May 5, 2022
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lela Evans, MHA for Torngat Mountains,
substitutes for Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Tom Osborne, MHA for Waterford Valley,
substitutes for Paul Pike, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans, substitutes for Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits, for a portion of the
meeting
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse au
Clair, substitutes for Lucy Stoyles, MHA for Mount Pearl North.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Abbott, MHA for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi, substitutes for Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.
CHAIR (Warr):
Good Morning.
We will finally get this under way. Anyway, great to have the department here
this morning and to our Committee as well. We are a little short, but they will
be trickling in momentarily.
My name is Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay, and I am happy to chair
your meeting this morning. So before we get under way, I just wanted to announce
our substitutions. Sitting in for the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's is the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi; substituting for the Member for Mount
Pearl is the MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse Au Clair; substituting for the Member
for Burin - Grand Bank is the Member for Waterford Valley.
MHA Forsey is here to deal with WorkplaceNL and he will be substituted by Chris
Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans once he is finished workplace
health and safety. Substituting for the Member for Labrador West is the Member
for Torngat Mountains.
We will have an unaffiliated Member come in shortly. MHA Trimper is going to
join us this morning. So as we have done in the past, two of the Committee
Members will offer MHA Trimper some time at the end, 10 minutes, if everybody is
in agreement.
With regard to the department, always identify yourself. Just put up your hand.
If the minister decides for someone to speak, just put up your hand, identify
yourself, wait for your tally light
to come on and proceed with
your remarks.
We'll
probably take, if necessary, a washroom break maybe halfway through. Members and
officials are reminded not to make any adjustments to the chairs they're seated
in; they've been all preprogrammed. So anyway, before we start, we're going to
look at the minutes for May 3, and I look for a mover of acceptance for those
minutes.
C. PARDY:
So moved.
CHAIR:
MHA Pardy.
Seconder? MHA Forsey.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Contra-minded?
Motion
passed.
On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
So this morning we're going
to consider the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Climate Change,
and we will be starting off with workplace health and safety. I'm going to ask
the Committee Members to introduce themselves, and we'll go to the department
after.
C. PARDY:
Craig Pardy, MHA, the
historic District of Bonavista.
B. RUSSELL:
Brad Russell, Director of Communications and Digital Strategy with the Office of
the Official Opposition.
P. FORSEY:
Pleaman Forsey, MHA for
Exploits.
L. EVANS:
Lela Evans, MHA for Torngat
Mountains.
S. KENT:
Steven Kent, Sessional Political Support for the Third Party.
J. PUDDISTER:
Jess Puddister, Sessional Support for the Third Party Caucus Office.
S. PRITCHETT:
Sonja Pritchett, Research Coordinator, Government Members' Office.
CHAIR:
And if I could start here,
please.
V. SNOW:
Valerie Snow, Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change.
B. DAVIS:
Bernard Davis, Minister of
Environment and Climate Change, and representative of the beautiful and historic
District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
B. STEELE:
Bonnie Steele, Departmental Controller, Environment and Climate Change.
D. MARNELL:
Debbie Marnell, Director of Communications.
S. SQUIRES:
Susan Squires, Assistant
Deputy Minister of the Climate Change branch.
T. KELLY:
Tara Kelly, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment branch.
H. KHAN:
Haseen Khan, Director of Water Resources.
R. LOCKE:
Robert Locke, I'm the Director for Pollution Prevention.
K. CONNORS:
Kara Connors, Minister Davis's EA.
V. WOODWORTH-LYNAS:
Victoria Woodworth-Lynas, Director of Policy, Planning and Natural Areas.
CHAIR:
Okay. Welcome to you all.
If I
could have the Clerk call the first set of subheads, please.
CLERK (Hammond):
Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Review, 6.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 6.1.01 carry?
Some
opening remarks from the minister.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, I'll
take about an hour and half just to answer all your questions. In advance of
them, we went through Hansard and
answered every question that you could possibly answer, we hope.
