at the Workers' Compensation Board, it has been verbal. The member would be pleased to know that I meet on a regular basis with the chair and some of his senior staff. As he might remember from last year, I have a great interest in the financial statements of the Workers' Compensation Board and some of the notes that are attached to them. If the member would like to go through the annual report, which I tabled yesterday, I would be absolutely delighted to go through it in detail, right down to the notes. It's of great interest to me, and it's a very important organization in this province. In fact, I hope he does so.
MR. MACKINNON: I would think so. I was part of the effort to put it in that right direction since it was the Buchanan Government that created the unfunded liability of $465 million. That's the way the Tories operated, and that's why I was concerned about it going over under Bill No. 20, I believe it was, putting it under the purview of the Policy and Management Board rather than leaving it in its stature as it was. You still haven't answered my question, was there any written communication at all? I know you've spoken, verbally, with officials at the Workers' Compensation Board. Are you aware of any written correspondence from the business community, from the employers on the fact that they're now going to be contributing more?
MR. MORSE: I have not seen any written correspondence personally. That's not to say . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Do you know of any?
MR. MORSE: . . . that there may not be some that's coming to me. I get letters all the time. Eventually, they get to me.
[3:15 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Do you know of anyone in your department or at the Workers' Compensation Board that may have received?
MR. MORSE: As the member would know, the WCB goes through a business-planning process every year, and they get input from their stakeholder groups. I am sure that will provide ample opportunity for them to comment on the changes that are as a result of this budget.
[Page 158]
MR. MACKINNON: I'm sure it will, but that wasn't my question.
MR. MORSE: The member would also know . . .
MR. MACKINNON: My question is . . .
MR. MORSE: . . . the government has been subsidizing the Workers' Compensation Board for some number of years to try to assist them in addressing their unfunded liability, something that would have happened, actually, under his own government, the $23 million over five years. It started under the previous administration, and it was concluded under our administration. The member would know that in terms of the workers' assistance program that for years . . .
MR. MACKINNON: But you didn't answer the question, Mr. Minister.
MR. MORSE: . . . this cost . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You didn't answer the question.
MR. MORSE: . . . was picked up out of general tax revenues. We think that we've done everything that was possibly reasonable, under the circumstances, to assist the Workers' Compensation Board in getting back on its feet financially and making significant progress in addressing the unfunded liability.
MR. MACKINNON: But you didn't answer the question.
MR. MORSE: In terms of correspondence, I thought I did answer.
MR. MACKINNON: Correspondence. Are you aware of any correspondence from the employer community, voicing their concern about the fact that they now have to contribute more?
MR. MORSE: I think that Hansard will show . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I know what Hansard will show.
MR. MORSE: That I did answer the question.
MR. MACKINNON: But you still haven't answered the question. Are you aware of any correspondence, either in your department or at the Workers' Compensation Board? Yes or no.
[Page 159]
MR. MORSE: Again, for the second time, I would tell you that I have not seen any correspondence.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you know of any?
MR. MORSE: I am not aware of any correspondence.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay.
MR. MORSE: When we announced the budget, we did contact people that we view as key stakeholders on a personal basis and we were well pleased with their response.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, that's not what I'm hearing from the employers. Why would any employer be pleased that they're paying more out of their bottom line, because that was the whole idea of setting the structure up as it was when we brought in our bill several years ago. Anyway, that having been said, I notice your Film Classification Board seems to be getting the axe. Is that correct?
MR. MORSE: The Film Classification Board has been absorbed under the administration of the Alcohol and Gaming Authority. It's no longer a separate line item.
MR. MACKINNON: Under the Alcohol and Gaming Authority.
MR. MORSE: You should check under the administration portion. You will see that last year there was a line item there, and this year it's blank but it's included in administration.
MR. MACKINNON: The same amount of money?
MR. MORSE: Again, there are negotiated salary increases. There are actually only three staff members who are involved with the Film Classification Board, so, by and large, it's the same budget.
MR. MACKINNON: Is there an intent by the government to contract any of this film classification work out to a firm in Ontario?
MR. MORSE: There is an interest right across the country in probably having one anglophone film classification board. We've not made any decisions in that regard, but clearly . . .
MR. MACKINNON: So you are looking at contracting it out?
[Page 160]
MR. MORSE: Clearly we are willing to consider what benefits that might hold for Nova Scotia, and once we get the complete picture, we will be in a position to make a recommendation to Cabinet.
MR. MACKINNON: You are exploring the possibility of contracting the film classification components out to the private sector or some other agency?
MR. MORSE: I think it would be more appropriate to think that we're looking for a harmonized approach right across the country.
MR. MACKINNON: Oh, I see. So if they have lower standards in another jurisdiction, you're prepared to accept that?
MR. MORSE: I would suggest that as part of exploring whether there's some benefit to Atlantic Canada, a Maritime standard, we would have to have comfort that that would be incorporated in a national standard. But I would want to assure the honourable member that we are always vigilant for opportunities to deliver better value for the taxpayer so that that would free up more money for other areas that may be considered to be of greater importance to Nova Scotians and I know that he would welcome the department's vigilance and, indeed, the vigilance of the government and I thank him for pointing that out. (Interruptions)
MR. MACKINNON: So in other words, the three individuals from the Film Classification Board being absorbed over into Alcohol and Gaming Authority, they're not really going to be doing film classifications, is that correct?
MR. MORSE: I want to just . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Is that correct, yes or no?
MR. MORSE: . . . clarify that they've always been with the Alcohol and Gaming Authority.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, but they're not going to be doing film classifications any more or dealing with those matters?
MR. MORSE: The honourable member is jumping to conclusions as to the outcome of this process. I think it's important to go through the process before we reach any conclusions.
MR. MACKINNON: How much money is being spent exploring this possibility?
[Page 161]
MR. MORSE: I think we have one plane ticket and a couple nights of accommodation.
MR. MACKINNON: To harmonize across the country - one plane ticket and a couple nights out of town?
MR. MORSE: Well, you asked specifically, I'm afraid my memory is not sufficiently good to remember the exact amount of the requisition for travel out of province, but I did read it over. I gave it consideration and . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You read what over, the proposal? There is a proposal then?
MR. MORSE: There was a request to have staff of the AGA to attend a PanCanadian meeting to look at film classification. We are interested in what might come out of this and pending an analysis by the appropriate staff at the Alcohol and Gaming Authority, we will be better able to determine whether we want to move ahead with the process.
MR. MACKINNON: Who made the request?
MR. MORSE: It came from the staff of the Alcohol and Gaming Authority.
MR. MACKINNON: I see, and how much do you expect this proposal analysis to cost the government?
MR. MORSE: This would be part of the ongoing activities of the Alcohol and Gaming Authority. I mean . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Oh, no.
MR. MORSE: What I charge my managers with is to constantly be looking for opportunities to generate greater effectiveness and efficiencies within the department. So this would be just part of their regular job description and the deputy to my right, I can assure you, takes a great interest in that area and always encourages that type of culture within the department.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, we're talking about efficiency, I'm just going to shift the focus just slightly here because you initially said it was a plane ticket and a couple of nights out of town and then all of a sudden you shifted to a written proposal that's somewhere circulating in the system. Let's look over at Page 11.10 of your estimates there, Information Management. There has been an increase in the budget there from $565,000 to $603,000.
MR. MORSE: Excuse me, what was the page?
[Page 162]
MR. MACKINNON: Page 11.10.
MR. MORSE: And what division would this be?
MR. MACKINNON: Information Management. Who's your communications director for the department?
MR. MORSE: There's an Acting Communications Director for the department.
MR. MACKINNON: And what is his or her name?
MR. MORSE: Her name is Valerie Bellefontaine.
MR. MACKINNON: Valerie?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: How long has she been acting?
MR. MORSE: November 2001 and a wonderful addition to our staff.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes. How many communications officers have you had in your department since you've taken tenure at the Department of Environment and Labour?
MR. MORSE: Are you asking about directors or people in the communications department?
MR. MACKINNON: Both, people who actually communicate, do your press releases, that sort of thing, advise you on . . .
MR. MORSE: The first was Steve Warburton and he has taken a leave of absence for a year to pursue possibly a career in the private sector. In addition to that we have 2.5.
MR. MACKINNON: Two and a half?
MR. MORSE: Yes, do you want their names.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. MORSE: One is Penny McCormick who does a lot of work for Occupation Health and Safety and, in fact, in a sense you could almost describe her role as one of educational. She does a lot of the articles which you may see in the Nova Scotia Business Journal which is trying to share occupational health and safety information with employers
[Page 163]
and, remember, there are about 48,000 employers in this province and this is one way of trying to reach out. So a lot of her time is spent on occupational health and safety.
MR. MACKINNON: So that's 3.5 so far. What about . . .
MR. MORSE: No, and Steve Smith works part time with the department. So we've got 2.5, Valerie Bellefontaine, Penny McCormick and you could perhaps count Steve Smith as half.
MR. MACKINNON: Now, I understand last year that Mr. Bruce Cameron worked in your department as well. Is that correct?
MR. MORSE: Mr. Bruce Cameron I think is with the Petroleum Directorate.
MR. MACKINNON: But did he not work in your department or for your department last year?
MR. MORSE: He may well have worked in the department before I was minister, but not since I've been minister.
MR. MACKINNON: Not since?
MR. MORSE: No.
MR. MACKINNON: Have you had any communications officers come in to advise you on communicating issues in the House from other departments, Communications Nova Scotia?
MR. MORSE: There has been no staff other than the ones who have been mentioned previously.
MR. MACKINNON: There's not a plan to have . . .
MR. MORSE: So in other words, the Department of Environment and Labour staff certainly do advise me.
MR. MACKINNON: There's not a plan to transfer Linda Laffin over to your department that you're aware of?
MR. MORSE: We have a project in Occupational Health and Safety which has got a three month term for a Leanne Strathdee and this has just begun. So that's a specific project. Would you like some details on the project?
[Page 164]
MR. MACKINNON: No. Are you telling me that you're going to require another communications officer?
MR. MORSE: Well, this is a project. This is an Occupational Health and Safety project which apparently falls under the acting communications directors' mandate.
MR. MACKINNON: Is there a plan to have her as a full-time communications director? Do you have a full-time communications director?
MR. MORSE: Yes. I would say that we probably get 150 per cent from Valerie Bellefontaine.
MR. MACKINNON: But she's only there on a term basis?
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: She is the Acting Communications Director and I guess what I'm saying is that I think she puts in more than her fair share of time every day.
MR. MACKINNON: Maybe if we could shift the focus. I would like to hear from you, Mr. Minister, directly - we had Mark-Lynn Construction before the Public Accounts Committee in the last day or so - if you are aware of the departmental memo that indicated that Baltzer Bog contains peat moss and not peat?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: So the answer is yes.
MR. MORSE: The answer is yes, and I would like to just qualify that. It came from the Environmental Assessment area; it was not from Environmental Monitoring and Compliance and that there was an error in referring to it as peat moss, it is peat.
MR. MACKINNON: Who made the determination it was peat?
MR. MORSE: We can get you the names, but there were two that made the determination. One was from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the other is from the Peat Association of Canada.
MR. MACKINNON: The Environmental Assessment Division, is that division within the Department of Labour and Environment?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
[Page 165]
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, so you have one staff in your department saying it's peat moss and you have another provincial agency saying it's peat, is that correct?
MR. MORSE: Correct.
MR. MACKINNON: So which is right?
MR. MORSE: Excuse me. I want to make a clarification. It was Agriculture Canada that determined it was peat, not the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, so you're saying that the department official in your department is wrong?
MR. MORSE: They used, in this one instance, the wrong term in the letter. What is going on there is they are extracting peat, which is also considered to be a form of topsoil.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, Mr. Minister, don't you find that a little concerning that you have an official in your department who is supposed to be an expert in this field making incorrect assessments? What are you doing to address that? This speaks right to the Auditor General's report. I think we have a serious problem here if you have someone on staff that you know is giving bad advice and you continue to move along without addressing this.
MR. MORSE: The Environmental Assessment Section of the department has scientists there who reach out and they get advice from other people in order to do their work. The amount of knowledge that would need to be done to operate that without relying on other people would go beyond the wisdom of Solomon, so it's not unreasonable that somebody would occasionally make a mistake.
