April
27, 2016
RESOURCE
COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Neil King, MHA for Bonavista, substitutes for Pam
Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace – Port de Grave, for a portion of the meeting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,
substitutes for Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis.
The
Committee met at 9 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Warr):
I just want to say good
morning and welcome you all to the Estimates on Environment and Conservation and
the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
I
just had a brief chat with the minister and we will be doing the Office of
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency first, which is 2.6.
Before
we get started this morning just some housekeeping. For staff members who are
asked to respond to a question, please state your name before you do, just for
the people in the communications centre. And I'll certainly invite our minister
and his staff to introduce themselves first and we'll get underway.
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay, well, thank you very
much.
I
thought we should do Climate Change and Energy Efficiency first given we've got
a little storm outside. These guys need to hurry back and deal with that.
CHAIR:
So if the introductions can
be done.
MR. TRIMPER:
Right on.
To my
right is Chad Blundon with our department. He's the Director of Government
Relations. On my left is Gerald Crane. He's the Director of Research and
Analysis. And our departmental controller is Wanda Trickett.
Back in
the corner I have Emily Timmons who's my Director of Communications, and my
executive assistant, Ian Murphy. Mark Vardy, you're here in the capacity of
budgeting, taking notes.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
Mr.
Petten, if you could start the introductions on this side?
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, sure.
Barry
Petten, MHA for CBS and Environment critic.
Megan
Drodge is our researcher.
MR. FINN:
John Finn, MHA, Stephenville
– Port au Port.
MS. ROGERS:
And I'm Gerry Rogers. I work
for the good people of St. John's Centre.
MS. WILLIAMS:
Susan Williams, Researcher, Third Party.
MR. BRAGG:
Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo
Island – Cape Freels.
MR. DEAN:
Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.
MR. KING:
Neil King from the historic District of Bonavista. I'm filling in for Pam
Parsons for the first hour or so.
CHAIR:
I'm Brian Warr, I'm your
Chair. I'm the MHA for the District of Baie Verte – Green Bay.
So
we'll get started again on the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
Will
the Clerk please call the first subhead?
CLERK (Ms. Murphy):
2.2.04.
CHAIR:
2.2.04.
I'd
invite the minister for some opening remarks.
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay, well, thank you very
much.
I
thought that – we've got a couple of pages of notes here that I wanted to read
out. I think people know a lot about the Office of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency, but I'm not sure everyone has a full understanding of what goes on
there. So if I may take a couple of minutes just to read a couple of thoughts to
describe what happens in this very important unit – small, but mighty.
As
you're aware, climate change is one of the greatest long-term challenges facing
the world and our province today. It is truly a cross-cutting horizontal issue
with implications for all our people, communities and cuts across all sectors of
our economy. Climate change will bring both risks and opportunities, and will
affect all sectors of our economy in all parts of our society.
To be
effective, government must seek to minimize risk and maximize opportunities. It
must balance economic and environmental considerations to ensure that our
province's approach is both environmentally sustainable and economically
prudent.
The
Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has four lines of business. These
include: to lead the development of policy and strategy to establish a path
forward and advance sustained actions that effectively balances economic and
environmental considerations, including deepening public awareness,
understanding and engagement; second, to undertake focused research and analysis
to enable the province to maximize opportunities and minimize risks from the
impacts of climate change and the move towards a low-carbon global economy;
thirdly, to work with departments to better integrate climate change and energy
efficiency considerations into their current and future programs, services,
legislation and regulations and ensure effective coordination across government;
and finally, to advance the province's interests and priorities in regional,
national and international forums on climate change and energy efficiency, and
engage external stakeholders to deepen and widen government's dialogue on next
steps.
Given
the cross-cutting and complex nature of these issues, the office is positioned
as a central agency in the Executive Council. This increases the office's
effectiveness as the office is not aligned with the interests of any particular
department, but is instead an independent voice on climate change and energy
efficiency. It addresses issues both within government and externally.
The
office is a resource to support all departments and agencies, as well as
coordinate policy across government. This requires working horizontally with
many different entities simultaneously, ensuring that synergies are made and
gaps are addressed.
In
2015-2016 the office advanced work in many sectors and with many partners – and
I just wanted to mention these again, because I feel it's important to
understand all that's happening here. First, the continued work on greenhouse
gas emissions regulations for the large industrial sector. This is a key
commitment in the Liberal Party's electoral platform and it's certainly on my
mandate letter. We wish to act on it in the near term.
This
work is ongoing and being formed by a new federal-provincial process on a
pan-Canadian approach to climate change. The intent of these regulations is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the large industrial sector in an
economically prudent manner.
A
second project last year, and in partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, was the completion of a pilot project to determine how and if individuals
in the province change their electricity consumption behaviour when provided
with real-time information about their electricity use. The project report will
be posted on the government's website shortly.
Third,
and in partnership with the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development, it completed the HotShots initiative which provided students and
teachers across the province with new resources on energy conservation. While
this project was not funded by the office it was funded through Education and
Early Childhood Development. The office led the implementation activities.
Fourth
– and you might have heard – the office has just completed a refreshing of the
Turn Back the Tide website based on user data gathered since 2012. This is a
very comprehensive website. I'd invite you to have a look. It's also in the form
of a Facebook page. It contains practical tips, resources and information to
help inform residents and encourage them to take action.
The
office also conducted stakeholder consultations regarding the potential adoption
of the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings. These consultations met a
key commitment in the 2011 Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Action Plans. A
report on these consultations is posted on the government's website. Internal
engagement with other departments will be held during this fiscal year to
determine the next steps.
Finally, in support of adaptation the office developed a single-window website
portal that contains a host of climate data to support stakeholders in
understanding and making decisions, bearing in mind the impact of climate
change. The website portal includes historical Environment Canada data, weather
data and updated intensity-duration-frequency curves that are used by engineers
to design infrastructure and prepare temperature and precipitation projections.
The
office will continue its important work to improve resilience to the impacts of
climate change, reduce GHGs – greenhouse gas emissions – and improve energy
efficiency in 2016-2017 based on the budget allocations we've set out in these
Estimates.
I thank
you and look forward to any questions you may have.
CHAIR:
Thank you Mr. Trimper.
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Pardon me, I have to stand.
I have a bad back.
Minister, if you don't mind, I'd like to just ask a couple of general questions
before –
MR. TRIMPER:
Sure.
MR. PETTEN:
What is the plan within the
department for carbon control, carbon pricing, basically? Where are you to with
that?
MR. TRIMPER:
In terms of carbon pricing,
I'm very pleased to say that we hit the ground running. As I became familiar
with this office we've started, first of all, to get myself caught up to speed
with what's been ongoing.
The end
of January I was in Ottawa at the first ever federal-provincial-territorial
meeting of my counterparts addressing climate change. So in terms of climate
pricing, what we are doing is exploring lessons learned from other
jurisdictions. And as I just indicated, and as is indicated in my mandate
letter, we're coming forward with a strategy to start with on large industrial
emitters. So I look forward to speaking about that in the near future.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
With
the new plan it seems to be – I know with the prime minister it's big on his
agenda and it looks like all provinces are working towards an agreement. In the
event of carbon pricing or some kind of control coming in, will all departments
have to send their policy legislation through the office as a part of the
development of this? If we come in with a carbon price, will everything be
reviewed by Climate Change for all departments when they bring in their policy
and legislation?
MR. TRIMPER:
I believe the answer to what
you're asking is yes. That interaction is happening now. This office crosscuts
it. It's not necessarily affiliated with any one entity; it actually reaches
into all departments of provincial government. What decisions are being made,
they are certainly reviewed by everyone.
As I
indicated in my opening remarks, it's very important to strike a balance between
the environmental considerations and the economic fragility of our province
right now. Finding that appropriate way to go forward in a measured progress
that doesn't upset the apple cart – if I can use an analogy like that – is very
important. So we certainly hear from pro-economic to very pro-environmental
considerations.
MR. PETTEN:
Well, yes, it's ironic. That
kind of brought me to one other question I had on it. As you're well aware – and
I learned it with my time I spent in Environment a few years back. We attended a
climate change conference actually. Minister Kent was the minister of the day.
There's
a lot of concern over – we have very few polluters. And the polluters we have –
our biggest polluters – are pretty fragile, especially in our economy now. You
look at Come By Chance, down in Labrador, or the Holyrood plant up there – I
guess that all depends on Muskrat too. But it is fragile; we have few polluters
that cause – a small group of polluters.
A while
back I was asked – actually, I was interviewed. And my answer was I believe in
carbon – reducing the emissions, we have to protect our environment. But what
kind of consultation, what kind of – we just can't just come in. Because,
ultimately, the tax will come down, it all trickles on down. So it could have a
detrimental impact, for instance, on Come By Chance. It could be the end of Come
By Chance, who knows. It depends how it all unfolds. What kind of consultation
process is happening in conjunction with the planned carbon tax?
MR. TRIMPER:
I would suggest, and from my
observation – I can turn to Gerald for a follow-up comment when I'm done, if I
could ask you to do that – I don't know if I would even describe it as periodic.
It's almost continuous between – we have about a half dozen of these sorts of
large industrial emitters right now, land-based, in this province. And the
interaction and dialogue is frequent if not, as I would say, continuous.
There's
a key consideration here. Yes, we're very aware of their challenges
economically, so we are striking the correct – I would say a very correct
balance between the need to move forward. We have an obligation as a province,
too, to join in with Canada's recent commitments in Paris. So it's very
important for us to step forward with something that's going to be very
appropriate for our unique circumstance, but at the same time sitting back is
hardly a role model.
Certainly, if we were to do nothing, if we decided that we just didn't want to
play this game, the federal government has an opportunity to come in and
legislate. So we feel it's much preferred for us to go forward with a strategy
that works for Newfoundland and Labrador, as opposed to having some national
edict come down.
I would
draw your attention to the First Ministers' Meeting with our Premier and his
counterparts in Vancouver just a few weeks ago. It was very important in some of
the decisions that were made there that we did not want to jump in with some of
the larger jurisdictions in the country which have, frankly, advanced their
thinking, their legislation around climate change legislation. We're not there
yet, we're not ready. This is actually our first move, so we want to move
carefully.
That
said, we didn't want to race to where Ontario and Quebec are and have a hurdle
and a hill that we just couldn't climb without putting some companies in serious
situations.
MR. PETTEN:
So there will be a
collaborative approach?
MR. TRIMPER:
It is a collaborative
approach. It has been and it will continue to be.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, so those are my
questions.
MR. TRIMPER:
Gerald, did you have any
follow-up, if I could ask? Is there anything you'd like to say, or did I nail
the –
MR. CRANE:
The only thing I would add is we work, as well, very closely with the federal
government and with other provinces to see what's happening in other provinces.