But I
do want to say a big thank you for the third opportunity to host our Estimates
here in this hallowed hall. But the big thanks go to the people behind me and
the many people that are over in the department that did all this work three
times now to try to be prepared for this. So thank you to the staff. I'm lucky
enough to have the best staff in all of government supporting what we are able
to do in this department.
So
thank you and good morning to everybody for being here today. I'm excited to do
the Estimates for Environment and Climate Change. I'm also the minister
responsible for labour and the Labour Relations Board, as well as the Labour
Standards Division. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division as
well, we're going to do that to kick off the Estimates today.
But I'm
also responsible for some entities like the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board,
WorkplaceNL, and the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council.
I'll
begin by highlighting some of the activities of the Department of Environment
and Climate Change. As a department, we've focused on supporting environmental
protection and enhancement through implementing water resource and pollution
prevention regulations and policies and coordination of environmental impact
assessments.
Our
Climate Change Division focuses on developing strategies, policies, research,
analysis and initiatives related to climate change adaptation and mitigation, as
well as efficiency.
It has
been a wonderful learning opportunity to see how the department engages with
stakeholders, organizations in support of environmental protection. Their work
results in better outcomes from an environmental protection perspective in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and I've seen first-hand as a minister how the
knowledgeable and dedicated staff in the department are advancing environmental
and climate change actions within the province.
The
Climate Change Action Plan and green economy is one of our pillars. Protecting
the environment for future generations is a priority of our government. We
continue to support Canada's goals for environmental protection and reducing
carbon emissions, including achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. We all have a
part to play when it comes to climate change. Every action we take today makes a
difference tomorrow. Urgent effort is needed to meet our 2030 and 2050
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and we're making progress, but we know
much more needs to be done.
In
2019, the Climate Change Action Plan set out a course for immediate steps for
green energy and the economy. This five-year plan is working toward net-zero
emissions by 2050 and we know additional actions will be needed, as I've
mentioned earlier. Of the 45 action items committed in the Climate Change Action
Plan, 67 per cent of those have been completed; 33 per cent we've made
significant progress on.
It's
not just an effort of our department but it involves 11 other departments and
agencies within government. We continue to work to advance the actions of the
Climate Change Action Plan and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by
2050, implementing programs that support transition to low-carbon global
economy.
The
federal government has also played a role in moving us towards the green
economy. We are continuing to pursue opportunities to partner with our federal
colleagues on opportunities that benefit Newfoundland and Labrador. The Low
Carbon Economy Leadership Fund is one of those partnerships. Through this
federal program fund, with partnership with the provincial government, we've
invested some $89.4 million over the past five-year period to tackle climate
change and lower energy bills to support clean, economic growth in the province.
Under this fund, we have some great projects that receive
funding in the province. By 2030, these programs and funds, organizations that
we've funded, will deliver over 830,000 tons of cumulative greenhouse gas
reductions and over 650 person-years of employment.
To date, we've invested $78 million to support greenhouse
gas reduction projects. There's more to come from a residential standpoint,
commercial, transportation and industrial sectors and public buildings as well.
For example, we made a recent announcement for fuel switching at Memorial
University to change out the oil-fired burners to electrifying those. This will
be a significant part of our electrification and will help stimulate clean
growth.
We've also put talk into action with respect to the
electric vehicle programs and oil to electric, and I'll talk about those for a
quick second. We provided support to residents, both reducing greenhouse
emissions and, as I mentioned before, to reduce their energy consumption as well
as their energy bills and costs.
We announced an addition $1.9 million in this budget for
electric vehicle charging infrastructure and incentives, including $2,500 for
consumers to purchase or lease an electric vehicle and $1,500 towards those
plug-in hybrid vehicles. These initiatives is an expansion of the successful
program that we had last year.