MR. MACKINNON: So you're saying this memo is a mistake.
MR. MORSE: That was made in error and I'm certainly not going to take a member of staff and hang them out to dry because they make one mistake.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, that's fair. So it would be agreeable to have this Mark McLean from the Environmental Assessment Division come in and concede that he made a mistake, would you agree to that?
MR. MORSE: I would suggest that it would be very easy sitting in an office in Halifax to make a mistake on the distinction between peat and peat moss and . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No, no, that wasn't my question, Mr. Minister. This goes right to the integrity of this department.
[Page 166]
MR. MORSE: . . . there certainly is a distinction between the two materials.
MR. MACKINNON: No, no. Mr. Minister, you've just indicated that one of your employees admitted that he made a mistake. I would like to hear that employee state for the record and for all members of the House that he, in fact, did make a mistake by producing this memo saying it was peat moss and not peat. Would you be agreeable to allow that individual to state that for himself? You're saying that this memo is not correct and that the person who produced this memo admitted that it was a mistake.
MR. MORSE: We in the department try to, as best we can, support each other in terms of moving ahead, making the right decisions, following the regulations and the guidelines and, obviously, the legislation. If one of our members should by circumstances make an error, we try to pick them up and support them . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I support that, we're human and we all make mistakes.
MR. MORSE: . . . and of course this is what we're doing with that particular employee.
MR. MACKINNON: What you're telling me is that this employee . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Don't badger. Let one will finish the question and one finish the answer.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MORSE: I appreciate that you recognize the culture that we're trying to build in the department.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, absolutely, but what you're telling me is this employee has stated unequivocally that he made a mistake in this memo. Is that correct?
MR. MORSE: To clarify what I said, he was in error by referring to it as peat moss.
MR. MACKINNON: Who said he was in error? Did he say that?
MR. MORSE: The department has determined that he made an error in referring to the material that's being extracted from Baltzer Bog as peat moss. It's peat.
MR. MACKINNON: Is he an expert in this field?
MR. MORSE: The environmental assessment process, as I mentioned before, depends on outside experts . . .
[Page 167]
MR. MACKINNON: I agree.
MR. MORSE: . . . and the outside experts from Agriculture Canada and the Peat Association of Canada have determined that it's peat.
MR. MACKINNON: I agree. Look, I'm not taking issue with any of that. What you have indicated, Mr. Minister, is that you have an employee who produced a memo, his notes, that says it's peat moss, and now you're saying that that employee has conceded that he made a mistake, is that correct?
MR. MORSE: You have said that several times.
MR. MACKINNON: No, if you check Hansard, you have indicated that he's acknowledged that he's made a mistake.
MR. MORSE: I acknowledge that you have made that statement several times, but I have not made that statement.
MR. MACKINNON: Let's go one step further.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As I asked before, one answers the question and one asks the question, but not at the same time, please. You have three minutes left.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister willing to allow this employee to state for the record, for himself, that he in fact made a mistake by saying peat moss instead of peat?
MR. MORSE: We try to be supportive of our staff and we would not put them in a situation where we would be seen as berating them or humiliating them. I would certainly not do that to a member of my staff.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, are you misleading this committee? I have to ask the question. This is very concerning that we have an employee in your department, an expert in the Environmental Assessment Division, who states clearly that this is a peat moss site, there is peat moss on the site, and you're saying that that employee made a mistake.
MR. MORSE: The member would recognize the expertise of the people in the Environmental Assessment Section of the department as experts at being able to access independent experts in the area that covers the matter under consideration, and that has been done and the answer was that it was peat. So of course I have great confidence in my staff and the environmental assessment is a very broad mandate and they have to call in people from all areas of science. I have every confidence that they will continue to do so. I think they have done a remarkably good job, under the circumstances.
[Page 168]
MR. MACKINNON: You don't agree with this memo? Do you agree with this memo?
MR. MORSE: The material that is being taken out of the bog is peat, and I will go on the record as saying it is peat and that is subject to a topsoil removal permit, which was issued by this department.
MR. MACKINNON: We will come back to this, I'm sure, on a future date.
The Tantramar Marshes, is there more than one permit for sewage sludge? I believe there is one where sewage sludge is being transported from the Aerotech Industrial Park and I believe they also have a permit, a 10-year contract to input sewage sludge from the greater Moncton area. Is that correct, or are there other permits or does one supercede the other? Can you give me some detail?
MR. MORSE: There is one company, Amherst Sod Limited, that has permission to apply sewage sludge to the fields under very specific terms and conditions.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that the only one? What about the permit for the greater Moncton area? It's a 10-year contract.
MR. MORSE: This is all under one approval. I know what the honourable member is referring to in terms of the sewage sludge from Moncton, that's not gone on for a couple of years, as I understand it, on this site. Does that give the honourable member some comfort?
MR. MACKINNON: Well, not entirely, I will come back to it, my time is up right now. I will be looking forward to some further deliberation. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has now expired. We will go now to the NDP. Well first of all, are there any questions of the government caucus? No questions. I now go to the NDP caucus. May I ask which of the honourable members is going to be asking questions?
The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect, Mr. Estabrooks, you have the floor. Your time is now 3:40 p.m.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions with environment concerns, and then I will be turning the remainder of my time over to my good friend, the member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I also ask the NDP, will this be the last hour for this particular minister or do you anticipate coming back with more time with him? I just would like to put the Department of Justice on notice.
[Page 169]
MR. MACKINNON: We're going to be here for the rest of the day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Minister, initially allow me to thank you for the prompt response with which your department officials have responded to issues in the past when I've brought them to your personal attention, and people within your department have returned phone calls and responded in writing in a very noteworthy fashion and I want you to pass that on to your staff, because I'm aware of the various tough decisions that are made with staff and particularly the people in the Bedford office. I can mention some of them, but I don't think that's necessary. I just want to pass that on. As an MLA, this is something I truly appreciate.
No confrontation here, I'm pointing out a couple points for you and you're aware of one of them. Mr. Minister, rumours persist about the ongoing development plan for the Otter Lake landfill which is as you come out Highway No. 103 at Exit 3. Could you please clarify for constituents, because it's of some consequence that these comments get on the record. There are plans for future development, and I know the HRM is responsible for those plans, but what is the provincial department's role in the potential development or approval of development for the landfill site?
MR. MORSE: Any alteration to their operation would have to be addressed in their approval. So if they're going to go beyond the approval, and the terms of conditions in the approval, they would have to come back and get permission from the department.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you for that. The number of course which continually pops up - because as you are very well aware it was a contentious decision for the site of the landfill; however that's history and we're living with it, and the people who are operating there, we have an active liaison committee, a community committee, they are proactive and involved - the concern comes around the 25-year life cycle of the landfill site initially and I'm dealing in various innuendos and rumours on this, but the possible expansion of the life of the landfill site I would assume would have to be brought to the provincial department's attention if there was a major decision in that way?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. ESTABROOKS: That's great, thank you for confirming it.
I have a situation that has transpired on the Prospect Road. It involves a senior citizen, and I know your staff will assist me with this. It involves a senior citizen whose oil tank leaked, no insurance, a tough situation, a man - not to get overly specific because I think it would be unfair to him - who has in the past received social assistance and the bill has come in for over $7,000. The Department of Housing has said it's just absolutely impossible
[Page 170]
to assist, yet this gentleman had to clean this up as a commitment to his neighbours. He felt obliged for the fact that he went out and because of his situation in the community and who he is and so on, as a senior it was no problem getting the work done and it is done, the job is done, but the problem however comes down, you know, with the limited resources that are available, where does this man now turn because he's in a very tough spot?
[3:45 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: I'm not sure that the Department of Environment and Labour is going to be able to be of assistance in that area. Our role is more regulatory, such as the case with sewage treatment plants. Even though we may come out and identify that there's a problem in an area, we're not actually the funding agency and of course currently there's the Canada/Nova Scotia infrastructure program which partners usually with the municipality to address these problems. So using that as an analogy, it just shows that the department's role is more regulatory, compliance enforcement. But I would like to just expand on what you brought forward because this is a growing problem. Over 90 per cent of our contaminated sites in Nova Scotia are because of petroleum product spills and it only takes one litre of petroleum, some derivative of petroleum, to contaminate a million litres of water and it does travel through the ground. It gets into the groundwater, it gets into wells, and it's a major problem.
The member would probably welcome the news that we are trying to initiate a stewardship arrangement with fuel oil delivery companies, the oil companies, the insurance companies, to come to some sort of program that would help avoid these situations in the future, but I'm afraid that's not going to be a lot of comfort in this instance to your constituent, and I regret his circumstances and I can tell you that I am familiar with similar cases and it's something that I do urge the public to be vigilant on. When those oil tanks get to a certain stage in their life, they very quickly turn from an asset to a liability.
MR. ESTABROOKS: You see this gentleman, out of community conscience addressed the issue, yet there were some other people who said, Albert, you can't afford this, just let her go, because after all it's a situation in his particular road where there are not a lot of neighbours, but out of a sense of community he felt it should be addressed. That's the concern because, you know, here he is, and we can get into the specifics at another time, but I have real concerns about the fact this man showed the proper conscience, had the job done, and didn't just allow it to happen. He probably could have - if we can use that expression here - gotten away with this.
No one else knew, except for the oil company, that his tanks were leaking. He could have just said I need a new tank and let's go with it, but instead he faced up to his individual citizen's commitment and now this senior is stuck with a $7,000 bill and that's the concern that I have. Here's a man who did the right thing and just didn't say out of sight, out of mind. I'm coming to another example here in a moment. I remember the 1970s, if it went in the
[Page 171]
ground or we couldn't burn it, we didn't worry about it, but this particular gentleman, this is an issue which I'm sure I will follow up with staff.
MR. MORSE: Could I just put a correction in on my former response that may be more pleasing to the member?
MR. ESTABROOKS: Absolutely.
MR. MORSE: We recently put in a new petroleum tank tagging system where there's a fee paid for those who have tanks of over 2,000 litres above ground and 4,000 underground, and the idea is to try to better track the tanks so that we can watch for them when they come due to be replaced and generally to avoid leaks. One of the things that we had endeavoured to do with that is that there would be a small fund made available to deal with these situations and I would just put one caution, that I suspect that the number of people who quickly line up for this type of assistance could well exceed the meagre funds that I think will be available. But that has been put in place as part of the - well, it really goes in with the budget, the regulations. I would ask the honourable member to make our executive director, Gerard MacLellan, aware and we will investigate whether perhaps there might be any assistance under that area for him.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Yes, I've worked with Mr. MacLellan before, if the service will be continued in a fashion which we worked, I look forward to working with him again.
One more incident - it's of real consequence, the department's responsibility here and I heard your earlier answer - there are a number of homeowners adjacent to an empty high school in Five Island Lake. They live on the Hubley Road. The Hubley Road is the way to Sir John A. Macdonald High School. These properties bound the - and I will say it candidly to you - notorious problem that's happened at the back of the school.
I'm not talking air quality inside the school, I'm talking of the fact that there was at one time a school bus garage in back of that school that serviced the buses. In the summertime, sir, you couldn't even get into the school parking lot because there would be 120 or 140 school buses that were brought to Sir John A. Macdonald High School and it was at that school where they were serviced in the summer. I can remember those days in the 1970s - I know you find that hard to believe, but I can remember those days in the 1970s - and at that time we either burnt it or buried it. Those were not the good old days when it comes to the environment.
Yet, these homeowners who have these properties adjacent to this parking lot, which is now in back of the high school because the school bus garage is gone, and this was a school bus garage that had five or six bays, it had a parts department - this was a big-time concern - how do I direct the people who live on the properties adjacent to this site? Because this is the same community that has had to suffer because of the problems which we know
[Page 172]
about - and your department and the Public Works Department have been very conscientiously following the cleanup of the PCB site. I now understand, I heard the percentage but it's well into the 90s, that it's completed, but what is your department's responsibility in assisting, not just one citizen, but a number of people in one community, to face their concerns about the fact that there's a public school behind the fence that's empty and being tested, but the people along the Hubley Road, they're very concerned, does each and every one of them have to go and test their water? Does each and every one of them have to endure the expense, or can people from your department become involved and assist the people in the community along the Hubley Road?