The cost and competitiveness issues are constant across the country, it's not
only here. We see a lot and hear a lot from other provinces and the approaches
in other provinces, and the approaches in other provinces do make accommodation
for competiveness of export industries.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, thanks.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Petten.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
First of all, I want to
thank you very much for all your hard work. This is such a crucial department
and the activities are very, very important. I fully understand, as a
Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the necessity of that balance between our
economic needs, our environmental needs and our social needs, and what a dance
that is and the challenge to do the right thing and, sometimes, that's not so
clear. So I appreciate the incredible challenge that faces the office and that
faces us, as a province, perhaps now more than ever. I'd like to thank you for
that work.
I have
a few questions as well before we get into some line by lines. Minister, is
there a ministerial advisory committee on climate change?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Who would be on that
committee?
MR. TRIMPER:
Go ahead, Gerald.
MR. CRANE:
It's co-chaired by Ministers of Environment and Conservation, Natural Resources,
Ministers of Finance, Municipal Affairs, Transportation, the Minister for the
Housing Corporation and BTCRD. Am I missing anyone, Chad? I believe that's it.
MS. ROGERS:
So it's ministers and –
MR. CRANE:
There are also deputy ministers as well.
MS. ROGERS:
And deputy ministers.
MR. CRANE:
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as well.
MS. ROGERS:
So you have no one on your
advisory committee that are from the activist community, no one from industry?
MR. TRIMPER:
It's a ministerial
committee. Since I've taken my role, we haven't convened a meeting yet.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Is that
something you would consider? For instance, with the Minister of Health, he'll
have an advisory committee for mental health and addictions made up of people
from agencies, activists, people with lived experience.
MR. TRIMPER:
I must say I'm very much of
an open-door kind of guy, so I don't mind taking the idea under consideration.
So if I could park that thought and come back to you, I'd like to do that.
We
certainly are meeting with a lot of industry associations on climate change but,
as a collective group, we can take a look at that.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
I would
imagine there would be great resources as well in Grenfell College at the
university in Corner Brook.
MR. TRIMPER:
If I may, absolutely, we
have some consultations we're planning for this year. So we're looking for ways
to do that very efficiently. If we can reach out to industry groups, interested
organizations, that would be a great way to reach a lot of people.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
So if
we could start the line by line. I'll have some questions as well as we go
through some of the line by line. The other thing, I want to thank you very much
as well for your opening statement. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a copy
of that because we won't get the Hansard for this until months down the road.
MR. TRIMPER:
You've got it.
MS. ROGERS:
I assume anything I ask for
or the Official Opposition asks for that we can assume that we will both get all
of that.
MR. TRIMPER:
We look forward to walking
the binder across the floor.
MS. ROGERS:
Great, thank you very much.
Under
Salaries, 2.2.04 – it almost sounds sometimes like we're calling out a bingo,
doesn't it? Salaries, we see that in '15-'16 the department didn't spend
$121,000. Can you tell me the loss there?
MR. TRIMPER:
We had a vacancy position
that it related to. Gerald, was it one or two?
MR. CRANE:
We had two for several months.
MR. TRIMPER:
It would be two for several
months, primarily one.
MS. ROGERS:
Now those are full?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
By the way, we have eight
staff now in the department, in the office.
MS. ROGERS:
How many did you have last
year?
MR. TRIMPER:
Eight as well.
MS. ROGERS:
Great, thank you.
Professional Services, we see in '15-'16 there was an increase of $81,000 in the
revised. Can you tell me a little bit about some of the professional services
that you undertook in that category?
MR. TRIMPER:
Why don't you take it,
Gerald?
MR. CRANE:
We had 10 projects in 2015-16. There were eight planned and two additional ones
that were not planned. The eight that were planned – I will just list them and
the amounts. We developed a technical GHG reporting guidance document. It's a
precursor for some of the work we're doing with large industry. That contract
was valued at just under $41,000. It's completed and the report will be posted
shortly.
There
was $150,000 for the pilot project with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that the
minister referenced.
MS. ROGERS:
Would it be metering so that
people could see –
MR. CRANE:
We purchased 500 meters, these real-time monitoring meters that go outside, to
see what the impact would be on an individual's use of electricity, if they got
the information in real time.
MS. ROGERS:
What was the outcome of that
project?
MR. CRANE:
For the 500 people who had the meters, they saved on average about 1.2 per cent
off their electricity bills. All of the savings was concentrated in people who
had multiple heating sources, so electricity plus wood or electricity plus fuel
oil. Electricity heated homes only, there was no savings from that group.
MS. ROGERS:
Was there a whole education
program that went along with that?
MR. CRANE:
Yes, most of the group – not all, for testing purposes – received leaflets in
their bills, things like that, contest challenges as well.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thanks.
MR. CRANE:
The third project was energy efficiency in buildings training project. So we
brought together almost 250 stakeholders and explained to them some of the
technical work for the National Building Code in the residential and commercial
building sector. That was about $46,000 and that's completed.
The
Turn Back the Tide refresh that the minister referenced, $43,000; and a social
media campaign for that, in support of that, was $12,000.
We did
some work on intensity-duration-frequency curves and these are curves that
engineers use when they build a road or a bridge or a water system. We had done
some work in the previous fiscal year. Feedback from users was that we missed a
couple of things so we went back to the consultant and asked the consultant to
do a couple extra pieces of work. That was valued at about $10,000. That was
just a carry forward, essentially, from the previous year.
Similarly, we did some work modeling the business case for the National Energy
Code for Buildings in '14-'15. Last year, in response to user feedback, we went
back and had some additional work done. There are actually two separate
contracts; combined, they were valued at about $4,500.
That
took us to $306,000 out of the $310,000. Because of the salary savings in the
course of the fiscal year, the minister, at the time, indicated we could advance
two priorities that we were scheduled to do some work on in this current fiscal
year. Those were climate change adaptation tools and resources. So we consulted
with municipalities, engineers, some others – Chad can speak about that in a bit
more detail. That was valued at about $60,000.
The
last one, we did some work with the university around coastal archaeological
resources. So the federal government funded a major project. They didn't fund a
small element of that project, which was a user guide that others could use.
That was valued at $25,000. Because the federal government was not going to fund
that, we stepped in and supplemented the budget for that.
MR. TRIMPER:
That was a risk assessment.
MR. CRANE:
That was a risk assessment, yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Do you
have any evaluation or data on the outcomes of some of the projects? For
instance, turning the tide, do we know how many people are using that? What's
the rollout of that?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'll get Chad Blundon to
answer that. He works with that website.
MR. BLUNDON:
Thank you.
We do
have metrics in terms of the users that are tracked. So we know how many people
are visiting the web pages and which ones they go to.
The
development work of the new website is now complete, but the website itself is
not yet live. That will be happening very shortly. We will be tracking the
metrics from the old one versus the new one to get a sense of the improvements
that have been made and what impact that's had upon users and the user
experience.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
MR. TRIMPER:
What kind of activity did we
have last year?
MR. BLUNDON:
I have some metrics here. For example, to September 4, 2015 – and there's always
a lag in the numbers – there were 100,183 website sessions, just over 216,000
page views. There are other metrics in terms of we find out where people come to
the website from. For example, almost half of them are from Google searches and
so forth. By far, they would be the top one but we do have metrics to better
understand how people are getting there and where they come from.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
I think
my time is up.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Ms.
Rogers, do you still have other questions?
MS. ROGERS:
I do, on that same line on Professional Services.
CHAIR:
Excuse me.
Minister, do you mind if we –
MR. TRIMPER:
Not at all.
CHAIR:
Okay, thank you.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
On Professional Services we
see a significant reduction. Can you explain? Is that deduction for this year?
MR. TRIMPER:
The $160,000, approximately?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. TRIMPER:
That's a decrease in our
budget. It relates to the removal of funding for a two-year pilot initiative to
promote energy conservation in homes.
MS. ROGERS:
So that's a program we won't
be doing?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's correct.
MS. ROGERS:
It's a reduction – sorry,
for a two year –
MR. TRIMPER:
It's a two-year pilot
initiative to promote energy conservation in homes; one of those difficult
decisions.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, when we need it. It's
unfortunate.
Is
there any other work that will be done around the area of helping people to
reduce energy use in their homes?
MR. TRIMPER:
I think I'll turn to Chad.
We're
constantly working in various kinds of incentives, attitude shifts, behavioural
adjustments in all of our work, our public outreach sites and so on.
Chad,
any particular comments as you –
MR. BLUNDON:
Yes. The project the minister just spoke of was the one that Gerald had spoken
to a moment ago in terms of that pilot project to determine whether or not the
energy monitors and the various approaches were making any difference to energy
use and energy efficiency in homes. That one is just complete. So we would take
some time to assess the results of that to determine whether or not those sorts
of approaches can work.
Certainly, as we referenced through the public awareness in Turn Back the Tide
campaign, there's extensive information that's provided to homeowners, to
businesses, to communities about what they can do to be more energy efficient.
So I wouldn't characterize the nature of the work in that sphere as just being
in that one particular pilot project. There has been work that's been ongoing
and work would continue.
For
example, the office also participates in various intergovernmental committees
that work in the area of energy efficiency, since it is not just Newfoundland
and Labrador but the federal government is also playing in that sphere, as well
as all of the other provinces.
There
is work, other than the pilot project, which was just intended to be one time to
determine whether or not that particular approach would yield real results.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Are
there any grants available to groups that do education or work around climate
change or energy efficiency for public engagement?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, we currently have a
grant with the Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
How
much is that?
MR. TRIMPER:
We ran it through
Environment and Conservation. We maintain that funding level.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
You might recall we made an
announcement on that about a month ago.
MS. ROGERS:
That's right.
Are
there any other grants or monies, funding available to community groups who do
work in this area?
MR. TRIMPER:
No, we can't think of
anything at this time.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. TRIMPER:
I might add, though, Gerry,
if I could. We have a great rapport with the federal minister. She is gung-ho on
getting more activity going in provinces, such as ours, which haven't really
stepped up to date. So I look forward to that kind of dialogue and we're
certainly watching for opportunities to access funding on a variety of
initiatives such as that one.
Another
one she talks a lot about is getting communities off diesel. This is another one
that's got our interest.
MS. ROGERS:
I met on Sunday with a group
called Iron & Earth. I don't know if you know about them. They started in BC and
Alberta. They are former workers in oil and mining, any kind of extraction
industry –
MR. TRIMPER:
I've heard of them.
MS. ROGERS:
– and who are retraining and wanting to work in areas of green technology. So
they're electricians and plumbers and pipefitters. They had their founding
meeting here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in St. John's, on Sunday afternoon.
They expected about 60. There were over 30. Almost all of them were guys, mostly
men who had been working in the oil industry and in mining, who are really
gung-ho, well-educated and have some great ideas. It's already going great guns
in Alberta and BC, but we know for every one job in the oil industry – in terms
of the amount of money – there are three in the green technology industries.