In the end of 2021, there was 284 battery electric vehicles
operated in the province, up from 195 in 2020 and 113 in 2019. The demand for
electric vehicles continues to grow and it's anticipated there will be hundreds
more involved in the province by the end of 2022.
In addition, we've also announced an addition $2 million to
transition homes whose sole source of heat was oil to electric. This program
will provide an additional $2,500 to the last year's $2,500 program to $5,000 in
this year's budget. This initiative is expanding on our program from last year
and last year we had 100 applicants. So far this year we've received somewhere
around 140 in the first four weeks of the program. So that's an impressive
increase and we're very happy with that.
We've also increased the eligibility for the Home Energy
Savings Program, which is the oil program, to increase the threshold from
$32,500 to $52,500, which is going to finish out that program and help alleviate
some concerns for some more people in this province. The eligible homes are
single-family homes, row, or semi-detached houses. That's a non-repayable grant
for up to $5,000 to help energy efficiency. So all of those things are working
in concert together.
In December of 2021, we announced the membership for the
new Net-Zero Advisory Council.
This is
only the second one of its kind in the country. This council will identify and
review near-term and foundational actions that the government can make to help
Newfoundland and Labrador on a stronger path to achieve greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets. The council will also advise on global trends to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and the important use of carbon sinks, which is
important for our province, for sure.
Each member of the council brings their own perspective on
net-zero challenges and I'm thankful for their contributions and we're looking
forward to hearing their advice. The opinions expressed by these individuals are
their own and does not reflect the advice or conclusions of the council.
We continue to work and advance our Climate Change Action
Plan implementing programs and supports the transition for low-carbon global
economy. We continue to support improvements and access to drinking water and
waste water systems in the province and have regulatory programs dedicated to
ensuring we continue to have some of the cleanest water and air in our country.
I'm pleased to say that the work is progressing very well
towards the final public release of the Drinking Water Safety Action Plan.
Public consultations have been completed and the department is the final stage
of drafting that plan. The safety of public drinking water supplies and reducing
the number of long-term boil water advisories is a top priority for us.
Just recently the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs and I announced almost $250,000 to continue the regional Water and
Wastewater Operator program here in our province. This program is focused on
building local capacity and knowledge for the delivery of water services. Under
this program, regional operators work with communities to address the challenges
associated with operating and monitoring modern drinking water and waste water
systems.
With
waste water in mind, I'd like to mention that we are continuing the COVID-19
waste water surveillance program. Samples will continue to be sent to the
National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, which they undertake the analysis
and the provincial government is committed to making waste water data available
to the public through the dashboard that we have on our website. That same
information will also be provided to Health and Community Services for decision
making. And anything we can do that's going to try to be critical indicators and
potential early warning signs, we want to maintain.
With
respect to early warning signs, the Department Environment and Climate Change
also has a mandate to undertake flood risk mapping under the
Water Resources Act in order to
minimize flood damage in flood prone areas and communities. Flood risk mapping
is an important tool for governments and communities in terms of land
development, infrastructure investment and sustainability. Through provincial
and federal funding for climate change adaptation, flood risk mapping studies
are being updated and new ones undertaken using climate change forecasts.
It is
critical to update flood risk mapping on a regular basis in order to protect
public safety and effectively adapt to impacts with respect to climate change.
This will allow municipalities to both plan for current and future climate
conditions and minimize the damage to property, infrastructure and as a result
cost savings over time.
With
our Labour Relations and Labour Standards Divisions we provide conciliation
services, assist employees and employers to promote stable and constructive
labour relations, a climate to foster productive workplace relationships and
partnerships.
On
January 24, the provincial government announced the membership of the
five-member Minimum Wage Review Committee. The purpose of this committee is to
review inputs solicited from targeted stakeholders on minimum wage in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This committee announced their
consultation process on February 21. Interested parties, employers and employees
had the opportunity to participate online through engageNL.