MR. MORSE: The member is absolutely right. The department is there for all Nova Scotians who have a concern that there may be some sort of adverse effect that could be impacting them from an adjacent property owner. In this case, again, the executive director, Gerard MacLellan, has indicated a wish to get some more information and we would be happy to send out an inspector and we do hold the property owners responsible for what's on their land. If we determine that there is a problem there, we will do so.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you for your answers and, to your staff, I look forward to working with them.
MR. MORSE: I would like to express my appreciation to the honourable member for the kind words that he has shared with us about the staff at the department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Good to see you again, Mr. Minister. I see your staff here - it's a different deputy than we had last year, and I guess that brings me to my first question. Where is the old deputy?
MR. MORSE: He is presently pursuing other options. I think that very capable people like Kevin McNamara will do very well, and I feel he's well on his way to landing on his feet. I know that we all wish him the best in his future endeavours.
MR. CORBETT: When he was severed, what would you, as his boss, put on his record of employment? How would you characterize his departure?
MR. MORSE: The relationship between a minister and a deputy is not that of being his boss. He is charged with administering the department, and I would just like to point out though that the office that appoints the deputy is not the department, it comes from One Government Place.
MR. CORBETT: You don't know whether he was fired, resigned, let go?
[Page 173]
MR. MORSE: I'm not familiar with the circumstances involving his departure from the department. I would just say that I'm very appreciative of the time that I spent with him. I feel that he was a good friend to the people of Nova Scotia. He's an eminently decent person and that's shown not only in his dedication to his job, but also to his community and his family. He's a good person, as are all the deputies that we have in government.
MR. CORBETT: So, this person, he has all these platitudes, he gets the heave-ho and you don't even bother to ask him what happened. You don't know? If he's such a nice guy - which I believe he is - then you must have been fairly callous about it, Mr. Minister.
MR. MORSE: I had a very collegial relationship with him. The honourable member for Cape Breton West took it upon himself to actually table the letter that I sent out to staff on the deputy's last day in the office, which expressed my personal remorse at not working with him anymore. That's no reflection on the new deputy, whom I think is an eminently capable person and he also brings a tremendous array of abilities to the department. This is just part of what it's about in a government that has to downsize; in this case there was a merger of the Technology and Science Secretariat with the Department of Economic Development, so there was one surplus, if you will, senior staff member, and the business of government is not that of an employment agency, it's of delivering services. So the difficult decision was made and somebody's name had to come up and it happened to be Kevin McNamara's.
MR. CORBETT: But that's the part I don't follow here. On one side you put out all these platitudes about him - and I think rightfully so, and again this is not an aspersion on the new deputy - but it seems to be that they ring hollow. I asked you what happened to him, did he get fired? Did he do something untoward? Was it a case of being bumped? You don't give me a straight answer on it, and that's all I'm asking for.
MR. MORSE: I think that it's very clear that he left government as a result of restructuring, and I will only speak well of him because I think that he was a true friend to the province, and I would ask the honourable member to please not, in any way, taint his time with the province nor his coming to work for the province, his time with the province or his time leaving the province. I think that, in this case, my concern is with the third one - his departure from the employ of the province.
MR. CORBETT: He's a senior public official who was let go in what you now say, after 10 minutes of discussion, was government restructuring. You couldn't say that when I first asked you, but now after being coached a bit, you now say that. I want to make perfectly clear that I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mr. McNamara and that I've enjoyed a good working relationship with him through his many ministers. But it was a simple question, and I guess another is what was his severance package?
MR. MORSE: Excuse me?
[Page 174]
MR. CORBETT: What was Mr. McNamara's severance package?
MR. MORSE: That would be between Mr. McNamara and the office at One Government Place.
MR. CORBETT: For someone who purports to be worried about his senior members, you have less than adequately answered a lot of these questions, Mr. Minister.
We've talked - and I will come back to the staffing issue later on - many times in Question Period about your government's failure when it comes to introducing the occupational health and safety regulations that have been ongoing now for years. You keep hiding behind these facts and now, finally, I think you mentioned in the House that they're back. When will those regulations be put into effect?
MR. MORSE: The honourable member should know that there's a great deal of work that's done in the Occupational Health and Safety Division, and specifically I think the member is referring to the work that's done by the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. I believe I know which regulations the member is referring to, but there are many sets of regulations that are under consideration or are in there for review. It's a constant process of perpetual improvement on behalf of the health and safety of Nova Scotians and specifically Nova Scotia employees. Could you be more specific about which one you're talking about?
MR. CORBETT: Let's go with violence in the workplace.
MR. MORSE: Okay, violence in the workplace. Those regulations first came forward to Cabinet during the time of the previous government. They were sent back, as I understand it, for further work, referred to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. They spent some time there. Actually, shortly after the member asked me the question in the House a couple of weeks ago about their status, a couple of days later I got a briefing note saying that they have now come back to the department and they're being given consideration, hopefully, for moving forward to Cabinet as an R & R, under my signature.
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. CORBETT: This government, when it's legislation or regulations for friends of the government it moves swiftly, but when it comes to regulations that help workers and supports workers, vis-à-vis health and safety, this government really says, well, you know, there's no big hurry, let's have a look at this. As you said, these have been in the works since the previous government, which is three years. What's taking you so long?
[Page 175]
MR. MORSE: I would like to point out that this government is trying to conduct itself in a responsible manner, so that sometimes a true friend to Nova Scotians would move in ways that look out for the long-term interests of the entire community. In this case we're talking specifically about those employees who would benefit from the passage of these enhanced regulations, because we have to be clear that under the general regulations there are protections in place. What we're talking about is fleshing them out and being more specific as it pertains to violence in the workplace. I want to get it on the record that I certainly feel that we as a government are conducting ourselves in a manner that would be considered to be that of a friend of Nova Scotians.
MR. CORBETT: Who? Which Nova Scotians? Not the workers that I've talked to, Mr. Minister. I don't want to name specifics, because I don't think that's right. We've talked about people who lost their lives at work. I've asked you questions around this, Mr. Minister. Who and what are we waiting for? You allude to something out there that you're talking about that will be to the benefit of all Nova Scotians. I can tell you two or three Nova Scotians who there is no future for. Why can't you say in this room today the date that Cabinet will approve those, and you can move forward with them so that workers in this province will be protected by violence in the workplace regulations?
MR. MORSE: I would reiterate what I said in the House the other day. First of all, if you're going to put these bodies in place - now we're talking about the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council - and call on these volunteers who possess considerable expertise to come and work collectively as a team to advise me it would seem reasonable that you make sure that you keep them in the process.
In addition to that, we have a very capable staff at the Department of Labour, specifically I'm talking about, this time, the people in Occupational Health and Safety. I think it would be prudent of any minister - and certainly I intend to follow my own advice - to consider their comments before moving forward to enhance the regulations that are already in place that would include violence in the workplace.
There's a process in place. There are a considerable number of things on the advisory council's agenda, and they have seen fit to move this forward and back to the department. It came back to the department with the recommendation of a majority on the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, I don't know what world you live in. It seems to be every time I've talked to you since you've assumed this post it's always delay when it comes to workers. You have absolutely no regard, that I can feel coming from you when I ask you questions, about worker safety and what happens to the worker while they're at the workplace. You personally show no personal leadership as Minister of the Department of Labour.
[Page 176]
I want to ask the minister if he would respond to the Auditor General who in his report says, "The Department has a reasonable internal accountability framework.", but its ". . . annual report lacks substantive information on the performance of the Occupational Health and Safety Division and does not fulfil its potential as an accountability document." What do you say about that? Those aren't my words, those are the Auditor General's words.
MR. MORSE: The Auditor General made a lot of comments. You've not ignored some of the positive ones. He spoke very well about the quality of the staff there. He identified some areas we can improve on. One is basically what I would call risk base assessment, in terms of management, in terms of where we target our inspections. He made some very helpful recommendations in terms of how we document inspections. We're very much committed to working with him, taking his advice.
By the way, the honourable member will be pleased to know that when the Auditor General makes a comment about one division we also look and see whether perhaps there are benefits that can be derived for other parts of the department. We're trying to make good use of the Auditor General's comments. We take note that most of them, we felt, were extremely positive, but clearly there were some areas where he felt we could do things better, and we're following up on his recommendations.
MR. CORBETT: I may say to you then, Mr. Minister, that through public safety, from Pages 161 to 181 in his report, they are less than glowing. These aren't staff problems, these are leadership problems from you, Mr. Minister. At 10.6 it says, "There are numerous instances of non-compliance with public safety legislation. Observed deficiencies include unmet inspection and investigation requirements, failure to seek and obtain certain approvals and inadequate reporting by outside organizations to the Public Safety Division." Mr. Minister, where is that in this budget that where we're going to get more inspectors for the workplace?
MR. MORSE: Now we're talking about Occupational Health and Safety Officers?
MR. CORBETT: Yes.
MR. MORSE: I was hoping that you would bring that up. The other day in Question Period I tried to point out some of the areas where there had been some very significant improvements just in the last three years. Actually, perhaps you might like to have a photocopy of this. In terms of orders issued under the Acts, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the honourable member might like to know that in the year ended March 31, 2001 that there were 2,917 orders issued, whereas in the year ended March 31, 1997 the number was only 1,107. It's not quite three times as many orders issued under the Act. I would suggest to the honourable member that this is just one example and I have more that I'm going to go over.
[Page 177]
It's not that things were necessarily better back in 1996-97, it's that there's a much greater occupational health and safety presence in the workplace, we're being more conscientious. That's just one example, if the member would bear with me for a moment. There are now 30 Occupational Health and Safety FTEs approved for the department, whereas in 1993-94 there were only 18. In fact, that 18 I think really was only increased in the last few years. I'm just going to try to give the honourable the actual year - if I can find it here, it is eluding me at the moment, however - in 1996 it was 18, it's now up to 30 FTEs, plus we have five industrial hygienists because it's health and safety, and the industrial hygienists, of course, have certain expertise on the health side of the equation, and it's very important to be cognizant that we have to protect our employees not only from accidents but also to protect their health.
The division in 1993-94 had a budget of about $3 million and staff of approximately 40. Last year that was up to $7 million with a funded staff of 70. I gave a specific example of the number of orders issued under the Acts which showed a tremendous improvement there, but there are some other improvements which are noteworthy that I would like to share with the member if I can find them here.
General inspections, we're at 1,897 in the year ended March 31, 2001, as opposed to 1,022 in the year ended March 31, 1999, so almost a doubling there in three years. Again, I don't have the specific improvement in the percentage of successful convictions but I do recall that over the last three years it went from something in the low 40s - oh we just happen to have that here. The department's success rate in prosecutions has jumped from 44 per cent in 1997 to 83 per cent in 2001. I think these are very significant accomplishments on the part of the staff at Occupational Health and Safety. I think that we should be recognizing the efforts of those officers, and I think those officers are clearly working for managers and under an administration that has allowed this to happen. There have been some dramatic increases over the past few years and I think that bodes well for occupational health and safety in the workforce.
MR. CORBETT: Well, the Auditor General's own words were that we're 10 years behind in inspections, total inspections. While the number is moving forward, it had nowhere to go but up. We're still quite a distance behind in reaching all areas that these people are to inspect. Still, you keep trying to turn it around and saying the staff, the staff, but the staff obviously gets its leadership from its minister, and this minister, every time we talk, doesn't really show - in this House last Thursday I asked him about Clifford Frame and the Westray situation. The first thing you did was slough it off to another department. Clearly, your department - it's a parallel entry into the system.
MR. MORSE: Could I assure the member on that particular subject?
MR. CORBETT: If you think you can.
[Page 178]
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: The reason I referred it to the Department of Natural Resources is that because at that point in time there was no application that had come forward, to the best of my knowledge, to my department. What the member really needs to know and what I think Nova Scotians need to know is that the type of activities that were allowed to carry on in Westray would not be tolerated by any employer so long as we become aware of them in the department. We are doing a risk-based management approach to try to better target those high-risk employers; those who have higher accident rates that we're now getting from the Workers' Compensation Board.