I hope,
Minister, that you have a chance to meet with them.
MR. TRIMPER:
I've heard of the group.
MS. ROGERS:
Iron & Earth.
MR. TRIMPER:
As I said in my opening
remarks, it's an opportunity. If we step up we can be a leader.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes. A great resource, I
think.
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay, good.
Thanks.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Ms.
Rogers, anything further? I would like to move on if we can.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
What
are our greenhouse gas emission targets for 2020? Do we have those?
MR. TRIMPER:
The objective is to be 10
per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
So we've got some work to
do.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Is the
waste audit of the West Block for 2014 available?
MR. TRIMPER:
It's on the website now.
MS. ROGERS:
So that's on the Office of
Climate Change website?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, you can go in there and
find that.
MS. ROGERS:
Great. Thank you.
The
research that's been done around energy efficiency and government vehicles is
there any movement there? Is there anything planned there?
MR. TRIMPER:
Well, I bought an electric
car. There's one start.
Certainly, dialogue and discussion; I'm very keenly interested in moving that
forward.
Gerald,
anything particular to comment that we –
MR. CRANE:
We've explored putting in charging stations at the West Block and in the other
government offices within the city where an electric vehicle may be appropriate
to be located.
There
have been some fiscal challenges. We've done the research in the background but
we haven't taken any concrete steps.
MR. TRIMPER:
If I may, just to add, you
might recall this office released a report in November on electric vehicles in
this province and the infrastructure that's available, the needs and so on.
That's a very handy, useful reference.
MS. ROGERS:
There's also a national
group of activists and postal workers who are looking at our post offices across
the country. I think there are 60,000 of them across the country, an incredible
infrastructure. They're looking at how do we use our post offices – they could
be charging stations – how do we use them for energy efficiency.
It's
kind of interesting. I'll give you the information I have.
MR. TRIMPER:
Perfect.
MS. ROGERS:
Just one last question.
Bringing the national energy building code to Newfoundland and Labrador, where
are with at that?
MR. TRIMPER:
Do you want to take that,
Gerald?
MR. CRANE:
We committed to doing some stakeholder consultations and produce a report, which
we did. That was released the last fiscal year.
Right
now, we're in the process of meeting with the Departments of Municipal Affairs,
SNL and Transportation and Works to determine what an appropriate path forward
is. For us to do it, it would have to come in through a regulation or a piece of
legislation somehow, so finding the appropriate tool and the appropriate
timelines for doing that.
The
other challenge for us right now is that we're looking at a 2011 code. These
codes are updated every five years. The 2011 code will shortly be outdated so we
have to build that into our work as well.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you very, very much.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Before
we call the subhead, Mr. Petten, do you have any final questions? Just to be
fair.
MR. PETTEN:
No, that's fine. She did a
great job actually. She asked a lot of the questions I had to ask anyway.
There
was one thing just when Ms. Rogers asked. That pilot program, the home energy
efficiency program, what was the name of that?
MR. CRANE:
The formal name; it was the residential real-time monitoring energy conservation
program.
MR. PETTEN:
You provided grants or you
provided –
MR. CRANE:
Five hundred monitors to go on meters. It was actually a Blue Line monitor. The
monitor would go on the outside of your home. There would be a little credit
card-sized monitor that would go inside the home, and as the meter was churning,
you could see how fast it was churning in real time.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Was
there was big uptake on that?
MR. CRANE:
We had funding for 500 monitors and all 500 were installed.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
That's
good. I just wanted to clarify that.
Thanks.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Petten.
Would
the Clerk please recall the subhead?
CLERK:
2.2.04.
CHAIR:
2.2.04.
Shall
the subhead carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 2.2.04 carried.
On
motion, Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, total head, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Again,
just in the interest of time, if we could get started.
Welcome
to the Estimates Committee of the Department of Environment and Conservation. I
welcome everyone here this morning. I'd first turn it to the minister to
introduce himself and his staff, please.
MR. TRIMPER:
Perry Trimper, Minister
Responsible for Environment and Conservation. I'm very pleased to have a very
high-quality team with me here this morning. It's a great honour to work in this
department. As with all of them, I'm so impressed with the caliber of people at
the top of the game.
To my
right is Mr. Ross Firth. He's the ADM for the Natural Heritage Branch. He's
based in Corner Brook. To my immediate left is Ms. Colleen Janes. She's the
deputy minister of the department. Beside her is an ADM responsible for the
Environment Branch, Mr. Martin Goebel.
Behind
him – yes, everybody is sitting where they should be – Ms. Colleen Johnson,
she's our manager of finance and budgeting. Our controller, Ms. Robyn Hayes, is
right behind us. Ms. Melanie Thomas, right behind myself, is the Director of
Policy and Planning.
As I
introduced in the back, doing the heckling, is Ms. Emily Timmins, Director of
Communications and Mr. Ian Murphy, my executive assistant.
That's
our team.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Mr.
Petten, we're just doing the introductions right now.
MR. PETTEN:
Barry Petten, MHA for
Conception Bay South and Environment and Conservation critic.
MS. DRODGE:
Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition caucus.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm Gerry Rogers and I work
for the good people of St. John's Centre.
MS. WILLIAMS:
Susan Williams, Researcher, the Third Party.
MR. KING:
Neil King, MHA for the
historic District of Bonavista. I'm filling in for Pam Parsons.
MR. DEAN:
Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.
MR. BRAGG:
Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo
Island – Cape Freels.
CHAIR:
My name is Brian Warr. I'm
the Chair of the Resource Committee. I'm the MHA for the District of Baie Verte
– Green Bay.
Before
we get started, just again in housekeeping, if one of the staff are asked to
answer a question on behalf of the department, I'd certainly appreciate if you'd
say your name first and wait for your tally light, then you can go ahead and
answer the question.
Thank
you very much. We'll get started.
Would
the Clerk please call the first subhead?
CLERK:
1.1.01.
CHAIR:
1.1.01.
Minister, your opening remarks, please.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you very much.
Chair,
members of the Committee, I'd just like to say a few words about the process and
the decisions that lead to the creation of our departmental budget for
2016-2017.
When
our government began the Government Renewal Initiative in January, the executive
team sat together to plan a way forward and to set guiding principles for the
difficult decisions that were to come. As a team, we decided we would be guided
by the principles of environmental stewardship in Newfoundland and Labrador. In
other words, we would maintain the core priority areas of safe and sustainable
drinking water, big game and wildlife management, do protection of species of
conservation status, protected areas and overall environmental protection.
These
decisions were made with the utmost consideration and with the best advice
possible. We welcomed and encouraged input from department staff. We gathered
information and suggestions from the government-wide, open-dialogue initiatives.
Our
senior management team, which is around me now, includes highly-skilled
engineers, biologists and other experts entered this process with an open mind
and provided measured and sound advice on how we could do things differently
while saving public money and generating much needed revenue.
We
recognized we must contribute to revenue generation and bring our fees more in
line with other jurisdictions. As part of this exercise, department officials
conducted reviews of our fees and jurisdictional scans to inform our decisions.
In many cases, our fees have fallen behind other provinces, particularly in
Atlantic Canada. In others, the fees do not achieve cost recovery or did not
fairly reflect the tremendous value of our natural resources.
For
example, the budget sees the first increase in environmental assessment fees in
18 years. We are raising the water rental rate for hydro-electric developments
to come in line with other provinces and better reflect the value of this
natural commodity.
If I
may say an additional word about the most difficult aspects of the budget, some
of the hardest decisions were those that led to an elimination of a public
sector position. Beginning on budget bay, our officials began the difficult task
of giving notice to 11 employees that their positions were being eliminated.
Three other employees were notified that their positions were changing from
full-time to seasonal. In addition, six employees were advised that their
positions are in effected out years, in the coming years.
We are
acutely aware that budgets are not merely exercising in mathematics and with
every choice people are directly affected, both within the public service and
within the public we serve. Our team took this charge seriously, and while we
have reduced funding and shifted focus in some areas, we sit before you today
knowing we have made the best choice, the best possible decisions, decisions
that preserve the core functions of the department for the benefit of the people
of this province.
I thank
you and we welcome your questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
Mr.
Petten, we're currently speaking to 1.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
Good morning, everyone.
Some
familiar faces from my previous times. Thank you all for coming here to answer
our questions.
Again,
Minister, if you don't mind, I have some general questions before we go into
line items.
MR. TRIMPER:
Please.
MR. PETTEN:
I guess I'll start off where
you just finished there first. You say about positions – where were those
positions you cut? What divisions were they cut from?
MR. TRIMPER:
I have a line by line. Do
you want me to go through each of those or sort of a general –
MR. PETTEN:
Just a general.
MR. TRIMPER:
Perhaps I'll go to –
Colleen, do you want to just describe in general where, please?
MS. JANES:
Good morning.
Our
positions are generally dispersed throughout the department in a number of
examples in terms of environmental scientists. We have a couple of
administrative positions that were impacted as well. We have some park rangers
that were impacted in terms of full-time to seasonal capacity. I would say
fairly dispersed in Pollution Prevention. We restructured the division and moved
from six sections down to three. So there were some positions removed in that
process. There were several we were able to achieve through natural attrition,
retirements or the elimination of vacancies.
But as
the minister reflected in his opening remarks, there were 11 individuals who
were in occupying positions that were notified of position eliminations and
three that we're moving from year-round to a seasonal occupation.
MR. PETTEN:
During the budget they
announced it was 650 positions. Are those part of the 650?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's correct.
MR. PETTEN:
Those 11 positions?
MR. TRIMPER:
Absolutely, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
It was
announced in last year's budget, the attrition plan, were there any positions
identified under the attrition plan or any elimination because of the announced
attrition plan last year?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'll let my deputy take
that.
MS. JANES:
Yes, in addition to initiatives that we undertook through the budget in GRI
process, we also identified three positions as part of the former Attrition
Management Plan. So that's not reflected in the numbers the minister just
referenced, in terms of our overall 19 that arose from budget and GRI processes.
We did have three positions associated with the Attrition Management Plan that
were also put into effect near the end of March.
MR. PETTEN:
So that makes it 14 then,
does it?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's actually a total of
19 positions.
MR. PETTEN:
Nineteen.
MR. TRIMPER:
Nineteen positions overall
are affected by the budget; three of them were through attrition, 11 are being
eliminated. We had five vacant positions that are being eliminated.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
If I could, the deputy wants
to clarify a point.
MS. JOHNSON:
The 19 positions that the minister has referred to arose from decisions from the
budget and GRI processes. In addition to that, we also had our attrition
management plan that we continue to implement. That was three additional
positions.
We also
had a position that was contractual for a short-term period. We concluded that
at the end of March which was its designated end. Then we had six positions that
were clean up from prior years. They'd been vacant for a while and it was really
getting the positions off the books.