I thank
everyone that contributed their opinions to this public consultation process. By
establishing an independent review committee which includes individuals who have
first-hand lived experience with minimum wage from both an employer and an
employee perspective, we are providing another outlet to examine and address the
minimum wage rate in this province.
I
expect that report very soon. Later this month in particular. We remain
committed to monitoring and reviewing labour standards legislation to ensure it
remains relevant and responsive and comparable to other jurisdictions across the
country. On April 1, the minimum wage was increased to $13.20 an hour and the
minimum overtime wage increased to $19.80.
Newfoundland and Labrador
has joined several other provinces and territories by recognizing the National
Day of Truth and Reconciliation with a paid holiday for provincial public
servants and entities. The federal government passed legislation to create this
statutory holiday to commemorate the legacy of the residential schools in
Canada.
Bill C-5 creates a statutory
holiday for employees in the federal government and federally regulated
workplaces. To date, no provincial or territorial jurisdictions have introduced
similar legislation for a paid holiday. We are monitoring the implementation of
the federal amendments and potential discussions across the province and other
territorial jurisdictions.
To honour survivors and
raise awareness about the terrible legacy of residential schools in Canada, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reserved National Day of Truth and
Reconciliation on September 30, 2021, as a paid holiday for public servants.
Non-essential government agencies, public schools and entities were closed for
the day.
The provincial government is
committed to undertaking a review of how the National Day of Truth and
Reconciliation will be adapted by the public service and province-wide this
year. As part of the review, government is seeking targeted input and
submissions from Indigenous governments, employee groups, employer groups and
other key stakeholders regarding the implementation of a statutory paid public
holiday to recognize National Day of Truth and Reconciliation.
Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Review Division reviews final decisions of WorkplaceNL for errors
in the application of policy or legislation under the authority of
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation
Act.
The final report of the
Statutory Review for Workers' Compensation System was released on June 18, 2021,
and it contained a total of 48 recommendations. As minister, I receive regular
updates from WorkplaceNL and Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review
Division on the status of 29 of the 48 recommendations that are considered
operational.
WorkplaceNL and the Review
Division noted that the operational recommendations are complete at addressing
record keeping and monitoring systems for phone calls, maintaining the current
structure of occupational health and safety committees and standardizing
training of occupational health and safety committee members. In addition,
substantial progress has been made to modify the language of decision letters to
improve clarity and the use of plain language, including the removal of
references to final decisions from decision letters.
Preliminary work has begun
on the establishment of the two joint committees between WorkplaceNL and the
Review Division that was recommended from the review. The remaining operational
requirements are at various stages of review analysis and the implementation.
The 19
non-operational recommendations require additional financial, legal and policy
consideration. Some may even require legislative amendments. Further updates on
the status of these recommendations will be made in the department and
WorkplaceNL's annual report. I appreciate the due diligence being exercised by
WorkplaceNL and the Review Division, as well as the department officials as they
work through the next steps of the process, and we thank all those involved in
the process.
Waste
reduction programs – we announced a new initiative led by the Multi-Materials
Stewardship Board to help clean up litter across Newfoundland and Labrador in
preparation for Come Home Year 2022. The MMSB Come Home Year Community Cleanup
Project was a funding initiative to support cleanup of litter and properly
dispose of bulk items in areas such as roadsides, trails, beaches, parks,
outdoor recreational spaces. Grants of up to $5,000 were available to
municipalities, Local Service Districts, Indigenous community groups,
organizations, non-profit and community organizations. The program was an
overwhelming success, with 256 projects receiving funding of about $520,000.
In
December of 2020, we launched the Recycle at School Program in western region of
the province. This is another initiative led by the MMSB and the Newfoundland
and Labrador English School District. They are providing 45 schools with
colour-coded recycling bins, as well as educational resources to help students
and staff properly sort paper, mixed containers and refundable beverage
containers. Recycle at School will support schools participating in Western
regional waste management's mandatory recycling program.