There have been tremendous advancements, indeed, even during my time as minister, that would do a much better job in securing the safety of workers in Nova Scotia. I would tell you that the conditions that were allowed to happen at Westray would not be tolerated by our officers, by our Occupational Health and Safety Division, by our deputy nor by this minister nor by this government. It's not tied to a particular name because, as the member would know, the laws do not apply to specific individuals per se, they apply to all individuals who would operate in the province. That type of operation would not be acceptable to this government should it ever attempt to operate in Nova Scotia again. Does that give a little clearer direction as to where we are in the department?
MR. CORBETT: Well, sir, I will tell you something, that situation should never have been able to happen in the past, let alone in the future. I don't need you to lecture me about the safeties and the hardship around coal mining; all of a sudden you try to wrap the flag of this province around your Party. Let's not forget it, sir, it was your Party that allowed that inspection to go on the way it did. It was your former Premier who blamed the workers. I find it offensive for you to sit there and tell me today that this type of stuff won't go on. Please, give me a break.
MR. MORSE: I would like to point out to the honourable member that actually my mother's roots are in Glace Bay, my grandfather spent over 60 years working in the coal mines. I am well aware of the coal mines. While I'm not wrapping myself in any flag, I will be speaking to the safety of workers in Nova Scotia workplaces, and through the very capable people in my department we will be there to ensure that safety. Some of the numbers I brought forward today, be they statistics, clearly indicate that some very significant steps have been taken within the department and will continue to be taken.
Some of the points that the member points out from the Auditor General's Report will be addressed through an action plan. There were a lot of positives in that report. There are some areas where there's room for improvement, as there's always room for continuous improvement in anything we do. We have a plan to move on them, and we are going ahead with this.
[Page 179]
MR. CORBETT: When we speak about improvements, and every time we talk about improvements it's, wait, we're going to wait, in the fullness of time, that type of mentality. One of the ideas is the health and safety regulations are held up because of the infamous Red Tape Reduction Task Force. Now, that was a partisan group of government MLAs who went around the province. It wasn't an all-Party select committee or anything like that. What you're telling me, and this is from your Government Business Plan, what I think I'm hearing from you is let's weight our health and safety with a partisan task force, as opposed to listening - it wouldn't say anything in here about health and safety advisory or anything like that, no, the quote from the bulleted area is, "Conduct timely reviews of acts and regulations in accordance with requirements of legislated sunset clauses, recommendations of the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, the government's legislative agenda, and ongoing program evaluation and review." It's clearly a partisan document, Mr. Minister, don't you see it that way?
MR. MORSE: The member seems to know an awful lot about what went on with the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, or at least he would suggest that he knew a lot of what went on and the purpose of the task force.
MR. CORBETT: I know it wasn't a non-biased group.
MR. MORSE: I would suggest that since I was initially part of that task force that I might know a little bit better what it was that we were trying to accomplish. I think that everybody in Nova Scotia would always welcome more effective and efficient regulations that deal with many subjects, including occupational health and safety.
MR. CORBETT: So, it's efficiency. Get them out of there fast. Okay, I understand now.
MR. MORSE: I would suggest that ultimately those decisions go back to the departments and that while the task force might be able to point out some areas for further investigation, ultimately it would have to go through the department. When it comes to occupational health and safety, that would take us to the advisory council. I would like the honourable member to know that I very much appreciate the presence of the advisory council and place considerable importance on their recommendations.
MR. CORBETT: Well, you say that, but talk is cheap, Mr. Minister. Do you acknowledge them in this, or has your government acknowledged them in this business plan? No, it talks about your own partisan road show. What it tells me is that it's going to go to your agenda, and your agenda, as you just stated, it's streamlining. I'm hearing from you, let's back off on this or back off on that, red tape usually means the type of people who would go to your agenda.
MR. MORSE: So was that a question?
[Page 180]
MR. CORBETT: Yes. Why do you refer to this group that has really no function of Legislature or has no function of force and appears to disregard altogether the advisory board's work?
MR. MORSE: I think that the member should recognize that this was a way of going out and speaking with Nova Scotians who had constructive suggestions to bring forward. Just because suggestions were brought forward does not mean that they necessarily would be acted on, but everything was given consideration. I think that dialogue with the public, with people who have some expertise in various areas, is always a useful process. I think it's been called stepping outside of the box. I could make no apologies for consulting with Nova Scotians but, ultimately, when these things come back to the department they have to meet the scrutiny of the department that it would make sense. If there are things that come back that we felt would adversely impact the occupational health and safety of workers, we would not act on them. Actually, to the best of my knowledge, I have no recollection of any such recommendations.
A tremendous amount of work has gone into putting these regulations in place. It involves both employers and employees and professional departmental staff and, of course, the lessons learned over time, which the member's referred to previously. Sometimes that's a flag where perhaps we can do something better. The important thing to do is to learn from those lessons and to incorporate them in the regulations and indeed in the culture, just as we are with the Grade 11 course that we're piloting with Occupational Health and Safety. That's a tremendous program because, as the member would know, there are a lot of young workers who are more susceptible to injury on the workplace because they do not have that knowledge that they bring to their first job that provides the life skills to protect them. We're trying to assist them through this Grade 11 pilot course. My expectation is that it's going to be successful and it will probably move right across the system. The member has concerns, I share his concerns, and I feel that we've taken action to address them.
MR. CORBETT: I have concerns. I have concerns - and it doesn't seem to be getting through to you, Mr. Minister - when, in your own budget documents, you take the time to build a case for a partisan group but don't bother to take the time to talk about the advisory group. It just amazes me. It tells me where you, as a minister, are ultimately going to take your advice from.
Mr. Minister, you like to roll things over to your staff and, look, that's one thing we probably agree on, the staff is doing the best they can with what they've got. They're given some pretty blunt tools to do some really finite building here. Instead of making excuses for all the safety regs that are out there that should be moving forward, why are you continuously making excuses for your government and not pushing hard to react to them? Why are you impeding the progress of the multitude of safety regs that are out there?
MR. MORSE: Some people see consultation as impeding progress . . .
[Page 181]
MR. CORBETT: You're not consulting, Mr. Minister, don't give me that. Don't insult my . . .
MR. MORSE: . . . and some people see it as building for better regulations and . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, order please. I've instructed past members of the committee that I wish to have the questions asked and the answers answered, but not at the same time. Please allow them to answer the questions or give questions before answers are given. Don't interrupt each other, please and thank you. No more badgering each other like that. I've said it before in the past and I will say it again in the future if it occurs again.
MR. MORSE: I believe that I answered the question, that this government and this minister views consultation with the stakeholder groups as a valuable tool to make better regulations, and we will continue to do so. If the honourable member takes exception to that approach then that's his decision. I'm not sure that would sell well with Nova Scotians.
MR. CORBETT: I will tell you, it's been 10 years since Westray, Mr. Minister, how long do workers have to wait?
I will change gears because you obviously - I don't get the feeling that workers' safety is a priority with you. This province has a Trade Union Act that's over a quarter of a century old. We work, and when trade unions - by and large, the areas that have unionized shops tend to have better organized health and safety programs and so on. What is your government's involvement in the Trade Union Act and are you going to make any substantive changes in this sitting of the House?
MR. MORSE: There are no plans to make substantive changes to the Trade Union Act in this session. That is something that, again, would require considerable consultation before it should, in my opinion, be undertaken by any government. I'm not exactly sure what you're advocating in terms of changes to the Trade Union Act but I would suggest that the process is appropriately one that would involve considerable consultation and, at this point in time, that is not on for this session.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, we have, as I've pointed out, a piece of legislation that's in fact over 25 years old. How we work has changed considerably since the early 1970s, and where we work has changed considerably since the 1970s. We've lagged behind just about every other jurisdiction when it comes to such things as automatic certification. Don't you think as Minister of Labour that that would be something you would be out consulting with the parties about, or don't you think that is a priority - a piece of legislation that is a quarter of a century old doesn't need to be updated?
[Page 182]
[4:30 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: This is something that periodically is brought up more likely by members of the trade union movement. In essence, I would like to explain that there are two steps towards forming a union. The first one is you have to have enough people who agree that they want to have a vote and, secondly, in essence, it is an election as to whether there is going to be a union or there's not going to be a union and, at that point in time, there is a lot more scrutiny given by the various employees to making the decisions. I suspect that different points of view are well discussed amongst them and hopefully they reach a democratic decision, and it is up to our department to make sure that we protect that process. That's the role of the Department of Labour, not to push itself into the workplace but to set the rules by which those who operate within the province must abide by in terms of labour- management relationships not only with the Trade Union Act but, of course, with the labour standards.
MR. CORBETT: I believe we are one of two provinces left that do this on the same style of certification. It's archaic. The only group that has full-time access to employees during a union drive is the employer. Effectively, this province shuts out the ability for contact by the trade union. You have employers that can post stuff on the bulletin boards, they can vie, if you want, for the hearts and minds of the worker, where the same reach is not given to the organizing group. So if you believe that that system isn't weighted in the employer, I don't know what is. Why is it all right for the federal government in many other provinces to have automatic certification and it is not all right for Nova Scotians to have the right to automatic certification?
MR. MORSE: There are over 100,000 unionized employees in Nova Scotia. Clearly, the process has worked for some of those unions. I would advise the honourable member that we speak frequently - and I am talking about the minister's and the deputy's office - with union leaders and very much enjoy our relationship with them. We find them to be very professional and sincere people. We also enjoy that relationship with the employer community. The balance that we see is perhaps a little different than what the member is articulating here today. I am not just saying that everybody disagrees with the member, I am just trying to bring more of a balance to the picture.
MR. CORBETT: It's imbalanced; you know it's imbalanced, I know it's imbalanced. I've organized in this province and I know how imbalanced it is. I know if you sat down with the Federation of Labour and many of the unions they would tell you that to your face, that automatic certification is the way to go because it goes right across this country. Don't talk about balance. This is one of the hardest provinces in the country to organize in, and you know that, or you ought to know that. So don't say it's balanced, because it is a lot of malarkey. It's a system, as I explained to you, that is weighted towards the employer.
[Page 183]
I would be much happier if you, as minister, would admit to that rather than concoct a story of everybody is happy with it, because everybody's not. The majority of people who are trying to organize workers in this province so things like Westray won't happen again are being impeded because of your archaic laws. So if you want to do some real consultation, sit down with these people and they will tell you that. So you, as a minister, do not believe that automatic certification is a good idea, yes or no?
MR. MORSE: I believe I indicated to the member previously that I have consulted with both employer and union groups and, indeed, I am going to say employee groups because we have to remember that not all employees are members of unions, nor do all employees necessarily want to be members of unions, but that is a decision that is best made by the employees in any workplace. There is a procedure in place that is laid out in the Trade Union Act that allows for certification. The member has acknowledged that it's a two-step process.
MR. CORBETT: No, it's a weighted process.
MR. MORSE: The one vote that ultimately counts is the final one, as to whether they want to certify. I would assure the member that for every member from the labour movement that has come forward and expressed concerns about this that there has been at least one from the employer group who feels that perhaps we have gone too far. So that would suggest to me that we've probably, from this minister's viewpoint, got a balance, and until I am able to be convinced differently through some sort of review and, at this point in time, that's not on for the Trade Union Act - but the member points out that it has been a long time and, possibly, that is something that will come up over the next few years. That would certainly be an excellent opportunity to make this case and see if it would perhaps better serve Nova Scotia, but it's not going to happen in 2002.
MR. CORBETT: That's right, because you won't do it. Mr. Minister, you are wrong. To organize or not to organize is not the employer's right, it is the worker's right. That's where it belongs. You don't go and ask businesses, is it all right if I make rules to allow your workers to organize? That's what you're telling me. You're telling me, I don't believe in automatic certification, but what I've got to do is for - you said, equal amounts. You said for every trade union that comes in to see you comes an employer rep to see you and speaks against it. So what you're telling me is when it's a tie with the runner, the runner is business and it goes to them. That's what you have just told me; even up, one for one, that you believe that it's in businesses' best interest, not the workers' best interest?
MR. MORSE: I think that what I've said is . . .
MR. CORBETT: Check the record.
[Page 184]
MR. MORSE: . . . that consultation is absolutely fundamental to the way that we run the department . . .
MR. CORBETT: That's not what you said.
MR. MORSE: . . . in terms of developing policy and that it's important to consider all points of view when changing the absolutely fundamental rules by which we conduct our labour relations in the province.