When
you add all of those together, the impact on '16-'17 is 26 less positions, but
that doesn't mean 26 people were impacted.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I have
some general questions I was going to get to, too. Park fees; how much extra
revenue is expected to be generated from the increase in park fees?
MR. TRIMPER:
What I could do is give you
a couple of examples. We don't have Estimates for all of them just because of
the nature. For example, in Pippy Park campground fees, we're estimating an
additional $9,000 incremental.
I'm
going to go to Colleen Johnson. She's looking like she has an idea there.
MS. JOHNSON:
Estimated additional revenue in '16-'17 for Parks and Natural Areas is $83,600.
MR. PETTEN:
Eighty-three thousand
dollars?
MS. JOHNSON:
Eighty-three thousand and six hundred dollars.
MR. PETTEN:
You just mentioned Pippy
Park. Fees from that park – that goes directly to the government accounts,
general revenue?
MS. JOHNSON:
No.
MR. PETTEN:
No. It goes to Pippy Park?
MS. JOHNSON:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Right. My other question is
what kind of impact does the cut – because they got their grant cut as well.
What kind of impact is that going to have on Pippy Park?
MR. TRIMPER:
If I may, well, obviously
it's a cut in their operations, but they do receive revenues from other sources.
We work very closely with the folks overseeing the Pippy Park Commission and its
operations. So as painful as it was, it is a plan that we feel we can work with
and continues to operate the facility.
MR. PETTEN:
Again, with fees, I notice
there were a great deal of fee increases in your department as opposed to a lot
of others. Is there any perceived impact? I know that (inaudible) fee increase
something, but there are a lot of fees increased, from license renewals to the
full gamut. In asking impacts, what the impact will be is a broad, broad
statement, but I guess are you anticipating to have much negative – do you
anticipate that will be accepted negatively?
MR. TRIMPER:
Obviously, no one likes to
pay more, but as I said in my opening remarks – and I'd like to elaborate a
little bit just on some of the rationale for the fee increases – we found a lot
of them were very much out of sync with Atlantic Canada and across the country.
We found some of them had not been moved since 1998.
Our
environmental assessment fees, for example, hadn't been touched in years. You've
got entities coming forward with multi-million dollar undertakings and it's a
huge demand on our staff. So we wanted to move to, first of all, increase after
almost 20 years, but also a tremendous amount of time and energy is demanded of
government to provide these services. So we're moving towards some cost-recovery
opportunity.
I think
by way of example, if I could, just in the last two days we have launched our
online camp reservation system with new rates and fees and so on. I would point
that within one to two minutes in each of the different regions that we went
online with we completely sold out. So it doesn't seem to have slowed down, at
least those aspects of what we do. A tremendous interest and I feel it's really
a recognition of the important natural commodities that we offer in this
province.
MR. PETTEN:
What operational changes
were made in the game management? How is this money going to be saved? I can't
remember the exact figure, but in game management there is a – is it how we do
our census?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm going to put out some
opening thoughts and then I'll turn to Ross Firth for a comment.
Many
jurisdictions are moving more to habitat modelling, using the data and the
information that has been collected for many years, and many decades in our
case, to better understand what's on the ground, and more or less work with that
information to forecast in the future, for example, what harvest rates should
be, where populations are going and so on.
Traditionally, wildlife ecology and management has been one of very much
inventory based; counting animals, coming up with adjustments and then setting
quotas. We're shifting away from that somewhat. So there will be less frequent
inventory. For example, in moose management areas we'll be doing fewer of them
each year and they will not be done as often; nevertheless, we still will be out
there. We're moving more to more habitat based and other population modelling.
Ross,
did you have a comment on that?
MR. FIRTH:
Just in addition to what the
minister mentioned, just to give you an example, we're going to be stopping the
coyote carcass collection program. As you know, we've been collecting coyote
carcasses for a number of years and have built up an incredibly robust database.
We've been collecting a number of variables such as body conditioning, age, sex
of the animal and reproductive status. We have quite a strong database right now
which allows us to do analysis and, as the minister indicated, project trends
over time in the future. So we do have some good strong databases right now and
that's an example right now.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Just in
the interest of adding some order to our deliberations here this morning, we are
on 1.1.01. I noticed that the minister and his department are flicking back and
forth in their books because there are sections on the park, there are sections
on wildlife, so if we could just stick to the headings. There will be an
opportunity where we will go inclusive from a certain heading to another
heading. They'll be inclusive and you can ask questions pertinent to those
different sections, but if we could stick it would be just a little bit of order
for everybody in the interest of time.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I want
to go to the Minister's Office, 1.1.01. My question is what caused the revised
numbers to go over budget by $78,000 – Salaries, sorry, by $78,000? How will the
savings be achieved in this fiscal year?
MR. TRIMPER:
The increase over the
projected budget for last year was a result of a retirement and we had leave
payouts for two political staff. The slight decrease is in relation to my
executive assistant. We pay him less but I would suggest he's worth more. I'll
just enter that into the record.
MR. PETTEN:
In Transportation and
Communications, I see there's an increase of $24,000. Why the increase this year
over last?
MR. TRIMPER:
I happen to live in Labrador
and it's a pretty expensive place to come back and forth, versus my predecessor
who was able to be home at night. It's a fair dollar to go back and forth.
Welcome
to my reality. I'm doing my best to keep the cost down but that's the reality.
MR. PETTEN:
Under 1.2.01.01, Salaries,
there was a savings last year, I guess, of $73,000 in the revised. Was there a
vacant position that caused this to drop? If it was, is it being filled? Because
it looks like it's gone back up a bit this year.
MR. TRIMPER:
The $76,300 you're talking
about?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay.
We had
a vacancy. It was a secretary to the ADM, and we had a communications director
at a lower step level than budgeted. Again, worth more, paid less.
MR. PETTEN:
A question under Executive
Support, Revenue – Provincial, where does that revenue come from? What is this
revenue?
MR. TRIMPER:
We handle the salary for the
chair of the MMSB.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
The CEO, I'm sorry.
MR. PETTEN:
That's the salary portion
there.
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes. That flows through our
department for his position.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Chair, how far are we
along? What's the –
CHAIR:
We're just on 1.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
My time is up.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
I would
like to thank all of you for your dedication and hard work. Some of our most
precious treasures are in your hands for your stewardship. Your leadership is so
important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in how we also all handle
the incredible treasures that we have in our province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. So I thank you for your work. I know how hard it is with the present
fiscal situation.
I've
come to start calling the GRI exercise, the grim exercise, because I know how
tough some of those decisions are. I guess my role is to try and push for as
much as we possibly can so that we can all do the work to our best ability, and
particularly in this area of protection and stewardship and looking to the
future and how to best handle the wonderful treasures that are part of our
province. So thank you for your work; thank you for being here today.
I just
have one question that was raised earlier before we continue on with the line by
line. When the deputy minister said we had 26 fewer positions, are any of those
outside of the number of jobs – was it 600 or 650 – government had announced
that would be directly cut?
MR. TRIMPER:
Colleen Janes.
MS. ROGERS:
Thanks, Colleen.
MS. JANES:
The 650 that was referenced
by the Minister of Finance as part of the budget; my understanding, at least our
component of that, would be that those numbers would have been reflected of the
budget and GRI decisions. The other numbers I referenced are a contract position
that was coming to a natural end. That concluded March 31, which was prior to
the budget. There were six positions identified in prior years for that, as no
longer required. So really it was getting the position numbers off our books.
MS. ROGERS:
Right. So those six, would
they be part of the 650 or those are outside?
MS. JANES:
Not to my understanding.
What I believe was included in the 650 are the 19 positions that the minister
would have referred to.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you very much.
So if
we continue on our line by lines, 1.2.02, Administrative Support. The Salaries,
we see a reduction in '15-'16 of $45,000, $46,000. Did we lose a position there?
MR. TRIMPER:
It just reflects less
students that were anticipated for this fiscal.
MS. ROGERS:
Summer students working in
the park area?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, summer students.
MS. ROGERS:
So that was '15-'16. There
were fewer students there were there?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm sorry. We had four co-op
students there, too.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. We've lost those four
co-op students but the anticipation for '16-'17 is that those numbers will go up
again?
MR. TRIMPER:
Colleen Janes is going to
take that.
MS. ROGERS:
This is under Administrative
Support, yes?
MS. JANES:
Yes. So what you're seeing there is a reduction in our revised expenditure from
what was budgeted for '15-'16. That was reflective of the fact that we only had
two summer students plus four co-op students last year and we had anticipated
eight summer students and four co-ops. We had achieved the level of co-op
students but underachieved on our number of summer students. We are anticipating
and have budgeted for the eight, plus four again for this fiscal year.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
So try
again.
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Grants
and Subsidies, can you give me an idea to who the grants and subsidies go to?
What kinds of work that would be?
MR. TRIMPER:
Sure.
In
2015-2016, for example, the two CCME, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, there was $16,794, and to the Canadian Parks Council an additional
$2,000.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
1.2.03,
Policy Development and Planning, under Professional Services there was a budget
for $35,000 and it was revised to zero in '15-'16 and also zero in '16-'17. Can
you tell me the type of professional services you had anticipated and now
there's no budget for that there?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'll get Melanie Thomas to
comment on that.
MS. THOMAS:
Typically, the policy division would, as required, undertake evaluations of
departmental programs and research. So, traditionally, that's how our
Professional Services dollars have been used. Those were not required in '15-'16
and it's not anticipated in the current year either.
MS. ROGERS:
Can you tell me, Melanie, a
little bit of what kinds of programs you would have had evaluated?
MS. THOMAS:
It has varied over the years. More recently, and I believe it was in concluding,
in '14-'15 there would have been a review of the Green Fund, which was a funding
initiative the department had launched a number of years ago, a cost-shared
program with the federal government.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
And
then, moving on to General Administration, 1.2.04, can we just have an idea of
what the plans are for some of the capital expenses?
MR. TRIMPER:
Some of the capital
expenditures?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes. I guess in '15-'16
there was nothing budgeted but then there was an expense of $16,000.
MR. TRIMPER:
I can go through each of
those items. First of all, that $16,100 reflects an infrastructure piece at
Butter Pot park. We were putting a bridge in. That work is done.
The
next line item, $55,000, that's actually a redeployment of vehicles within a
department. It had initially been proposed to buy them. We were able to find
them within our fleet, so we just redeployed them.
Then
finally, we had an additional line item of $2,900. That was where we used less
funds than required to replace a vehicle and a generator at Butter Pot, so small
items there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
1.2.05,
Pippy Park Commission, we see a reduction this year of $142,300. How will that
affect Pippy Park? What is that reduction based on?
MR. TRIMPER:
This was an amount that we
collaborated with the folks running the park, as I indicated earlier. It
represents that effort to reduce expenditures throughout government.