The
Recycle at School Program was first piloted in 2014 in selected schools at
Eastern waste management service region. Key findings from the pilot identified
potential for schools across Newfoundland and Labrador at diverting about 50 per
cent of their daily waste from landfills through recycling efforts. In 2016, the
program was implemented in 43 schools in Central regional waste management
service region, and as of today we are pleased to see that 89 schools in the
province are now using the program.
These
programs have a positive impact in protecting the environment and supporting our
schools and school communities. It also supports the changes in students as they
go home, as well. Every piece of litter begins in someone's hand, and these
projects will help divert waste from our trails, parks, school grounds and
roads, and keep our communities clean.
In
conclusion, there are just so many initiatives to be proud of in the Department
of Environment and Climate Change, and I look forward to going through some of
them in the line-by-line review with my colleagues in the House of Assembly here
today. I would be remiss if I didn't say a big thank you in preparation of all
this stuff to the staff that are going to help answer some of your questions
here today and I look forward to that. So off to the races we go.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I've
been doing Estimates since 2015, and it's probably the first time that I had an
opportunity to sit a minister down for going over his time, or her time, in
opening remarks. So good on you, Minister.
B. DAVIS:
I made sure I didn't look
up, by the way.
CHAIR:
6.1.01.
MHA
Forsey.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you.
First
of all, Minister, thank you for your time. I really appreciate the time to be
here to answer some questions this morning. Other than the long-winded info
there, everything is okay, everything is good.
Especially though, I'd like to thank your staff; I really would. All staff
within the government departments have been good to us. I know when you spoke
your names there, I did remember sending emails or even conversations with a
couple of you that you don't see from day to day, so it's nice to actually put a
face to the name. Again, thanks for all your help during the year.
We'll
go with the line-by-line questions first. I do have some extra questions, but
we'll just go for the line-by-line ones first. In Salaries, there is $155,600
more budgeted this year compared to what was spent last year.
B. DAVIS:
The increase over what was
spent last year?
P. FORSEY:
Yes.
B. DAVIS:
That's forecasted salary
increases that would be based on the contract.
P. FORSEY:
In Transportation and
Communications, there was $36,300 less spent compared to what was budgeted last
year. What was the reason for that?
B. DAVIS:
There was less travel.
Travel to the regions did not occur in the first part of the fiscal year due to
COVID-19. In-person hearings then resumed after that. You're going to hear
throughout there where there are differences in that area, right across the
board, it's probably going to be based on COVID, or as I say, because COVID.
P. FORSEY:
Professional Services:
$65,000 less spent compared to what was budgeted last year.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, so that is lower costs
due to the review commissioner vacancies.
P. FORSEY:
Purchased Services: $20,000
more budgeted for this year compared to what was spent last year.
B. DAVIS:
That was again due to lack
of out-of-town hearings, and lower meeting costs during COVID restrictions and
in-person hearings have now since resumed. So that's why it's gone back up in
this budget verses what was at the end of last year.
Revenue
- Provincial, there is basically $270,000 more budgeted this year compared to
what was taken in last year.
B. DAVIS:
So I think the revenue is
down, recovery cost from WorkplaceNL; that is an in and out sort of thing. We
pay the bill but WorkplaceNL funds the review division through the – what's the
body?
OFFICIAL:
Injury fund.
B. DAVIS:
Injury fund. So it is funded
directly from that. So it's an in and out fund for us so there was less money
required last year because of those vacancies, is my understand.
P. FORSEY:
Good.
B. DAVIS:
And it's expected to be
normal again this year.
P. FORSEY:
Okay.
We have
a few general questions. How many review commissioners are there at this point?
B. DAVIS:
Susan, do you –?
S. SQUIRES:
There are currently four review commissioners; one is a chief review
commissioner and the other three are review commissioners and they are all full
time.
P. FORSEY:
Okay, thank you.