MR. CORBETT: No, what you said to me, Mr. Minister, when you said you had an equal number of trade unions and equal number of businesses, you are going to take the word of business. That's what you ended up saying. Mr. Minister, you obviously don't agree, or you don't understand what automatic certification is. Do you understand what automatic certification is?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. CORBETT: Can you explain it to me?
MR. MORSE: Automatic certification is where there is one vote and if there are more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in favour of forming a union, it's automatically done.
MR. CORBETT: No, no, no, automatic certification is not a vote. Automatic certification in most jurisdictions is not usually 50 per cent plus one. There's not a place I know of that's 50 per cent plus one. Most of them are in the 55 to 60 range, which does two things. It gives automatic certification where - but more importantly the second part is - there are no objections; where the objection is, then you come in and if your department has to carry on an investigation - for instance, if people believe there is a dispute about the cards, is the person, by definition, an employee, are they a management employee and so on. We can go into that, but it is definitely not a vote and it is never contemplated to be 50 per cent plus one. It gives you an area in which to work, and therefore what it really does is it weighs it in the proper order. If someone has - we will say 60 per cent of the people signed up, what if they have 80 per cent signed up? Then you have this pressure by the employer that's going on within the workplace that the trade union doesn't have access to, but you think that's perfectly fair. So some form of coercion can go on, and that's all right; you would rather have that than automatic certification.
MR. MORSE: There are a couple of points that I differ on with the honourable member. The first one is that, in essence, it's a one-vote process and the member points out that it may not necessarily be 50 per cent plus one but, in essence, it's a one-vote process.
MR. CORBETT: It's not a vote.
[Page 185]
MR. MORSE: If the requisite number of percentage is reached in the process, then you have automatic certification. That's the essence of the concept. Secondly, again, I have indicated that we are interested in the views of all Nova Scotians, at the department. I've not indicated that we did any sort of poll to reach this position and I want it on the record that that's not the case.
Thirdly, with regard to the former deputy, I think that it's important to point out that people move on for different reasons. Kevin McNamara left government as a result of restructuring that took place, and I want to be absolutely clear, going back to the original point, that I had a very collegial relationship with my former deputy, Kevin McNamara. I do not agree that he was fired, and I want to emphasize that he was an absolutely wonderful person. I'm concerned that the questions that are being brought forward here would in any way possibly detract from his circumstances.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired. We will now go back to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, you indicated that you were somewhat oblivious to the decision by the Premier's Office to see Mr. McNamara's departure. Am I correct? Were you notified before or afer the decision was made?
MR. CHAIRMAN: As I stated, please have the questions and answers asked in sequence and not simultaneously.
MR. MACKINNON: Sure. I realize it's a sensitive issue for him.
MR. MORSE: I would like to clarify that the decision to hire deputies does not rest with the minister, and the decision to change deputies does not rest with the minister. Accordingly, I was not part of the decision. I am a part of the government. I worked with my former deputy and I enjoyed my relationship with him. I continue to enjoy his company when I bump into him, which I hope I will do on occasion for the rest of my life or his life, whichever ends first; so, in other words, for a long time. I would also say that I enjoy the relationship with my current deputy and I find him to be very professional and I will look forward to continuing to work with him so long as the circumstances leave me as minister in this department or he is deputy in the department.
MR. MACKINNON: So you've indicated you weren't part of the decision. You are a member of the Executive Council. That's correct.
MR. MORSE: Correct.
[Page 186]
MR. MACKINNON: You were in attendance the day the Cabinet meeting took place where the decision was made to accept Mr. MacNamara's departure from government.
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: You signed off on that order, did you not? Did you sign the order paper?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: So do you automatically, when something is brought before Cabinet, just rubber stamp it? Do you not question any of the details of it as to whether it's a good decision, bad decision or there are pluses or minuses to it?
MR. MORSE: The member would know that the protocol in Cabinet is that there is constructive debate. Ultimately, we reach a decision and all decisions are unanimous.
MR. MACKINNON: So in fact what you're saying is you knew before his departure that he was being severed from the department. If you signed the Cabinet order and you were at Cabinet you signed the Cabinet order, it has your signature on it, and you indicate right now that you took part in the discussions about Mr. MacNamara's departure so obviously you knew before he was relieved of his duties. Is that correct?
MR. MORSE: The member is trying to set up a time frame. I would advise the member that the former deputy was advised of his departure in advance of the signing of the official document.
MR. MACKINNON: In other words, they just used you as a rubber stamp. That's what your saying.
MR. MORSE: I would refer to my earlier comments about Cabinet decisions, and I would also make reference to the fact that those decisions are made from One Government Place, Cabinet confirmed that decision, as it would normally be the practice for any deputies.
MR. MACKINNON: That's quite disappointing when we have a minister for a department not knowing that his deputy was dismissed and yet he goes to Cabinet, participates in the discussion, as you've indicated is the general rule, and I know that from having sat in Cabinet, that's the general rule. It comes in under your purview, the Department of Environment and Labour, and you were one of the five ministers who signed off on, as some would refer to, an execution order. Is the reason that Mr. MacNamara was relieved of
[Page 187]
his duties because the government was not looking for a fall guy for the bad Auditor General's Report?
MR. MORSE: I want to clarify the situation once again with regard to the timing. The member has made some suggestions which are not so, and I would like to give him the benefit of the information that Mr. MacNamara was given notice in advance of the Cabinet decision. I would prefer not to delve into things that are really human resource-type confidential matters which would be better answered by Mr. MacNamara than me.
MR. MACKINNON: Wait now, this is not an opportunity for you to abdicate ministerial responsibility just because you so choose. As elected officials we all have a responsibility. You indicated that you took part in Cabinet deliberations prior to the signing of this order. So either you knew before he was relieved of his duties or you didn't; on one hand you're saying you didn't, the decision was made before you went to Cabinet. So, in other words, you're conceding that you were just a rubber stamp. That having been said, the fact that the deputy minister was relieved of his duty shortly after the Auditor General came down with a rather stinging report on the Department of Environment and Labour, did that have anything to do with his departure from the department?
MR. MORSE: I'm not supposed to ask questions, so I'm going to have to make an observation.
MR. MACKINNON: No, I'm asking the question. I'm looking for the answer.
MR. MORSE: Anybody who has read the Auditor General's Report would note that there are quite a number of positive statements that are made about initiatives in the department. Those things that he identified as room for where there might be some improvement were, in many cases, already being acted on by the department, but we certainly welcome the Auditor General's comments and it only reinforces and perhaps sharpens our focus as to how we can improve the operation of the department.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, you still haven't answered the question. Did Mr. McNamara's departure have anything to do with the Auditor General's Report? Was there any discussion, because, obviously, this is quite serious. The deputy minister of any department is, for all intents and purposes, the chief steward of the day-to-day operations and policy direction to a certain extent; they advise the minister and so on. I recognize some of the positive things, but there are far more negative issues identified in there and the Auditor General has expressed those concerns between Occupational Health and Safety, the Fire Marshal's Office, and I can go on and on. Was that just a coincidence that the deputy minister was relieved of his duty at the time this report came out or did it in any way impact?
[Page 188]
MR. MORSE: I think it's very important when one answers questions, regardless of your situation in life, that you do your best to give the correct answers the first time and, as I have already done that on Tuesday I will just repeat what I said on Tuesday, is that due to government restructuring there was a need to reduce, in essence, the CEO of one of the departments or offices - and a CEO in this case is a deputy - by one. The person who was chosen at One Government Place was the Deputy Minister of Environment and Labour at that time, one Mr. Kevin McNamara.
MR. MACKINNON: So he was your fall guy is really what you're saying, because you went into a Cabinet meeting and you signed off on it. You had deliberations about it. Whether the directive came from P & P or the Premier's Office or whoever obviously, in the final analysis - were you consulted before you were advised of that decision? I think you indicated to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Centre, that, no, you were unaware of the deliberations prior to you being notified. Am I correct on that?
MR. MORSE: I would go on record as saying that the decision was given to me. I was not part of the decision and I accepted the decision of government. It's not easy making those types of decisions, especially when you work closely with someone, and . . .
MR. MACKINNON: So that was a decision of government that you accepted?
MR. MORSE: Can I finish answering the question?
MR. MACKINNON: Sure.
MR. MORSE: Thank you. So people with considerable experience at that level made a recommendation, the recommendation is accepted by the Premier and then it is done.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I guess that clearly demonstrates to me that you don't have much input into government, if it's a decision of government and you didn't know anything about it. So that pretty well tells me where you stand in the pecking order in Cabinet.
Let's look at Legal Services, Page 11.3. I see an increase of about $136,000. Could you explain why the increase in Legal Services under Administration?
MR. MORSE: You're referring to the increase in the cost of legal services?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. MORSE: There is a considerable demand for capable lawyers out there and in order to retain the expertise that we have in staff, it required a special market adjustment. I think that the Minister of Justice would be better able to answer the questions as to how we
[Page 189]
arrived at those specific salaries, but I believe it goes back to trying to have some sort of equality with the Public Prosecution Service.
MR. MACKINNON: So this was a charge from the Department of Justice over to your department for services they provided?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps I can take it on notice, if you would just outline what those legal services were within that 60-day time frame, that's fine. I notice an increase for the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. If you don't mind, Mr. Minister, we'll just look at the Occupational Health and Safety Division first. I know there are increases in all the others and we just kind of generalized when I first started in the first round, but there's a rather substantive increase in the administration costs, about $394,000 for administration in Occupational Health and Safety. Can you explain why? I know you mentioned before about salary increases, but I'm sure the Director of Occupational Health and Safety didn't receive that substantive increase in his salary, as much as sometimes I think he's worth it for the job he has to do.
MR. MORSE: The main increase in the costs has to do with a new computerized tracking system that's in the process of being implemented at the department to address some of the things that we recognized could lead to greater effectiveness and efficiencies and, in fact, we are very pleased that the Auditor General also recognized this because it is a very significant amount; $300,000 of that $420,000 goes to that enhanced tracking system.
MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps you could give a breakdown on that cost on a future day, if that's okay.
MR. MORSE: Do you mean on the $420,000 or the $300,000 for the tracking system?
MR. MACKINNON: Well, $394,000, you say that's the reason for the additional cost there, just on the breakdown on the administrative costs there, what it's for.
MR. MORSE: Okay, you said $394,000?
MR. MACKINNON: That's the increase over last year.
MR. MORSE: This is Occupational Health and Safety, because we've got the increases . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, Page 11.6, Administration.
[Page 190]
MR. MORSE: We had $420,700 as the increase and almost 75 per cent of that is the tracking system.
MR. MACKINNON: Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking between the Estimate and the Forecast. I do apologize.
MR. MORSE: I know that it can be confusing as to which numbers you're using as your base.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, $420,700.
MR. MORSE: Would you like that answer now or did you want to wait for it?
MR. MACKINNON: You can just take it on notice. You indicated that's what it was for.
MR. MORSE: I mean $300,000 is for the cost of the tracking system. There is an increase in administrative overhead charge which has got to do with the rate that's applied to the WCB, that's $94,000; and salary increases of $32,000.
MR. MACKINNON: Do we have any increase in our user fees this year, and do we have any new user fees?
MR. MORSE: I am just checking the addition here to make sure this is right. There was some rounding in the previous answer so it didn't completely come down to the exact number, but it's close, and I hope the honourable member would accept the answer. You're asking about increases in user fees, in what area of the department at any particular division or . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Well, no, maybe if I could take on notice as well a list of all the proposed increases in user fees, as well as a list of all the new user fees.
MR. MORSE: You're talking about right across the department?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. MORSE: It is $940,000 in user fees, and if you would like to have a breakdown I think we can go down it right now, I believe it's all here.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay.
[Page 191]
MR. MORSE: If you're inquiring about anticipated further increases in user fees, they're in place mostly as of April 1st. There may have been one or two that are not going to kick in until May 1st, which is the elevators and lifts. But that is revenue to the department so it's helping to mitigate some of the costs of providing those services. In fact, that certainly is a subject area that's very important to the department, and I hope that you pursue it . . .
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: I think I will, with your permission.
MR. MORSE: Well, you don't need my permission, as you would know well, but I would be happy to cover this.
MR. MACKINNON: Let's go back to your opening remarks when we started on budgets. On your estimates you indicated that you're very proud and pleased to say that you're part of a government with a truly balanced budget.