We have
$142,300. That represents one grounds maintenance position. It was an equipment
operator, so that was lost through attrition. We cancelled the purchase of two
vehicles, but I'd like to note that we, again, found some more vehicles in our
fleet. So we provided to Pippy Park two vehicles they were looking for; moving
them around so they'd be better used.
There's
a reduction in building and equipment maintenance projects, a reduction in some
maintenance supplies, reduction in park signage, a reduction in lumber for
picnic tables, travel and some reduction in training.
MS. ROGERS:
It's a bit of a hit there
for Pippy Park, isn't it? When we look at the additional fees we will only
anticipate bringing in $9,000.
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
So that's, what, almost –
it's over 25 per cent or 25 per cent reduction.
MR. TRIMPER:
It's 25 per cent of what we
provide, but not in their overall budget.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh, okay. So there's more –
they have more money coming in from other places in the department?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's correct.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, all right. Thank you
very much.
And if
we move on to 2.1.01, Environmental Management –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Can we
just stick to 1.2.01 to 1.2.05, and then we'll –
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, absolutely.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Any
further questions, Ms. Rogers, on 1.2.01 to 1.2.05?
MS. ROGERS:
I guess back to Pippy Park,
do you anticipate – no, it's okay. I'm satisfied with the answers.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank
you, Ms. Rogers.
Mr.
Petten, anything on 1.2.01 to 1.2.05, inclusive?
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, just one question,
actually. I just wanted to ask on Pippy Park, what's the total operational
budget for Pippy Park? I know that's what we provide as the government, $2.6
million I guess. What is the total operational budget of Pippy Park?
MR. TRIMPER:
We're looking around to see;
it may be one of those ones we'll have to get back to you on. We'll come back to
you on that, if we could. Make a note of that. You stumped us.
CHAIR:
Okay, would the Clerk please
call the next subhead?
CLERK:
2.1.01.
CHAIR:
2.1.01.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh, is it not my colleague's
–
CHAIR:
He's finished with –
MS. ROGERS:
The line by lines?
CHAIR:
– 1.2.01 to 1.2.05. We are only on
2.1.01 now.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes. Okay, thank you very
much.
So
under Salaries, we see the revised budget for '15-'16, an increase of $174,000,
and then in '16-'17 a decrease of $153,000. Can you just explain that?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'll take the increase
first. That reflects retirement and leave payouts for the director and the
manager. That represented some $306,300. That was offset by vacancies for a
portion of the fiscal year. We had two environmental engineer positions and one
manager position. So on balance, that represents an increase.
The
decrease you referenced, the $2,339,000 and why that number is down from the
budget of the previous year, that decrease of about $153,600 reflects reductions
during our GRI, our budget process. There are two positions of which one is
vacant. So that's a manager and an environmental engineer. That's offset by
salary costs arising from the JES representing another $27,000.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Professional Services; we see an increase of $77,000 in '15-'16 and then another
increase of $150,000 in '16-'17. Can you explain the types of professional
services those increases might represent?
MR. TRIMPER:
Sure. I'll make a comment
and then I'll probably turn to Martin Goebel for a little follow-up.
First
of all in the increase of the $77,000 that reflects costs associated with
contaminated sites contracts at Shoal Point, Hopedale, Butter Pot, Camp 33, Come
by Chance and New Harbour. It's a monitoring and an ISLAP, Phase I ESA reports
on old military sites in Trinity Loop. There's a variety of sites that's
involved there.
Is that
what you were looking for?
MS. ROGERS:
I think so, yes.
MR. TRIMPER:
Martin, anything further to
add?
MR. GOEBEL:
Thank you, Minister.
No,
that was just pretty well exactly what it is. They're professional services
where consultants are engaged to do site assessment type work for the most part.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Then
under Purchased Services we see quite a reduction there of $223,000 in '15-'16
and $338,000 in '16-'17. Can you explain anything you may have had to
discontinue?
MR. TRIMPER:
This relates to work going
on at Hopedale. It's a former US military site. To date, government has spent
some $12 million. This year we're anticipating spending another $1.46 million –
I'm getting nods, $1.46 million. We did pull back on an anticipated some
$200,000. There are two elements to that project. One is dealing with the
remediation of contaminated soil such as PCBs and so on. We are proceeding with
that. That's a human health issue. We're very concerned about it, so we're
complete status quo. We're progressing on that.
The
other element is a site called the Old Dump Pond and there's metal and debris
that is not contaminated. It's certainly a bit of an eyesore, but it's not a
health issue, so we've foregone that activity this year. That had been
earmarked, but we pulled back to address this fiscal situation.
MS. ROGERS:
The Old Dump Pond – is that
one location or is that a number of locations?
MR. TRIMPER:
I turn to Martin.
MR. GOEBEL:
It's one location near the community of Hopedale.
MS. ROGERS:
Right. Okay, thank you very
much.
The
Revenue from the federal government, we see there was a dip in the revised for
2015-16 and anticipation once again for $25,000. What would that revenue be?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's related to site
inspections for Health Canada.
MS. ROGERS:
Our province does them and
Health Canada pays for them. Is that it?
MR. GOEBEL:
That is correct. It's an MOU we have with Health Canada, under pesticides
actually, to do site inspections, as the minister mentioned.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
The
Revenue on the provincial level, what would that be for? We see quite a jump
there in the anticipated revenue in '16-'17.
MR. TRIMPER:
Thank you.
It's
interesting; our department actually oversees a variety of fees that are out
there.
What
you are seeing here is an increase of some $922,500 reflecting our increased
revenue due to those modifications that we projected and implemented, as well as
revenue from MMSB, Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, for environmental
initiatives. So we've received $1 million from them and we'll be using it on
programs.
MS. ROGERS:
What kinds of programs might
you be using that for?
MR. TRIMPER:
That is going towards the
Hopedale remediation work that I just indicated, for this example.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
I'm
just seeing if there are any other questions I had in that area. No, I think
we're fine.
2.2.01,
Water Resources Management.
CHAIR:
No, we're still on 2.1.01.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. I'm done there.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Mr.
Petten, 2.1.01.
MR. PETTEN:
My colleague asked most all
of them. I just have one brief question under Employee Benefits. What changed
for the budget to change from $10,000 last year to $900 this year?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, that's just reflecting
a line-by-line review, just looking for efficiency in there. We were just
rightsizing.
MR. PETTEN:
What's included in Employee
Benefits? What would that be?
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay.
Colleen
Janes is going to answer that one.
MS. JANES:
Typically, under Employee Benefits we would pay out things such as conferences
that are related to our mandate that include opportunities for staff to avail of
new information and take that back to deploy in the workplace.
So in
terms of the expenditure under this activity last year, there was a backyard
composting conference, there was a Department of Fisheries and Ocean Fisheries
Act workshop; things of that nature is what you would expect under Employee
Benefits.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
That's
all I have on that section.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Thank
you, Mr. Petten.
Would
the Clerk please call the next set of subheads?
CLERK:
2.2.01 to 2.2.02.
CHAIR:
2.2.01 to 2.2.02 inclusive.
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Salaries, it appears Salaries are increasing. Could you explain that for me,
please? It might not be a lot but there has been an increase.
MR. TRIMPER:
There's an increase of some
$54,900 that reflects both JES and some reclassification costs.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
There's some sun setting of
funding from the Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association, or ACASA. So
that's a decrease of $48,000. We've also identified some savings through our GRI
in our budget process of $44,800. There's a Clerk Typist III and other
departmental centralization of administrative services in the St. John's
location. So it's a combination of things, moving parts in there, and you're
seeing a slight increase.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, thank you.
Under
Professional Services, what type of services is included here?
MR. TRIMPER:
Well, we're talking about –
okay, I'm going to give it to Martin Goebel.
MR. GOEBEL:
The current budget for Professional Services has four components: $821,000 is
for the Hydrometric Agreement, which is a cost-shared program that measures
water quantity; $275,000 is for a flood damage reduction study of the Waterford
River, which will be continued. It's ongoing now and it will be continued in
2016-17; $180,000 is for contract work for a new project to look at adapting
standard operating procedures for boil-water advisories. This is a drinking
water initiative. Another $50,000 will be for a contract to look at dam safety.
MR. PETTEN:
What accounts for the
$500,000 in the revised for 2015-16? I see it's gone back up a bit but it's
still not what the original budget was of last year of $1.553 million.
MR. TRIMPER:
We have a hydrometric
agreement. There's some savings there due to decommissioning of several industry
funded stations. We have reduced projects under ACASA, as we mentioned, and as
well we have a delay in the flood risk mapping project for the Waterford River.
MR. PETTEN:
There is a delay in that you
say?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's correct.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Purchased Services, I guess the question there is what type of things would be
there under Water Resources when you look at Purchased Services? What's included
in that?
MR. TRIMPER:
Do you want to take that,
Martin?
MR. GOEBEL:
The Purchased Services are
used for such activities as drinking water testing, the hurricane flood alert
work and other activities related to the mandate of the division.
Basically, it's mostly drinking water testing for the most part. It's the
provision of the laboratory services that are required because we do the testing
at accredited laboratories.
MR. PETTEN:
It was $60,000 over budget
last year and it's $100,000 less this year. What was the reason? Why did it go
over budget? Why did we have to revise it in 2015-16?
MR. GOEBEL:
There was some money
transferred into that account for the purpose of working on the hurricane alert
system.
During
the hurricane season, our department models the anticipated rainfall and
converts that in terms of flooding in communities. We alert communities that are
in a hurricane trajectory – a weather trajectory – to alert them not just of the
rainfall precipitation but whether there could be flooding. That work is a
purchased service because we use a weather service consultant for that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, I see there's nothing there this year. What's been
eliminated?
MR. TRIMPER:
It's reflecting the sun
setting of the funding for that ACASA program. It was a period of time – how
many years? Three years?
OFFICIAL:
Three years.
MR. TRIMPER:
It was set up for three
years. So it's just that program has ended, just not ongoing anymore.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Revenue, what
program was the federal revenue supposed to be from? There's nothing there now.
MR. TRIMPER:
Did you refer to
federal-provincial?
MR. PETTEN:
In the Revenue, under the
federal line it says there's nothing there this year. It was $30,000 last year.
MR. TRIMPER:
That's all related to that
same ACASA program.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
What
about the provincial portion, what's –
MR. TRIMPER:
That's a rightsizing, just
based on historical revenues. It's offset by fee modifications. So there are a
couple of things going on there, but it's just reflecting the past and an
estimate of what we would probably see this year.
MR. PETTEN:
In the 2.2.02, Salaries,
were dollars saved by positions being vacant – $123,000 in savings? Are the
positions being removed? Is that what happened here or retirements?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm going to get Colleen to
–
MR. PETTEN:
Sure.