B. DAVIS:
That has changed from back
in 2017 I think it was. They were usually part-time review commissioners. But we
had seen a backlog and based on some of the concerns that were raised in
Estimates in the past and in the House of Assembly, we looked at that and made
them full time. So that has allowed them to clear some of the backlog; there is
still some but it is moving a lot faster.
P. FORSEY:
How many are full time and
how many are part time?
B. DAVIS:
They are all full time right
now.
P. FORSEY:
All full time.
Is the
current complement of review commissioners adequate to handle the workload in a
timely manner?
B. DAVIS:
Well, we just put in place
the chief review commissioner and, obviously, there was a backlog there with a
position that was vacant. We're going to wait and see. I know we're still in the
process of recruiting another person, I think, is it?
OFFICIAL:
No.
B. DAVIS:
No, okay. So we've got the
complement that we have right now and we're going to assess it over time and see
if that clears the backlog. We haven't had a full complement, without vacancy,
in the last fiscal for sure.
P. FORSEY:
Okay.
How
many applications are currently on file requesting hearings?
B. DAVIS:
We can get that. Susan has
that.
S. SQUIRES:
They completed, last year, 173 applications; another additional 29 of them were
withdrawn last year. So that is comparable to what they did the previous year.
They currently have 109 cases to be scheduled and that was as of April 5.
P. FORSEY:
Okay.
How
many applications have been withdrawn?
S. SQUIRES:
Last year, 29 were withdrawn. It's early in the year to have cases withdrawn
this year but that is comparable to the year before in 2021-22, where 30 were
withdrawn.
P. FORSEY:
Okay.
Are you
aware of the reasons why: unable to get representations, delays?
B. DAVIS:
We can look into that but I think most of that would be decisions of the party
themselves to withdraw them. It could be based on, I guess, changes in their
life themselves, maybe not wanting to proceed with it or maybe having it worked
out from that standpoint.
We can look at seeing what information we have from a privacy perspective, but I
don't think it is readily available to us here today. But we can get that for
you. If it's available, you can have it.
P. FORSEY:
Thank you. I appreciate that.
So how many hearings are currently scheduled?
B. DAVIS:
There are, I think, 109 to be scheduled.
P. FORSEY:
One hundred and nine?
B. DAVIS:
One hundred and nine. And that's usually typical because there's usually waiting
for representation or trying to coordinate meetings with people. It takes time
to get that done and generally it is at the whim of – that is why we went with
the full-time ones because it gives a little bit more clarity for us.
P. FORSEY:
So how many of those hearings would be held each month, we'll say?
B. DAVIS:
Susan?
S. SQUIRES:
So they did 173 cases as an example last year. The number of cases were, on
average, 14½ a month. So in the lowest month it was about eight cases and the
highest month it was 24 cases. So it is variable, I am sure, depending on the
cases gets and the longevity of those cases' complexity. The average is about
14½ a month.
B. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) some of these cases are very complex in nature so some cases could
be dealt with quickly and some cases take a lot more time. Obviously, that
dictates how many you get done in the run of a month.
P. FORSEY:
Great. Okay.
During COVID, have restrictions from COVID impacted the scheduling resulting in
any further backlogs?
B. DAVIS:
I think I am going to say – I can't say no – but I didn't think it impacted it
quite heavily. What they transitioned to very quickly was digital or virtual.
And I think that's going to help in some cases and some clients really tended to
like that approach because it was a bit quicker for them, less travel
requirements and things like that.
So they have advised me that it didn't impact it other than regular impacts when
it was at the height of COVID, but it has progressed fairly well here.
P. FORSEY:
How long after the hearing date is a written decision given?
B. DAVIS:
It depends on the complexity of the decision. I think there is a – is there a
time frame? We can check into that if there are any thresholds for that, but my
understanding is it takes some time to get some of those, depending on how
complex it is and how much evidence is provided.
P. FORSEY:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
But we can get that for you if you would like us to.
P. FORSEY:
Yeah. That would be good, too.