MR. MORSE: Correct.
MR. MACKINNON: How can you say that it's truly balanced when your government had to borrow over $100 million to service the debt this year?
MR. MORSE: I would say that the honourable member is mistaken in his statement. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, to perhaps draw an analogy to running a household, for the first time in 40 years we're paying for our operating expenses, our groceries, the cost of heating our home, electricity, plus we made provision to pay the full cost of the mortgage which includes amortization and interest charges, plus we're anticipating a small surplus.
MR. MACKINNON: Why did you have to borrow $100 million?
MR. MORSE: When one buys a home you usually do not treat it as an expense in the year, but you set it up as an asset which you amortize over time, such as the paying off of a mortgage. I think it's a concept that's pretty familiar with most Nova Scotians, and we made full provision for all those payments.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, if I borrowed $100 million I wouldn't register it as an asset, I would register that as a liability because I have to pay it back, plus interest.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. I'm just asking for relevancy in regard to the debt in regard to the Finance Department versus we're here with Environment and Labour.
[Page 192]
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, it's the minister's own statement I'm dealing with, and the opening remarks for his estimates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will give you that latitude.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So how can you borrow $100 million and register it as an asset?
MR. MORSE: One would have to examine what was done with those monies. Actually, the borrowing would be far more than $100 million, but you see there are monies that are paid back. The debt is constantly being turned over. In the case where perhaps we build a new school or a hospital, that is a capital asset which will have a useful life that goes well beyond the year, and it's appropriate under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to set it up as a tangible capital asset with a proper amortization. That is the practice in the private sector and it's high time that this government started to follow those accounting practices which are set up by the profession.
As the member is, I believe, still on the Public Accounts Committee, he would know that this province bore the shame throughout the Commonwealth by going to those Public Accounts Committee meetings as being the only province that actually kept two sets of books under the previous administration, something that is known right around the world and something that we should not be proud of as Nova Scotians, but we should be proud of the changes that we have made with our accounting systems under this government.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, but, Mr. Minister, you're saying that the debt is growing, and you borrow $100 million and you say you have a balanced budget. Your math, it doesn't matter if it's new math, old math or something from some Mongolian forest, I mean, you borrow more money, the debt is growing, how can it be a balanced budget?
MR. MORSE: I regret that the member has trouble understanding the concept of buying tangible capital assets, again, maybe to make it . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Oh, I think I understand.
MR. MORSE: . . . perhaps easier to explain, I would suggest that if a person was to borrow $100,000 to buy a new home that it would not normally be thought of that the person ran a deficit in that year, say that their income was $40,000, just because they bought a home. In fact, what they did is they acquired a very valuable asset which will hopefully serve them well over many years, and it is totally appropriate and in fact assisted on by the lending agencies that provision has to be made within their current income to pay not only the interest, but also a regular portion of the capital as it's amortized over the life of the mortgage. So that is exactly what we've done in the province and that is exactly what has
[Page 193]
been endorsed of course by the Auditor General who, I believe, has been quoted several times in the media as taking a different point of view than the Opposition.
MR. MACKINNON: Exactly. You've answered my question. You've taken out a mortgage. If you borrow money for a home, you don't own that until you pay if off, plus interest, whether it be one year, 10 years, 20 years or whatever. I'm well aware of that, but you just indicated that you borrow money to do things, whether it be a school or what have you. So you're borrowing money, you're increasing the debt, so it can't be a balanced budget. Anyway, that's my interpretation. I noticed the Nova Scotia Conservation Corps on Page 11.9. It appears that there's no funding for that this year at all. Is there any particular reason?
MR. MORSE: That funding is something that actually comes from two other agencies. One is the Department of Economic Development and one is HRDC. They are actually the ones that provide the funding for the program and we administer the program through the department.
MR. MACKINNON: But I notice that you have a line item of over $30,000 last year?
MR. MORSE: Actually, I think it was $30,800.
MR. MACKINNON: So you did put into it before?
MR. MORSE: Actually what happened is that typically those contracts require a contribution from the organizations that take on the summer students and in this case the contribution that came from those organizations went beyond the usual 50 per cent. So, in essence, there was an extra $30,800.
MR. MACKINNON: So you've discontinued that? Well, if you don't have that $30,800, you're not putting it back into the budget. You've cut it out as a line item.
MR. MORSE: This was a way of funding $30,800 worth of departmental programs, but it was not anticipated at the time. We are just pleased that those organizations that took place in the Youth Conservation Corps felt so good about the program that they would actually contribute an extra $30,800.
MR. MACKINNON: How much money are you anticipating receiving from the Nova Scotia Resource Recovery Fund Board? How much money does the department anticipate receiving? Did you budget for anything this year?
MR. MORSE: Oh yes. It's 10 per cent and we're going to get you an answer in a second.
[Page 194]
MR. MACKINNON: Okay. It's still the 10 per cent. I will take on notice that amount then.
MR. MORSE: We're anticipating $1 million, which means there would be $9 million that would be dispersed by the Resource Recovery Fund Board. That $1 million is to help defray the costs of the services that we make available to the municipalities and the board.
MR. MACKINNON: If I could, Mr. Minister, I would like to go back to this Film Classification Board that you're proposing on eliminating and the employees being transferred over to the Alcohol and Gaming Authority. You indicated that you reviewed a study, a document. What study or document are you referring to?
MR. MORSE: I'm sorry?
MR. MACKINNON: You indicated that you have reviewed a document on a proposal for contracting it out?
MR. MORSE: I would like to confirm that there's been no decision made to eliminate the Film Classification Board, but I will say that there have been discussions as to whether there are possibly better ways of delivering the same service, but we have not reached any conclusion.
MR. MACKINNON: Could you outline what these better ways are that you're alluding to?
MR. MORSE: There is going to be a meeting someplace outside of Nova Scotia, in Alberta, which I believe will be attended by most of the provinces, or at least the English- speaking provinces, because clearly Quebec probably would have a different interest due to most of the films presumably being in the French language. We are sending out a representative to listen to the discussions and we will be coming back with their comments and that will be reviewed by the staff of the Alcohol and Gaming Authority and we will see what transpires from there.
MR. MACKINNON: Since these three staff are being transferred over to the Alcohol and Gaming Authority, their duties will be changed somewhat? (Interruptions) No? They're going to continue doing the classifications until such time as the report comes back and you decide whether to go with the private sector or some other agency?
MR. MORSE: There are two clarifications that I would like to make here. One is that those staff are currently with the Alcohol and Gaming Authority, because that also involves amusements. So it has a fairly broad scope. But what has happened is that they've been transferred to administration in there, but there's no change in their current job description.
[Page 195]
MR. MACKINNON: Why would they be changed to administration? I thought you had enough administration. The administration has gone up as it is.
MR. MORSE: They administer the film classification process. They are not the ones who are actually on the board, but it's staffed just as you would expect for any board. They play a very valuable role in assisting the board in carrying out their responsibilities.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I'm still perplexed. I want to go back to this other thing on Baltzer Bog and this memo. I have to say if I was a departmental employee and I had a memo and field notes that indicated that there was such and such type of soil - in this case he states peat moss on the site - and others within other divisions of government, whether it be federal or provincial or whatever come along and say it's peat, I can respect that. That wasn't the issue. The issue that I had asked you was if in fact - and I went across and I checked with Hansard as best I could, and what I did here was that you indicated that the employee indicated that he had made a mistake. So then I called the employee. That employee still stands by this memo. I checked out the employee's credentials and I find they're quite impressive. This employee has a degree in biology, has a master's degree in environmental studies and is fairly well respected by his employees, colleagues in the department and by other agencies. So I'm just curious, did you request anybody in your department to seek another opinion when this came back and it wasn't quite what perhaps the proponent was looking for?
MR. MORSE: You were addressing that question to me specifically?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. MORSE: Did I, in my capacity as minister, ask to get a second opinion? No.
MR. MACKINNON: Did you ever discuss this issue with the proponent, the owner of Mark-Lyn Construction?
MR. MORSE: You say specifically about whether it is peat or peat moss?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Thomas, when he was before the Public Accounts Committee, indicated that he had received a call from you.
[5:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: I would suggest that my involvement in this goes back to probably the year 1999, actually. There was a public meeting which was called because of concern that there was a rumour that Mark-Lyn Construction wanted to set up a composting facility on South Bishop Road, which is in a country residential area, but the bottom line is that there are a lot of residents in and about that area. Mr. Peter Thomas, the owner of Mark-Lyn
[Page 196]
Construction, to his credit, came to the meeting, which involved a certain amount of anxiety on the part of the community, and several things were agreed on by the community on that evening, one of which was that it would not be appropriate to have a composting facility on the South Bishop Road because of its proximity to these various residences. In fact, the meeting, and there were quite a number of residents there that evening, I would say probably 200, asked me if I would, in my capacity as MLA, draft up a petition calling for council not to consider a development agreement that would allow for composting on the South Bishop Road.
The honourable member would be pleased to know that everybody signed the petition, including Mr. Peter Thomas. I also undertook, at the request of the community that evening, to try to find alternative accommodation for Mr. Thomas in Kings North on an industrial zone site adjacent to the Kentville Industrial Park, because there is more industrial land than what's included in the park. As a result of that I called George Reid, who I believe was the manager for the Kentville Industrial Park. I had a conversation with him and indicated the community's concerns about a composting facility moving to the South Bishop Road. I got some advice from him as to the owner of the neighbouring property, which was zoned industrial. After a number of telephone calls I finally got hold of the owner who agreed to speak with Mr. Thomas and possibly either sell or lease industrial-zoned land to him adjacent to the Kentville Industrial Park.
Again, I would point out that it's in Kings North, and maybe it's none of my business to be involved in Kings North, but I did so as a good Samaritan on the part of the citizens in the South Bishop Road area. I understand that the owner, a Mr. Fred Holton, eventually did I think try to call Mr. Thomas, or that I contacted Mr. Thomas and indicated to him that he should call Mr. Holton, who was interested in entertaining the possibility of him leasing or purchasing industrial land from him to continue with his composting operation. I regret that Mr. Thomas never followed up on this offer and I had spent some time to try to make those arrangements as Mr. Holton is a busy man and it took a little time to track him down.
MR. MACKINNON: What about Baltzer Bog? How did that evolve into the situation?
MR. MORSE: Well the thing with Baltzer Bog is that that was the area where they didn't want the composting facility, but everybody agreed that there would be no composting facility. Now despite that, there were reports on the radio that he was trying to move a composting facility in there, but in view of the fact that he had signed a petition saying that he was not interesting in composting on South Bishop Road - Baltzer Bog is adjacent to South Bishop Road - it all really seemed a little odd that this would still be a point of contention, since there was no interest in composting there.
[Page 197]
As I understand it, Mr. Thomas subsequently decided that perhaps what he would like to do is make soils there, using peat which apparently has a lot of humus or materials that are useful for building soils. He was leasing it from a company at that time. Somewhere along the line there he entertained to purchase it from them and he was able to secure financing through the Business Development Corporation, and just as he did when he was leasing the property, he continued to extract the topsoil which, in this case, happened to be peat which is one form of topsoil, and he continues to do so.
There has been some opposition to this practice from some of the people on South Bishop Road, as the member would be aware, and they continue to scrutinize his activities and make sure that he's in compliance with all the laws.
I think the member might also like to know, as long as we're on this, if he's really interested in this subject, because I can go on for quite some time on this, that subsequently he opened a gravel pit adjacent to this which caused more consternation and, in that regard, we were able to put a stipulation in place that would allow for a community liaison committee, which I would say was an initiative of my own when I became aware this was a possibility, so those people who were so opposed to what was going on on South Bishop Road would have a voice and perhaps work with the owner of Mark-Lyn Construction to make his activities more compatible with the community.
Unfortunately, once this was put in place, the two most vocal opponents to it immediately lost any interest in sitting on the committee, but there were some who had concerns about the operation who did sit on the committee. As I understand it, there were some concessions made on the part of Mark-Lyn Construction, that is Mr. Thomas, to try to accommodate them. I think the honourable member's sort of getting the idea that everything that could be reasonably done to assist everybody in trying to resolve this very contentious situation was done.