MS. JANES:
There are a couple of things occurring here as well. The overall decrease from
last year to this year is $123,200. That's reflective of reductions through the
budget GRI process of
$78,000 associated with an environmental scientist in Water Resources
Management. We also have the Attrition Management Plan that we referenced
earlier, in terms of a position that came out in '15-'16 that is no longer
budgeted for now in '16-'17.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Flip
down to the Revenue on this section here too. So the federal revenue on this
one, what's this federal revenue from here? We see it's $76,000, down from
$121,000?
MR. TRIMPER:
It's a reduction of federal
funding for some special projects, and I'll turn to Martin to comment on those.
MR. GOEBEL:
That reflects some
contributions that Environment Canada would have given to us for water quality
programs, but there were no special studies carried out under that activity, if
you will.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
What
about the provincial portion? What does that involve? Where does that come from?
MR. GOEBEL:
That revenue reflects
cost-shared revenue that we get, largely from industry, for real-time water
quality monitoring stations. We have stations that measure water quality at some
of the major mine sites and dam sites. There's always changes that gets
reflective of the industry. There were a few stations that were removed. That
reflects less income in that category.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I just
remind the Member that his time has expired. Is there a closing question that
you'd like to –?
MR. PETTEN:
I just have one left, if you
don't mind, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Minister.
MR. TRIMPER:
That's fine.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Purchased
Services up here, there's a noticeable drop, obviously. It was budgeted for
$100,000. It's down now to $45,900. I notice last year it was only $27,000 used.
What's included there and how are these savings achieved? I guess it's all a
part of the same question.
MR. TRIMPER:
That is actually a decrease
of about $72,400. It's reflecting – we cancelled a real-time workshop and some
other related activities that were associated with the mining industry because
of that slowdown. We decided to cancel the workshop. There was associated
downsizing of industry-funded network as well.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Petten.
Ms.
Rogers, 2.2.01 to 2.2.02.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
I'm
good with the line by lines. I just have a few quick questions.
The
groundwater pollution study around the Torbay Airport, has that been completed?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'll turn to Martin Goebel.
MR. GOEBEL:
I can't say for sure, I'm
sorry.
MR. TRIMPER:
We're not sure. We can get
back to you.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Do we
have any idea whether the federal government is going to take responsibility?
Because I know the pollution was due to the federal firefighting training over
the decades. Is there any idea of what's going on there?
MR. GOEBEL:
We've been discussing this
with the federal government. Of course, they're more than aware of this, but
there has been really no discussion as to that aspect of it. We have to, I
guess, first really delineate the extent of that plume and whether it's having
an impact downstream and to what extent.
MS. ROGERS:
So, Martin, is it that we're
just not sure if the study is finished or it's finished, we just don't quite
have a handle on it yet. What do you think?
MR. GOEBEL:
I'm just not quite sure if we have the final report that I could say, yes, it's
finished, and then I could give you the report. But I'm not quite sure about
that aspect.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great. Thank you.
It's an
interesting area.
How
many boil-water advisories do we have now? Do we have a sense of what's been
happening in the past year? Have they been changing? How many communities are
affected?
MR. TRIMPER:
While Martin is looking –
the number changes quite frequently.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, I know.
MR. TRIMPER:
But I'll flip over to
Martin, maybe, for the latest update, if you're able.
MR. GOEBEL:
Yes, as the minister mentioned, this is a number that changes quite frequently
in each community's circumstance. But just to answer your question, more
specifically in total in 2015-16 – this would be up to March 31 – there were 336
boil advisories issued. In that same period, there were 324 boil advisories that
were lifted. So there are actually many cases where a community would have a
boil advisory, they correct the problem. So that's not reflective of the number
of communities, but that's just the raw number of boil advisories.
The
difference between those two numbers is 12. There's a constant turnover of boil
advisories for various reasons. It could be anything from routine maintenance
that requires a boil advisory because water is being flushed through the system,
to testing results where there are inadequate chlorine residuals or whatever the
case may be.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. I imagine some are
short in duration, some can be longer.
MR. GOEBEL:
Absolutely, yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Do we have any communities
that are on a permanent boil order and how many?
MR. GOEBEL:
Well, we define long-term boil advisories as boil advisories that are five years
or more. Yes, we do have a number of those. In some cases, they've been on for
many years; they simply don't have a chlorination system. But we are working
towards reducing those long-term ones.
We've
had fairly good success in a couple of examples where we've used standard
operating procedures, a study that was completed just last year. There was a
pilot done on two communities to see if standard operating procedures would help
and, in fact, it has. So we're hopeful that with the upcoming study I mentioned
earlier that we'd be able to put in place standard operating procedures that
would address many of the long-term boil advisories.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
And
about how many would be on long term, about how many communities? Just sort of a
ballpark.
MR. GOEBEL:
I want to say roughly about 150 or so. That's a very round figure if you don't
mind me saying it that way.
MS. ROGERS:
And has that number been consistent over a while, the number of communities?
MR. GOEBEL:
Well, it's been consistent because obviously it's longer than five years. The
total number of boil advisories at any given time has dropped from over 300 when
we first started tracking boil advisories in 2001, to roughly right now around
220 boil advisories that are in place on average. Again, as I mentioned earlier,
the actual boil advisories come and go, but on an average we're around that
number.
They
tend to go up a little bit more in the summertime because you have a couple of
factors such as warm water temperatures combined with more maintenance being
carried out. So we tend to get a bit higher number during the summer and then
during the winter that drops off. But that number has been somewhat steady. It's
been a bit hard to get that below 220 simply because there are a fair number
that are on the long-term basis where it's a bigger problem to correct the boil
advisory.
MS. ROGERS:
So the 150 communities – that's been pretty steady for a while, has it, around
that number of communities that are on a long-term boil order?
MR. GOEBEL:
It's been fairly steady. It's largely the same communities. We do have a very
comprehensive list that we maintain on our website so the public can, at any
time, access that list and can get all the information about that boil advisory
such as what the reason is and why it's been placed to the community that's
affected, the water supply in that community.
You
have to remember that some communities have more than one water supply and
that's not always a given that each water supply in that community has a boil
advisory, or even a boil advisory for the same reason. So that information is
maintained very accurately and is the best source of information on a daily
basis.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
I'm
fine thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Would
the Clerk please call the next subhead?
CLERK:
2.3.01
CHAIR:
2.3.01.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
2.3.01, Environmental
Assessment and Sustainable Development. When we look at Salaries we see a
reduction in the revised amount in '15-'16 and then also a significant reduction
in 2016-17. Can you just please identify what that represents.
MR. TRIMPER:
The first reduction from the
2015-2016, that's about $119,800. That reflects vacant positions for a portion
of the fiscal year; there was an environmental scientist and a wildlife project
biologist.
Then
for our Estimate for 2016-17, that's a decrease of $320,700. It reflects
reductions that comprise four positions of which one was vacant. So there's a
sustainable development research scientist, an administrative officer,
environmental scientist and a WPEO is a word processing equipment operator.
MS. ROGERS:
Do we still have word
processors? No.
MR. TRIMPER:
It's the classification I
guess.
MS. ROGERS:
It's a classification, yeah.
MR. TRIMPER:
It's a new acronym for me.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Transportation and Communications; we see a significant drop in both the revised
amount and then for 2016-17. Is there anything in particular that was planned
for and not undertaken? What are we not doing there now?
MR. TRIMPER:
No, not at all. It's really
just rightsizing. It's our line-by-line review in both cases. We're just
anticipating less travel this year.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Purchased Services we see – what kinds of purchased services would be there and
what are we anticipating not doing?
MR. TRIMPER:
We have a little reference
here. I'll get that for you.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thanks.
MR. TRIMPER:
For last year, for example,
it refers to things like leased accommodations, vehicle maintenance and there
are shredding and copier charges.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
In the
revenue we see a significant drop in provincial revenue. What would that revenue
be and why has it dropped so much?
MR. TRIMPER:
The first one, the
2015-2016, that's just less revenue received from the permits as well as
recovery costs from industry. It's project-based, so it depends on what's
happening at the time.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, yes.
MR. TRIMPER:
Then, projecting this year,
we're just rightsizing. Looking back you only see one year here, but we've gone
back several, of course, to say let's just put our hopes where they should be in
our anticipated amounts.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, good.
Thank
you.
I'm
fine, thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
2.3.01.
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
I'm fine as well.
CHAIR:
Okay. Thank you.
Would
the Clerk please call the set of subheads?
CLERK:
3.1.01 and 3.1.02.
CHAIR:
3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
first one I want to ask about is Salaries, of course. Why the increase in
Salaries from the budget of 2015 to the revised '16? Yeah, it's not a big
increase, but there is an increase.
MR. TRIMPER:
First of all, referring to
what happened in the previous year, there's an increase of $41,200. That's
reflecting the extension of some seasonal staff. We kept them on for fall
maintenance and then there were severance costs associated, offset by vacancies.
There was a manager and an environmental scientist involved there.
The
amount that you're seeing here now projected in our Estimate for '16-'17,
there's an increase of $69,400. That's reflecting salary costs arising from a
JES which amounts for $85,000, as well as a variance in the year-two funding for
Mistaken Point. That represents $125,800.
There
are five additional positions. Again, moving parts – partially offset by our
budget exercise and initiatives, which represent $141,400. There are operational
efficiencies. So as I indicated earlier, we've moved back away from the
year-round operations at Butter Pot, Notre Dame and Barachois. We are proposing
to no longer operate this winter coming.
MR. PETTEN:
Under your Professional
Services, I noticed nothing was budgeted, but $29,000 was spent in 2015-2016
under revised. So what's being forecast for 2016-17 to go from zero to $286,000?
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay, so a couple of things
here. They all relate, frankly, around the T'Railway and the trestle at Terra
Nova.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
The $29,000 actually
reflects a contract for the Terra Nova trestle plus the legal fees.
The
$286,500 reflects new funding that we've allocated for an assessment of
T'Railway structures across the Island. So we've allocated a quarter-million
dollars to complete an inventory of the state and condition of some 130
overpasses that comprise this park.
MR. PETTEN:
And the T'Railway.
MR. TRIMPER:
And the T'Railway.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Purchased Services; I noticed that's increased, too, by a fair amount, $262,000
or close on it. What's contained in this line item?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's the other part. We
break up the repairs to the Terra Nova trestle. There are consulting fees that I
just described and this is the actual contractor. We've allocated some $243,500
for that.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
Then there are some other
small things associated with it, electricity costs, and we have an increase in
funding allocated with year two for Mistaken Point.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, where do these grants go? It's $154,000 straight across
the board.
MR. TRIMPER:
We provide $150,000 to the
Newfoundland and Labrador T'Railway Council and we provide $4,000 to the
Canadian Parks Council.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Where
would the revenue – I know it's not big amounts there under your federal and
provincial. What are those revenues and where do they come from?
MR. TRIMPER:
The provincial one, there's
a slight decrease. That just reflects a reduction in the sale of inventory
items, so books and posters.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
We talked about this the
other day. We shot rather high in terms of what we thought we might receive. So
we've rightsized that based on looking back over several years.