How has
the injured workers' fund at WorkplaceNL been impacted by this year's markets?
B. DAVIS:
I don't have the numbers
right off the top of my head, but I don't think it's been impacted by the
markets at all. But that can change, that could've happened this morning, a
drop, but it seems to be positively impacted currently right now.
P. FORSEY:
All right.
You did
mention the statutory review and the 48 recommendations. Can we get a list of
the recommendations that were there and –
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely, you can get a
copy of the recommendations, for sure.
P. FORSEY:
– when they be implemented
and that sort of thing? Can we get a copy?
B. DAVIS:
We can give you a status
report on what's been done so far of those recommendations. That's no problem.
We can give you the 48 recommendations. And there are sub-recommendations
underneath each of those. So I can't remember how many it is. It is 72 or
something when you take out the ones that are underneath, maybe?
S. SQUIRES:
There are 17 and there are sub-categories under them. So we totalled them up as
48 total recommendations.
P. FORSEY:
Okay, but like I said, we
can get a copy of those?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, absolutely.
P. FORSEY:
All right. Other than that,
I'm good with this one.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Forsey.
MHA
Evans, 6.1.01.
L. EVANS:
Yes, thank you.
Just
some general questions first. How many hearings have been conducted in the last
year and what was the nature of the cases that came up for review?
B. DAVIS:
We can give you a full list
of the details of how many hearings happened, what was withdrawn. I think there
were 130-ish that have come out. We can give you a full list, a spreadsheet of
that.
L. EVANS:
Yes.
B. DAVIS:
What's been withdrawn,
what's been taken, what's been pushed, what hasn't been scheduled yet, we can
give you a full copy of that.
L. EVANS:
Yeah. And I do apologize if
I do repeat some of the questions.
Also,
we'll get a copy of the binder?
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
L. EVANS:
Yeah. I'm just trying to
remember, because we started and we stopped. For example, questions that you
answer now, saying of the total recommendations, 48, you'll be getting the
information to the –
B. DAVIS:
We'll get the information
that we provide to one party or one group, we'll provide to two.
L. EVANS:
To two.
B. DAVIS:
Or to everyone.
L. EVANS:
To everybody. Yes, exactly.
And that'll cut down on some time.
B. DAVIS:
Yeah.
L. EVANS:
Now, you did talk about the
backlog of the cases and I wasn't sure exactly what the number of backlog cases
are. You did refer to 109 to be scheduled.
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, so what we consider a
backlog would be the 109 that need to be scheduled. And it's sort of a misnomer
to say they're backlogged because they may not be backlogged because of
scheduling from the review division's side. It could be because the client is
not ready to go at this point to be scheduled.
So it's
sometimes contingent upon them as well, or actually it's with them and the
Review Division scheduling times. So we can get you a list of those – not the
list of the 109, but we can let you know that in the spreadsheet how many here
are from time to time if you'd like.
L. EVANS:
Right.
The
positions of the review commissioners, you're basically taking a look at that to
see if you're going to be putting in additional ones, right?
B. DAVIS:
Well, right now we've had a
vacancy this year of one of the review commissioners anyway. Now that's been
filled with the chief review commissioner. We're going to see how that works out
to try to reduce that time frame with respect to those 109 scheduled cases.
L. EVANS:
Would we be able to get a
breakdown of the number of people receiving workers' compensation by industry?
B. DAVIS:
I think we can do that. We
probably don't have that here, but we can get that for you.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
B. DAVIS:
Good question.
L. EVANS:
Would it be possible to
either get the total number of people working in those industries in the
province as well?
B. DAVIS:
You can have any bit of
information like that, that we have available to us, like the number of people
that are on it from industry breakdown, how many people are in those industries
that workplace would have. That's not a problem.
L. EVANS:
Okay. You used finished
answering the other questions there that I had.
Is
there a review planned to update how medical reporting is done on occupational
disease claims? How does the list of occupational diseases recognized by
government get amended, like adding and changing?