I could go on to say that from early on I was encouraging them to get involved with the Coldbrook ratepayers' association. In fact, some of the people on ECCKA - and you would be familiar with that term - have sort of identified themselves as the ones who are most opposed to what's going on on South Bishop Road. Although, there are three businesses on South Bishop Road and one is very substantial and it's not owned by Mark-Lyn Construction.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that liaison committee still . . .
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Who's the spokesperson?
[Page 198]
MR. MORSE: There is an impartial chairperson. They elected their own chair, they tried to find somebody who was impartial. But I want to get on the land-use planning because a lot of the . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No, if you could just . . .
MR. MORSE: Well, you asked me a question. This is a very complex . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You're drifting away from the topic though . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. Let him finish answering the question and then you can ask your next question.
MR. MORSE: I encouraged them to get involved with land-use planning because clearly this is really more of a municipal issue. If they had changed the zoning of the South Bishop Road they could have avoided this situation in the first place. I encouraged some of the members who are on ECCKA to get involved with the Coldbrook ratepayers' association, which is the closest thing that they have to municipal government there, it's not a village, but there is provision under the new Municipal Government Act to allow that type of input into making sector plans for a community.
Unfortunately that committee did not meet during the time that they were members of the executive and, subsequent to that, the second operation started up on South Bishop Road. I would encourage those people who are opposed to this type of development to get involved with land-use planning because if it is such a concern to them this is clearly an opportunity for them to leave a lasting legacy to their community by trying to better capture the wishes of the citizens so they can develop Coldbrook, in this case, according to the community's wishes if, in fact, that differs from the existing plan that's in place out of the Municipal Planning Strategy which was implemented in 1979.
I'm not going to go any further on this unless the member wants to pursue it. If he does want to ask more questions, there's a lot more information I would be happy to bring forward and put on the record. I do feel myself reasonably well-informed on this subject and I know that there have been considerable resources expended on the part of this department and I suspect other government departments to try to follow up on the concerns of those citizens.
MR. MACKINNON: I do agree with the minister on that point - considerable resources have been expended. I believe the deputy, on a previous day, had indicated that and that would be a concern to any public policy maker, including myself. I guess I'm a little perplexed as to why this whole thing just escalated out of control in the first place. Obviously there's a communication gap between you and residents in the community. There's a suggestion that the head of the liaison committee is a pretty active proponent in your political
[Page 199]
organization, so it was more of a whitewash. I don't know all these things, these are suggestions that are brought up here.
Quite frankly, we have a lot of important issues to concern ourselves with and if they're brought here I think it's only reasonable that we raise them. That having been said, I accept your points on notice, there could be basis to it, it could be nothing. I think, realistically, we've kind of thrashed it out to the point of exhaustion and I do appreciate you taking the time to address those points. If I could, I would like to deal with the issue of composting. How many composting sites do we have in the province, and where is that compost being (Interruptions) Either kind.
MR. MORSE: I would like to clarify that I'm not even sure of the gentleman's name who is the chairman of the liaison committee, so the name was run by me, but I guess if this person were active in my campaign, I was unaware of this. It's very nice if in fact that is the case, he likes me, but I'm not even aware of who the community elected to chair that committee. Obviously, when you win an election, hopefully that's an indication that more people approve than disapprove. Inevitably, some of them may . . .
MR. MACKINNON: It's winning the second election that's the challenge. Trust me.
MR. MORSE: . . . in fact, end up in those positions. Point number two, you asked about the number of approved composting facilities in the province. The answer is 19.
MR. MACKINNON: Could I have a list of those as well? I can take that on notice. Where do they disperse their compost? (Interruptions) I would like to look at the issue of hydrology. You know, our aquifers that we have around the province, has the department (Interruptions) I'm sorry. I was sidetracked here on somebody's personal phone call. Does the department have any data with regard to different hydrology tests that have been done around the province on various aquifers?
MR. MORSE: The executive director has confirmed what I thought was the case. In fact, there's data that goes back to the 1960s. I think it was probably during the time of Robert Stanfield that they first started to check the capacities of the aquifers. We have now gone back and we're confirming those numbers. We've hired somebody to coordinate this, and this is something that's going to roll out officially in the water strategy, but you have asked questions about the water strategy before and, in fact, there are some things that are already being done by the department and that is one of them. So with regard to your concerns about exporting of water, it's important to be able to ascertain the size of our water resource and the amount of pressure that's put on it through the water withdrawal permits, and we're trying to bring this all into a comprehensive mapping of the province's water resources and how we're tapping them.
[Page 200]
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Would you give an undertaking that those results would be made available. I guess I'm particularly concerned about the Valley area, justifiably or unjustifiably I hear a lot of complaints about the Valley area. Obviously a big concern there is the fact that we have to do more and more irrigation than ever. I realize that comes in under Agriculture and there is a study undertaken as we speak. It's a collaborative effort between a local organization and the provincial Department of Agriculture, I believe, or Natural Resources and the federal government. Does your department have any test results of wells that have been drilled in various aquifers throughout the Valley?
MR. MORSE: Absolutely, in fact that research that's being done by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration is being incorporated into our water strategy. All the work that's being done is being compiled and basically we become, I suppose, the reservoir of this information and it's going to, in future, become a more and more valuable tool in managing our scarce water resources in the province.
MR. MACKINNON: Would you make those test results that you have completed already, the ones that have already been drilled and you know what the aquifer is and how much is there and so on and so forth, would you provide that information?
MR. MORSE: We would do what we can. I just wonder if maybe the honourable member might like to visit Bob Langdon's division of the department and perhaps spend some time with our emerging water section.
MR. MACKINNON: Sure.
MR. MORSE: That might be a more efficient way of accomplishing this, and hopefully it would give the member some comfort with some of the good things that are happening within government to address this very serious matter of our water strategy.
MR. MACKINNON: With regard to the water tests that were done on or near the tar ponds site in Sydney, the report that was done by the private consultants indicated that the water was safe to drink. I think that was the layman's interpretation. Is that your analysis of the water table underneath the tar ponds site, on the Sydney Steel site?
MR. MORSE: The honourable member is correct. Most of the actual testing is done, as he would be aware, by Transportation and Public Works, and the federal government of course has a couple of departments that are involved in the tar ponds and surrounding area, but the results that have come back meet the scrutiny of the department, the standards, and because of the complexities of this area there was a peer review done and it also met the satisfaction of those scientists.
[Page 201]
MR. MACKINNON: So everything is A-OK?
MR. MORSE: In the water that was tested it met the criteria.
MR. MACKINNON: In the New Glasgow area there's considerable concern about their water supply. The municipality in the Pictou County area, I think the one that Warden LeBlanc has been in the media as of late expressing concern about their watershed and so on, what has the department done to assist the municipality in resolving that problem?
MR. MORSE: So we're talking about the watershed for the Town of Pictou?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. MORSE: The member is right, there are some concerns expressed between the town's position and that of the county. There are provisions available under the Environment Act that allow us to designate a watershed as a protected area, and the department is more than happy to work with any proponent that comes forward with a request to protect an area for that purpose. I think part of the role of the department is also sometimes to assist the parties that may disagree over how things should be to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion if it's possible and, you know, in that case.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, okay, we're not going to wax too much with eloquence. He said a whole lot of nothing, but we will move on to the next subject. On Page 172 of the Auditor General's Report, "Further, our review of the OFM's annual report revealed certain statistics in the report are untimely, incomplete and inaccurate." What has your department done to address the problems in the Fire Marshal's Office?
MR. MORSE: Again, the Auditor General's Report was broad in its scope. There were a lot of positives, but the member points out some areas where there is need for improvement and as we are bringing together these various services under the Office of the Fire Marshal, there is a learning curve. We have taken a multi-faceted approach to try to address the information flow and to move towards a better risk management approach to our inspections. We try to identify those that we perceive to be higher risk and there are certain criteria which I am happy to go over if the member wants to explore this with me, but we are trying to be proactive in taking a firm handle on the administration there and to improve the documentation, and there is an action plan that is . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You say we're taking control of the administration. Who's we?
MR. MORSE: The department.
MR. MACKINNON: The department, but isn't the fire marshal in administration?
[Page 202]
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: He has been there, I believe he has been there for quite a few years, and this is what the Auditor General comes up with. So how do you expect somebody who can't control his department to take control? It sounds a rather strange dichotomy if, after all these years, they're finally just going to start getting control of their department and you're going to expect the same individual or individuals that the Auditor General says are producing bad reports, to correct the problem. I mean doesn't that sound a little strange? Shouldn't there be kind of an independent perspective on this, rather than send it back in to where the source of the problem is?
MR. MORSE: The honourable member would, I would suggest, probably have some knowledge in this area because he in fact was the one who was shepherding the department for a period of time not too long ago, and the department . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Those problems developed after I left. These problems developed after the Tories took over.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Answer the question, please.
MR. MORSE: . . . is in a state of continuos evolution. Improvement should never stop in any organization, and I feel that there has been considerable improvement over time and there will be considerable improvement yet to come, including after a time when there's a different minister.
MR. MACKINNON: Well I congratulate the minister - my time is up - but I congratulate you for being at least an optimist if nothing else, because you have waxed eloquence but you haven't given a lot of confidence. So I will leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You still have a minute left in your time, but if you wish to forfeit it.
MR. MACKINNON: Well it's a waste of time to come and ask him questions. He doesn't seem to know what's going on in his department. He's got half the department here. I'm just wondering where the other half is. I mean, I've never seen such a contingency of employees come before estimates in all my life. It begs you to wonder what's going on back at the shop when half of the department had to come to accommodate the minister in his estimates. So I think that speaks for itself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess they wish to give a thorough - are there any questions from the government caucus before I go back to the NDP caucus? There are no questions from the government caucus. I will go back to the NDP caucus. Mr. Epstein, the honourable
[Page 203]
member for Halifax Chebucto, your time is 5:41 p.m. Just to advise you, I had information from the Clerk's Office, the House is sitting past 6:00 p.m. with the emergency debate, so we're allowed to finish our four hours in here tonight. So you have until 6:08 p.m. The House is not rising at 6:00 p.m. The Committee of the Whole is rising at 6:00 p.m., but the House is still in session and I had that clarified by the Clerk.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: So we're here until when?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're here until 6:08 p.m.
MR. EPSTEIN: Fine, thank you. Mr. Minister, I would like to speak with you primarily about water issues, but before I move to that I would just like to pick up on one point I thought I heard in the exchange with my colleague, the member for Cape Breton West. It had to do with gravel pits. I wondered if I heard you correctly. Did you suggest that it was within the land use and therefore I presume the zoning possibilities of the municipality to prohibit gravel pits? I have to say, if that's what I heard you say, I would like to hear this in some detail.
MR. MORSE: What the member points out is, in fact, gravel pits are not able to be excluded under the municipal planning strategies and the land-use bylaws, but there are things that you can do in the land-use bylaws that would curtail that type of activity.
MR. EPSTEIN: You're talking about storage, outdoor storage and timing of blasting and things like that?
MR. MORSE: Precisely.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, so let's go back and be 100 per cent clear. It is not within the municipal government's powers to prohibit a gravel pit.
MR. MORSE: Correct.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, good.
MR. MORSE: But they can curtail some of the activities that are associated with the operation of gravel pits, and I think that that's probably the main concern of the residents, but the honourable member is quite well-informed in the ways of the law and, once again, it shows in his comments.
MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you, but I just wanted to make sure I heard it correctly. Okay, now I would like to move to water issues. Here's what I'm particularly interested in. I'm going to try to focus somewhat on what occurred in Ontario, in Walkerton, and I would like to go through with you what lessons we've learned and what the situation is in Nova Scotia
[Page 204]
and how it is that we can make sure that the kind of situation that arose there, and of course in North Battleford in Saskatchewan, doesn't occur in Nova Scotia. So that's really going to be the focus of what it is that I would like to go through with you in some detail. Before we get to that, I wonder if you could just bring me up-to-date as to where the department stands with its overall water strategy. Could you just make some general comments about that before we get to the detail around what occurred in Walkerton?