The
federal revenue, that's related to costs at Gros Morne that are shared with the
federal government. We're no longer incurring those costs.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Park Development, under Salaries there, again, not a big drop, but there seems
to be somewhat of a variance there. There's less –
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, you've got a
line-by-line review. The other activity going on there is just less overtime
costs than budgeted. This is what you saw in the revised for 2015-16.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
I guess
the drop in Transportation and Communications, is that less?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes. There's nothing
necessarily removed, it's just a line-by-line review. The $8,000 drop in the
$3,300, that's just a reflection of less travel than was anticipated.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
One
more question. Up on top under 3.1.01 in Supplies, what type of supplies? It's a
fair amount of money.
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay, I'll just look this up
for you.
Supplies; we have things like office supplies, heating fuel, propane, food
items, small tools, appliances, first aid kits, some of the larger items and
construction and maintenance supplies associated with cleaning in the parks.
We've got some machinery, fuel for government services, personal and household
supplies, construction and field safety. It's quite a wide range.
MR. PETTEN:
Mishmash.
Okay,
Mr. Chair, I'm good on those two sections.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Petten.
The
Chair would request that we take a five-minute recess prior to 3.1.01 and 3.1.02
for you Ms. Rogers. Five minutes, so if we could be back by 11 o'clock.
Thank
you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll get started.
We're on 3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.
Ms.
Rogers you're up.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm
satisfied with the line by line; I just have a few questions. We know that the
ecological reserve managers that we lost were removed in 2013 in Cape St. Mary's
in the Witless Bay ecological seabird reserve. We've been hearing a little bit
about an increase in violations. Without the on-site managers, is there any plan
to return those, reinstate those?
MR. TRIMPER:
First of all, we're unaware
of an increase in violations. Do you have somebody just mentioning this to you?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. TRIMPER:
I guess as the department
responsible for issuing, we're missing that part of that equation.
No,
we're not.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, maybe we can talk a
little bit further about that outside of Estimates.
MR. TRIMPER:
Sure.
MS. ROGERS:
Is there any plan at all to
return those on-site managers?
MR. TRIMPER:
Not at this time.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
But
none of the ecological and wilderness reserves have monitoring or protection.
Will the natural areas system plan that your government has committed to moving
forward with consider assigning conservation and wildlife officers to these
reserves?
MR. TRIMPER:
I guess, first of all, the
task before us is to identify those areas and make sure they represent the
various ecosystems in the province. Then, through that planning process, I guess
at that time we'd undertake to see what steps will be required to ensure their
integrity going forward.
Ross is
perhaps going to add a comment.
MR. FIRTH:
Just to add to your comment
that none of those reserves have any monitoring or management. I would suggest
that, in fact, they do. We have staff that do, in fact, do monitoring of our
wilderness reserves and our ecological reserves. And there are management plans
in place for many of those reserves as well.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
I guess
this stems from folks who are concerned about perhaps not enough – in their eyes
– monitoring and are concerned about the status of that for our parks, for our
reserves.
The
wilderness and the ecological reserves advisory committee, will that be meeting
regularly and working on the natural areas systems plan?
MR. TRIMPER:
Absolutely. Actually, they
were in my office just a few days ago. I know several of them; I've worked with
them prior to my own political situation.
No, I
see this as an extremely important group. We've had a very productive discussion
just last week and are in regular contact. So I see it being a key source of
information and support as we go forward.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Will
there be public consultations?
MR. TRIMPER:
There are actually public
consultations happening now, that they're overseeing and supporting us on,
regarding a particular aspect of some work in Central Newfoundland.
MS. ROGERS:
All right, great.
I must
say I'm very excited about the T'Railway development as well. I use different
parts of it a lot, biking and hiking. It's such a treasure and the potential
there is so great.
MR. TRIMPER:
Well it was hours I was on
the job and I was certainly hearing about the importance of that facility, so
yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Great. Thank you very much.
I'm
fine there.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you Ms. Rogers.
Would
the Clerk please call the next set of subheads?
CLERK:
3.2.01 to 3.2.06.
CHAIR:
3.2.01 to 3.2.06.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
Under
01, Transportation and Communications, we saw an increase of $303,000 for the
revised for '15 – '16. Can you just elaborate on that?
MR. TRIMPER:
So that's associated with mail-out costs of licences and applications for big
game for two fiscal years. We had a delay in the mail out so it just got carried
over.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Delay
in carry-over. Thank you.
So then
you were back again to what would have been anticipated for the year.
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, that's correct.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
Purchased Services – an increase in the revised amount in '15–'16 and a decrease
of $51,000 for '16–'17. Can you just talk a little bit about that? What kinds of
Purchased Services would they have been?
MR. TRIMPER:
Sure.
First
of all, the increase, that's about $63,600. That's associated with banking fees
and the preparation of the mail out of the big game applications. That's a big
activity in our department. And the decrease, we've identified savings there.
We're using more online tools for the Hunting and Trapping Guide, so there's a
savings of $21,000 there, and further reductions that we identified during our
budget GRI process of $30,000.
I'll
just look to see if my colleagues have any additional comments.
MS. ROGERS:
It's great that the
licensing is going online for hunting and fishing, but will there still be print
copies and mail-in registration?
MR. TRIMPER:
We've provided print copies
in all of our offices across the Island, a limited supply. But, yes, they were
available for hard copy.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. And will be this year
as well, this coming fiscal year?
MR. FIRTH:
You're talking about the Hunting and Trapping Guide, are you?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. FIRTH:
Yes, they're available this year.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
Thank
you very much.
3.2.02,
Endangered Species and Biodiversity; so the revised from '15 – '16 was a drop in
$80,000. If I could just have some information on that.
MR. TRIMPER:
You're referring to the
Salaries?
Yes,
that's a reflection of two vacant ecosystem management ecologist positions for a
portion of the fiscal year. One was due to maternity leave.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
And
Transportation and Communications, there's a small drop there.
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, similar to my earlier
comment on one of the other sections. It's just a reflection of less travel. It
was anticipated in that line-by-line review, so there's nothing that was
necessarily removed; it was just rightsizing.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Now,
the previous government removed the guardians at the Burnt Cape Reserve on the
Northern Peninsula. That was for the protection of the rare Braya plants.
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Will the guardians be
reinstated this year?
MR. TRIMPER:
At this time we have no
plans to do that.
Correct?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Can we
have an update on the Species Status Advisory Committee and how often they meet?
MR. TRIMPER:
Perhaps I'll turn to Ross
for that comment. I could describe elements of it but Ross is more familiar.
MR. FIRTH:
The SSAC, the Species Status Advisory Committee, meets on a pretty regular
basis, I believe. Most recently, they met, I think, it was in February or March
of this year. They remain active.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
In
terms of the corridor for the transmission lines for Muskrat Falls, I understand
it's a 600-metre corridor, so over half a kilometre. Do we have any idea the
effect that has had on the status of our wild flora and fauna? How has the
collection of our wild flora and fauna been going because I know there were
significant cuts over the past few years?
So I'm
interested in the collection of it and the preservation. Can you talk to me a
little bit about that?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm going to take the first
part of the question, and Ross, I'll turn to you.
In
terms of the impacts from that line; as you know, the project went through a
thorough environmental assessment, along with a very robust mitigation program.
Now, as the construction proceeds, there are environmental monitors on site
making sure those promises and commitments, including what we directed, are
being carried out.
In
terms of the collection of fauna and flora, I'm not sure what you're – are you
relating to just an inventory of – instead of trying to guess, could you just
elaborate on that question?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, we used to have a very
specific program where we had a scientist who would collect and catalogue. I'm
just wondering where that is now.
MR. TRIMPER:
Well, the department
certainly has very trained, experienced botanists based in Corner Brook,
primarily, who are engaged in this work on a regular basis. So they are
monitoring – especially the species that are on our species of conservation
status list concern. We're keeping a close watch on those.
Ross,
do you want to –?
MR. FIRTH:
The minister is correct in stating that we do have a botanist on staff.
MS. ROGERS:
We have one botanist, is it?
MR. FIRTH:
There's one botanist, yes, within the Wildlife Division who is based in Corner
Brook. That particular position does build and administer a plant collection. So
there is a plant collection and space, a dry area within our laboratory space
within Corner Brook and that collection is maintained there.
MS. ROGERS:
So we don't have any public
displays of flora and rare species, anything like that?
MR. FIRTH:
We have, in the past, loaned out some samples and specimens to The Rooms. If,
from time to time, The Rooms want to display or have certain galleries which
they wish to display, either flora and fauna specimens from time to time, they
will seek specimens from us and we'll do a temporary loan for them.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
(Inaudible) but my time is
done.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Petten, on 3.2.01 to
3.2.06.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Thank you.
3.2.01,
I have just one question up here. Salaries, why are they over by $50,000 last
year and this year they are less $70,000? Is that a position eliminated there as
well?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
Mercifully, this was before my own time, but my sympathy for my colleagues.
The
$52,300 reflects overtime costs associated with the defective salmon tag issue,
and we had a privacy breach that occurred. Big game application packages were
received by incorrect individuals in 2015; so two little challenges there that
resulted in the increase in cost.
The
decrease you see, that's reflecting our budget moves; I think I indicated that.
We've got a Clerk Typist III that implements the new licence validation seal for
hunting and angling, and that's partially offset by increasing salary costs from
the JES.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.2.03,
Stewardship and Education; again, with Salaries. Is that a position? How do we
account for the savings there? Was a position eliminated, because it was less
revised but then it is back up again? Last year in revised it dropped to
$100,000, so it's still like $56,000 less than what it was last year.
MR. TRIMPER:
The revised; first of all,
that decrease that's $107,300, that's reflecting vacancies for a portion of the
fiscal year. There's a senior manager, and what's classified as an Animal Herder
and Trades Worker I. That's for a position at Salmonier.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
The Salaries under our
Estimates for this year, there's a decrease of $55,800, and that's reflecting
one less funded position due to an attrition move, a retirement.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Just
one small item, but just out of curiosity; Property, Furnishings and Equipment,
there's nothing budgeted in the year, yet it was close on $10,000 went into
revised. What would that be, office furniture or –?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, it's the purchase of
stackable chairs and folding tables for the new interpretation centre.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.2.04,
Transportation and Communications; it's a big drop from what was budgeted last
year. How were these savings achieved?
MR. TRIMPER:
What you're seeing is less helicopter time there. In the $$587,000 reference
there, the revised from last year, there's a decrease of $136,300 and that's
associated with our moose management plan. So less air services for the South
Coast, and there was also a caribou survey that we've pulled back on.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
This year the Estimates,
there's a reprofiling of funds to the research associated with the moose
management plan. We've reduced expenditures around operational changes in game
management and research. As I indicated in my opening remarks and we spoke about
a little bit, the new management approach to how we're monitoring our wildlife
populations and completing our population estimates; a lot more working with
data and computer simulation and modelling.