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: Certainly, and with regard to the water strategy, that has been literally a work in process for years because it goes back to 1991 and John Leefe and the minister's task force on water. I think in my opening comments I acknowledged his contribution, and it goes well beyond the task force on water. He left a rich legacy to Nova Scotians through his time as minister. More recently, almost immediately upon assuming government, work began on water long before Walkerton. I think that the member would remember the heckling that I took in the House not too long ago before Walkerton for speaking about water as one of the main determinants of health. The subject was health care. I would point out that the member was not one of the ones who was heckling me.
MR. EPSTEIN: I'm glad to hear that. I don't remember the episode . . .
MR. MORSE: But the same cannot be said for probably everybody in the room. Anyway, that's just my way of acknowledging his very legitimate concern for the importance of safeguarding our water supplies. So, in earnest, the official formation of the water strategy, in a final draft form, moved ahead very quickly about a year ago. An initial draft came forward but because it is such an interdepartmental and indeed intergovernmental topic, there was a lot that could be contributed from the other departments and we feel from people outside of the provincial government.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is your department the lead department on this?
MR. MORSE: Yes. The Department of Environment and Labour is the lead department on the water strategy. I'm not able to go into the details of the proposed water strategy because it's not gotten the official approval, but I do want to give the member some comfort as to what's going on, what's caused the delay. I would say that it's comprehensive. It's meant to be a coordinating document. It lays out specific actions that are to be taken, time frames, and I look forward to being able to release it and then the member can see for himself that it's, I feel, a document of quite some substance that should hopefully give some comfort to Nova Scotians that the appropriate steps are being taken to safeguard their water.
MR. EPSTEIN: The minister speaks in terms of coordination and actions with time frames. I'm wondering whether anything about the overall water strategy is going to involve legislation.
[Page 205]
MR. MORSE: At this point in time it's not seen as being necessary. There are some provisions, as the member would be well aware, under the Environment Act, which in fact actually calls for the creation of a provincial water strategy, but there was no time frame. So we are, I guess, trying to put a finite time frame on that commitment.
MR. EPSTEIN: That's my next question. What kind of finite time frame are we looking at here? When do you expect to release this document for the public to have a look at?
MR. MORSE: I can comfortably say within the next two to three months, and if we can improve on that, then so much the better.
MR. EPSTEIN: So is the idea that when it's released, it will be released with a request for public comment? Is that the idea, or are you going to essentially release it and say here it is, we've done our work, the interdepartmental thought has been put into it, we're going to act on it and there it is?
MR. MORSE: While the department is always interested in public comment and it is an evolutionary process, any of our legislation and our regulations and policies, it has in fact been built on a tremendous amount of consultation going back to 1991. So we would hope that it's a reasonably polished document.
MR. EPSTEIN: You're ready to move?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Let's move over to Walkerton. Let's start now that we've got some general comments about this. You will be aware, of course, that what we're going to discuss here has to do with municipal water supplies, and that's really the focus of Walkerton. This isn't about people with their on-site sewage disposal systems or their on-site wells as a source of water, what we're talking about here is municipal water systems. So I'm sure that's clear to you. I wonder if we can just start by you giving us maybe some up-to-date figures as to the percentage of the population that is serviced by municipal water systems.
MR. MORSE: It's 60 per cent municipal, 40 per cent would be on private wells.
MR. EPSTEIN: So what occurred in Walkerton in terms of the origin of the E. coli bacteria and the other bacteria that were found by Justice O'Connor to be the contaminants that caused the illnesses and seven deaths, what caused this in terms of the origin of the bacteria, he says was a well, Well 5, that was located adjacent to land that was being actively farmed and on which manure was spread, and it was a period of heavy rainfall that took place immediately before the period in May 2000, and indeed there was shallow soil, that Well 5
[Page 206]
was not a very deep well compared with the other wells, just not a very deep well anyway, and there was fractured bedrock - exactly correct, yes, that was the situation.
In fact, I guess Justice O'Connor found it important to note that the farmer had not violated any rules and regulations and made the observation that he was not faulting the farmer in any way. That said, what I'm concerned about, of course, is having municipal water supplies right there in the middle of a field. I mean if you look at the photos, if you've read the Walkerton Inquiry report, you will see the photo of where Well 5 was located - and it just jumps off the page at you when you look at the photo - it was immediately adjacent to farmland. One of the things that Justice O'Connor does point out is that as early as 1978 there was a meeting with Ministry of Environment representatives who came to the town and, in the words of the report, suggested land-use controls for the area surrounding Well 5.
Now, this seems to me to be the appropriate starting point. Are we exposed in any way to municipal water supplies being in such close proximity to farm operations that they might be subject to being contaminated by E. coli or other forms of contaminants? That's really the starting point.
MR. MORSE: I apologize to the honourable member for taking a little longer before I respond to him, but I find his questions to be of substance and, accordingly, I want to take advantage of the expertise that I have here in the room to more properly do justice to his questions. As the member would be aware, we use a multi-barrier approach from the source to the tap. First of all being watershed protection, and then you have your monitoring and compliance within the operation of the water utility and then you check at the tap to make sure there's not a problem with the distribution system that has fouled the water before it gets there. So there are three barriers that we put up to protect the consumers of water from municipal water utilities.
So, to be specific, this would go to the first one and, indeed, watershed protection will clearly be part of the water strategy. That would come as no surprise to anybody. There are a couple of areas that I am aware of in the province where we're trying to enhance the watershed protection; one of them was mentioned by the previous questioner, the member for Cape Breton West, and that being Pictou. That's a well field, and there's another one in East Hants where I guess the municipality has probably not found me or the department particularly co-operative in relaxing the protections that are in place around that watershed. I mean we will work with them, but not if we feel that it would in any way jeopardize the watershed.
MR. EPSTEIN: If I may, Mr. Minister, watershed is an interesting term and I'm not sure if it gives us the right picture. I hope in most instances it does. When I think about watershed, I think about the kind of drinking water source that we have here in HRM where the lakes that are the source of the water are in territory that is owned by the water commission and there's a lot of land around those that is likewise owned by the water
[Page 207]
commission; it's mostly fenced; certainly there's signage around warning people that this is a watershed and that no one is supposed to be on there, let alone any kind of industrial or agricultural activities that might generate contaminants. I feel safe when I think about that kind of system.
What we had in Walkerton wasn't exactly what I would think of as a watershed. What we had was a well that was immediately beside a farmer's field, immediately beside, and a shallow well, as you said, with fractured bedrock underneath. So I think what I really was asking was do we have any situations like that at all where the source of the drinking water for a municipal system is from wells that are not enclosed by large areas that are owned by the municipality or by the local utility?
MR. MORSE: I guess that I would say that that protection continues to evolve across the province depending on the municipality. I would say that we are certainly not aware of any circumstances similar to what took place in Walkerton, but you're talking about fences to protect the surface water sources, if it happens to be lakes, or, in this case it is a well, but this is exactly why we have to be more vigilant in this area and that's exactly why it has to be part of the water strategy to encourage this.
MR. EPSTEIN: Does the province now have regulations which require that the source of municipal water be set back by a set distance from other activities?
MR. MORSE: The legislation allows the municipalities to apply for that protection, but it's not mandatory and perhaps that's the member's point in asking the question. My suspicion is that he knew the answer, and take that as a compliment, not a criticism.
[6:00 p.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: So it's not mandatory. Are there guidelines for the municipalities to apply?
MR. MORSE: There are guidelines and then we work with municipalities to put the appropriate protections in place, and in fact that's one of the things that is going to be even . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: We can anticipate that it will be strengthened in the water strategy?
MR. MORSE: Yes, yes. The resources that are available to assist the municipalities have grown since the announcement in last year's budget and they're going to grow some more. So really we hope that that's a tremendous assist to them.
[Page 208]
MR. EPSTEIN: One of the possible contaminants - just to focus on agricultural activities for a moment - of course is animals, particularly cattle, and I'm wondering if you can state for us, what is the current state of play in Nova Scotia with respect to actual regulations, not guidelines, actual regulations having to do with fencing to prevent access to streams that might form part of a water supply system?
MR. MORSE: There is ongoing co-operation and collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to move the farming practices ahead in that area, but your question again was about regulation and the member already I think knows well the answer - there's no regulation.
MR. EPSTEIN: And will this be something that's addressed in the water strategy? I don't need to know if it's by regulation. Will the topic be addressed in the water strategy?
MR. MORSE: We are trying to take the steps that are being proposed in the water strategy and determine whether we can give you a straight yes, and I guess I would say we can give you a qualified yes, that we certainly will be working to achieve some of the things that you're speaking of in terms of watershed protection.
MR. EPSTEIN: Let's move to the next topic, which is responsibilities for inspection. I'm wondering if you can outline for us, who in the province has the responsibility for monitoring the state of health of municipal water supply systems?
MR. MORSE: The director tells me that I have all the i's dotted and t's crossed on this one. The responsibility lies with the owner of the water utility, but if there is a positive test result they are obliged not only to inform the department, but we have MOUs with all the labs in the province as a double-check, they would report any positive test results back to the department.
MR. EPSTEIN: At the same time as they report them back to the operator of the utility?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have five minutes remaining.
MR. MORSE: I would like to add that I thought that there was a time frame on that, and in fact the obligation is that it be done immediately.
MR. EPSTEIN: Immediately after the test results are known to the lab?
MR. MORSE: Yes, a positive test result in the lab is obliged to report to the department and clearly to the water utility.
[Page 209]
MR. EPSTEIN: So who or what branch in the department do they have to report to - do they report to the local regional office, do they report to the provincial office or do they report to the deputy? Who do they report to?
MR. MORSE: To local regional offices, which are spread across the province.
MR. EPSTEIN: So in the normal course of events, if there were a positive test you would expect to get notification in the Department of Environment from two sources, from the lab itself and from the operator of the water utility?
MR. MORSE: Correct.
MR. EPSTEIN: Good. Let's just look at those labs for a moment if we could. Are these private or publicly operated labs?
MR. MORSE: As long as they have the proper certification, and there is you know a list of criteria that a lab has to meet in order to be satisfactory to the department, but some are private and some are public.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, that's fine. I'm wondering about the status of what you described as an MOU with those labs. An MOU, that presumably stands for a memorandum of understanding . . .
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: . . . is something that is intended often as an expression of goodwill; it presumably doesn't have legal force. Is it set up as a contract? Is it set up as something that is binding? Is it set up as something for which legal consequences could flow for a breach?
MR. MORSE: The memorandum of understanding absolves the lab owner of the confidentiality requirements that would normally be extended to a client, and in fact the labs are anxious, as you would appreciate, to be able to pass on that information to the department because I would consider that to be part of due diligence, professionalism, and respect for public safety, and I think we could probably, you know, come up with a fair list of . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: Except, of course, in Walkerton that's exactly what didn't happen, isn't that right? I mean that's part of what didn't happen, the labs did not report to anyone except their client utility. That was one of the failings in Walkerton. God knows what's going to happen with all the lawsuits afterwards. But that was one of the problems that, as you just said, normally you would indeed expect that the labs would be very anxious to make sure that as part of their general responsibility and due diligence they would want to make sure that they were reporting to everyone who might be concerned about the results of a positive test on a municipal water supply system, but in Walkerton they didn't. They didn't do that,
[Page 210]
and what they did was they reported back to their client. They didn't report to anybody else and didn't follow up to see that anyone else was notified. That was the problem.
MR. MORSE: And the issue there was client privilege. There was no memorandum of understanding with the lab.
MR. EPSTEIN: Who knows why they did or didn't, there were no memoranda of understanding and there was no provincial regulation that required it and it just didn't happen.
MR. MORSE: I am advised that in fact this was the reason why they did not report to the Ontario Department of Environment, that there was a client confidentiality problem and therefore they presumably in good conscience reported back to the operator of the utility and the rest is history. In Nova Scotia we've addressed that concern, so we're not compromising labs.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think it's a very good thing to have some kind of document in place. I'm just worried about maybe strengthening it a little bit; that's my point. And I have to tell you - although this isn't the main focus here - that hiding behind so-called client confidentiality I bet isn't going to do those labs one whit of good when it comes to lawsuit time in Ontario, but anyway let's . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for debate has expired. We have reached our four-hour limit. The time remaining for the NDP caucus from the following day will be 33 minutes. So I would like to stand adjourned at this present time. We will be back here tomorrow for continuation on the debate of the estimates of the Department of Environment and Labour.
We stand adjourned until tomorrow.
[6:09 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]