We do
have an offset because we are still – we have some increased funding associated
with year two of our implementation of the moose management plan that government
released last year.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Under
Supplies, again from last year's budgeted amount to this year is a substantial
drop. Is that all tied to the same thing?
MR. TRIMPER:
What you're seeing there is
particularly associated with the Labrador Caribou Initiative. A lot of these
programs involve upfront purchases, for example, of satellite collars and so on,
very expensive items. Once you have those deployed you're costs go down
dramatically as you roll through your program.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
3.2.05,
Transportation and Communications; would that be as a result of the moose
management as well or research, the transportation increased by a substantial
amount. Was that another –?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes, that's air services,
the revised in the 2015-16. We've got an increase in air services.
We've
also got an increase in the reprofiling of funds from the Habitat, Game and Fur
Management, the Moose Management Plan, some $200,000. It's offset by reductions
through our budget – the inland fish program. We've announced that we're phasing
out the inland fish program. We've retained the staff but the field component is
not going to occur.
MR. PETTEN:
So I guess that answers why
there's been a $200,000 drop in Salaries as well?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's associated with a
game and fur management position with the Moose Management Plan.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
Supplies, why such a – you only have $68,000 in this year's budget but it was
over $300,000 last year?
MR. TRIMPER:
That's reflecting less
supplies and equipment required during this fiscal.
I'll
turn to maybe, Colleen. Do you want to elaborate a little? Why not?
MS. JOHNSON:
The minister spoke to it in Habitat, Game and Fur as well. When we have
different programs, different years of the programs, we purchase different
items. Our supply requirement for this year was less than required.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Thank you.
Under
Grants and Subsidies, where do these grants come from? I know this year there is
more budgeted; quite a bit more than what was last year.
MR. TRIMPER:
Grant payments, $10,000 went
to Memorial University. The program is called legacy effects of moose browsing
and multiple spatial scales.
MR. PETTEN:
But this year there is
$125,000 budgeted?
MR. TRIMPER:
Okay, so what we've done is
we've phased out the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science – we're going to get to
that item, I would assume. The contracts that were administered there, we've
moved into this element of our operation.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
So what you're seeing is
about $110,900 moving in to this particular aspect of our budget.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MR. TRIMPER:
There are four contracts
that are ongoing. We're fulfilling our obligations there to see them to their
completion.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. Thanks.
Under
3.2.06, Revenue, where does this federal revenue come from? What is this grants
or projects or – it's federal money for something. What does it entail?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm going to get Ross Firth
to explain that.
MR. FIRTH:
Could you just repeat the
question, please?
MR. TRIMPER:
He wanted to know where the
revenue came from, the federal revenue (inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
Revenue, where does it come
from?
MR. FIRTH:
There are a number of
different sources for that.
As the
minister indicated, one of them is the Eastern Joint Habitat Venture funding.
That's part of a broader North American Waterfowl Management program. We get
money to support waterfowl management through our stewardship program.
We also
get an annual contribution through our firearm safety program from the federal
government. As you know, part of our Firearm Safety/Hunter Education program is
based part on that safety aspect, so the RCMP provides a level of grant funding
for us to actually deliver that program.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay. I'm almost done there
now.
I guess
one other question on Purchased Services. It's not so much a drop but what's
involved in Purchased Services under the Cooperative Wildlife? What would be –?
MR. TRIMPER:
For example, some of the
increases are a result of vehicle maintenance. I think that's primarily just
keeping our gear in place and operations.
Go
ahead, Ross.
MR. FIRTH:
Under the Purchased Services
for the Cooperative Wildlife Projects there are things such as vehicle and
equipment maintenance, equipment rental, satellite usage fees, contribution to
the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre as well. So a variety of
expenditures related to that heading.
MR. PETTEN:
In Purchased Services, a lot
of things don't fit that goes there.
I'm
good, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Petten.
Would
the Clerk please call the next subhead?
CLERK:
3.3.01.
CHAIR:
3.3.01.
MS. ROGERS:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
I'm sorry.
MS. ROGERS:
(Inaudible) it's just I
haven't had a chance to ask any questions here yet on the 3.2s.
CHAIR:
On 3. –
MS. ROGERS:
Some of the 3.2 categories.
CHAIR:
I was of the understanding
that you started off at 3.2.01 to 3.2.06, but if you have further questions –
Minister, you have no issues?
MR. TRIMPER:
Sure.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great. Thank you very
much.
The
wilderness program for women, Becoming an Outdoors Woman, used to be two days. I
understand this year it's one day. Is it?
MR. FIRTH:
I think you're referring BOW, Becoming an Outdoors Woman.
MS. ROGERS:
Becoming an Outdoors Woman,
yes.
MR. FIRTH:
My understanding is it's still two days. I can check on that and get back to you
for sure, but my understanding is it's two days.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. I've been told that
it's one day and I was just curious about that.
Can we
get an update, or perhaps it's online, I'm not sure, for instance the number of
moose and caribou we have, the number in the herds across the province? If
that's online or if you want to give that to me afterwards, that would be fine,
in the interest of time.
We have
the numbers for 2015 or we had them previous to that.
MR. TRIMPER: Do
you want total provincial population?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. TRIMPER: We
have a variety of herds, locations –
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. TRIMPER: It
would be online but I'll – go ahead, Ross.
MS. ROGERS: If
it's online, I can find that. Thank you very much.
Why is the Inland Fish Research Program being eliminated?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm going to start this and
I'll get Ross to come along behind. In recent years, the federal government
pulled back from that aspect of its responsibility, so the province stepped in
to fulfill that.
We're
anticipating much better co-operation with Ottawa. We're implementing a gradual
pullback from this, as we are in discussions right now with federal fisheries
for them to go back and acquire their mandate.
Ross,
anything to add there?
MR. FIRTH:
No, I don't think I have anything further to add, other than just to reiterate
the fact that the management of inland fish is a constitutionally mandated
federal responsibility. So this reflects that.
MS. ROGERS:
And if they don't step up as
much as we would hope that they would and we're somewhat retreating, what's
going to happen there?
MR. TRIMPER:
Well, we're going to give it
our best shot and we'll see what we can do.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Why is
the small game and furbearer research program being cut?
MR. TRIMPER:
As I indicated in my opening
remarks, we had some difficult decisions to make. We felt, in similar ways, as
we looked at the province, socially, we really wanted to make sure our resources
were there for the most vulnerable parts of the aspects of what we do in
Environment and Conservation. It's not to say that these species are not
important but the work that goes on there tends to be not so much preoccupied
with species of special conservation status and so on. So we've pulled back on
that aspect of our work.
MS. ROGERS:
Some tough decisions.
MR. TRIMPER:
These tend to be populations
that are stable and doing well, we've pulled back on associated research.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm fine, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Would
the Clerk please call the next subhead.
CLERK:
3.3.01.
CHAIR:
3.3.01.
Mr.
Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't
have a lot of questions on this one. I was somewhat familiar with this division
from my previous life. It's more of an impact question. Undergraduates, there
was a program offered for graduates students, wasn't it, to come in – Ph.D.
students and whatnot, out in Grenfell College. They would come in and do their
studies in this –
MR. TRIMPER:
I'll let Ross – he's more
familiar with the particular situation.
Go
ahead, Ross.
MR. FIRTH:
Yes, you're correct. The research projects were really focused on Memorial
University graduate students, so masters and Ph.D. levels, yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes.
Is
there any opportunity now – is this moved over? Is that also still available to
those students?
MR. TRIMPER:
As I indicated, we are
fulfilling the commitments that we had with these four ongoing programs. We've
taken the administration of these contracts to other aspects of the department,
but the work will proceed and we're going to continue to support it.
MR. PETTEN:
That's still going to be
available to the students?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
How
many positions were eliminated as a result of this being moved or this division
being –
MR. TRIMPER:
Two positions.
MR. PETTEN:
Two positions?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
As we
said, the research will be done but we have that moved over into the Wildlife
Division now, right? It's just incorporated?
There
was a director of that division. Are they still employed? Is that one of the
positions that was eliminated?
MR. TRIMPER:
The positions have been
terminated, both of those positions.
MR. PETTEN:
As a result of the budget?
MR. TRIMPER:
Yes.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
That's
all I have to ask there. I think everything else is pretty well okay.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Petten.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Just a point of
clarification for myself. In fact, the research monies that were available
through this program, that same level of research monies will be available but
administered elsewhere in the department. Is that it?
MR. TRIMPER:
For the ongoing contracts
and just for '16–'17. For the ones that we had accepted, were funding to a
certain period of time, we are going to fulfil those obligations, but in terms
of having money available for future opportunities, no.
MS. ROGERS:
So, no.
MR. TRIMPER:
No.
As I
said, we decided we needed to pull back to our core services. As important as
this work is – and we want to complete these existing contracts. To fund
additional research questions at this time is just not warranted with all the
choices we had to make.
MS. ROGERS:
So there was $80,000 that
was in the pot there for research for the students, is it?
MR. FIRTH:
Yes, I think there were four separate research projects which totalled in the
region of that amount.
MS. ROGERS:
And what kinds of research
projects were they, Ross?
MR. FIRTH:
There were four different ones. One was around greenhouse gas emissions in
peatlands, there was another one on mink farming and house flies, there was a
third one on metapopulation in Labrador caribou and a fourth one was on Mistaken
Point Ecological Reserve.
MS. ROGERS:
So that would be a total
elimination of that kind of money for that kind of research in the province. Do
we know if there is an increase in research money available through MUN, through
Grenfell, for those kinds of research projects?
MR. TRIMPER:
I'm not aware at this time,
but as I said, we saw these programs as being important. Given that they had
already started and were doing good work, we were not going to leave them high
and dry. We wanted to see them completed so we've committed to doing that.
Research questions are always out there. It's important to tackle them; it's
just that within the department's budget at this time we had to pull back.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Ms. Rogers.
Would
the Clerk please recall all the subheads?
CLERK:
1.1.01 to 3.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
1.1.01 to 3.3.01.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 3.3.01 carried.
CLERK:
The total.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Environment and Conservation, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Environment and Conservation carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Environment and Conservation carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
Just some housekeeping
First
of all, I need a mover for the minutes of the Resource Committee for April 21.
MR. DEAN:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Moved by Jerry Dean.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Carried.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
Again, under housekeeping, I
just wanted to remind the Resource Committee that we will be meeting again on
Monday evening at 6 with Advanced Education and Skills here in the Assembly.
I'd
certainly like to take the opportunity to thank the minister and his staff for
your co-operation this morning, and certainly want to thank all Members again
for their co-operation as well.
I would
entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. BRAGG:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Derrick Bragg.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.