B. DAVIS:
That's part of the statutory
review process. In those 48 recommendations, there is a recommendation in there
to expand some of the cancers with respect to firefighters, as an example. Those
things are working through the process now from a fiscal responsibility
perspective, from their end, what the cost would be from an actuarial
perspective and then we'll determine what needs to be changed with respect to if
it's a legislative change or a policy change at WorkplaceNL.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Is
there any review planned on how medical reporting is done on the disease claims?
B. DAVIS:
I would think there's always
a review at WorkplaceNL but we can take that question, MHA Evans, and go
directly to the CEO of WorkplaceNL for that. That's a valid question and no
problem for us to get the answer for you on that.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
Looking
at the line item there, under Salaries, the spending on Salaries was lower than
expected. You did briefly mention that earlier with my fellow colleague, but are
there currently any vacancies there?
B. DAVIS:
No, there are no vacancies
now. That was a vacancy at the time that was filled.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
I have
a general question that sort of is brought up to me. There are times that you've
probably experienced – I'm talking to your departmental staff here – where
somebody is working in an industry, and they have insurance coverage to be off
on medical and they're not being covered because the insurance provider is
saying they believe it's work related. The worker is waiting on medical
documentation to clarify whether it's a workplace injury or disease. I'm talking
about diseases now.
What
happens is the individual does not have coverage. They're basically there and
they actually are entitled to wage compensation, either from the insurance
provider or from workers' compensation. But because of this gap and waiting on
the medical documentation and then decision on their claim, they could be months
without any wage.
Is
there anything that can be done to actually prevent this from happening, where
the worker is the one that actually is harmed by this gap, such as having an
agreement between the insurance provider to provide the coverage, and then if
it's ruled that it's a workplace illness or disease, then workers' compensation
can compensate them back. That seems like a logical thing.
B. DAVIS:
That is a very good question. I worked on a case like that that reached out to
me as an MHA before, and I forwarded it off to WorkplaceNL to look at. They had
their processes in place. They had worker representatives and employer
representatives that they can talk to, and then they tend to try to work out
those individual cases. So what I will say to you, MHA Evans, is that if there
are any of those cases that come up, please do reach out to us, and I say that
to any of my colleagues.
Because
some of those cases sometimes do slip through the cracks, and we want to try to
reduce those issues that are common sense in nature, like you just detailed, is
a perfect example of how we can try to fix those things. Sometimes it's just an
individual ask, in the right way, to say that this is something that has been
overlooked. Because sometimes there's a communication error that breaks down and
we just want to try to limit those. I know WorkplaceNL is interested in trying
to move those files that may be in those situations on many cases.
L. EVANS:
Well, I've dealt with it at
the MHA level, with workers' compensation and the insurance provider, and now
I'm aware that I could reach out to your department. But what about other people
who don't have that link with their MHA that is going to – we have to start
looking at changing the way things are done where people are there. People who
have bills and family responsibilities who are there and entitled to
compensation, but are not getting it. It is very destructive.
I would
prefer that, actually, maybe your department could work on finding some
solution. Because there are a lot of people out there that don't have a direct
line to their MHA or don't have a direct line to somebody that can call your
department and your department would actually be quite effective I'm sure but,
like I said, I am more interested in a permanent change where this just doesn't
happen.
B. DAVIS:
Just to expand on that
question and hopefully give you a little bit more clarity. One of the
recommendations in the most current stat review is to expand worker
representatives with WorkplaceNL. That is one of the recommendations that are
being evaluated, so I am very hopeful that we'll be able to move on that. That
will increase the number of people that workers can reach out to when they have
questions or concern, just like you highlighted, that can help navigate,
sometimes, a very complex system.
So I
think that could be one of the fixes, but we will take that away from today and
I think that is a valid concern that you raised here today.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
That's
the end of my questions.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Evans.
So if
the Committee is ready for the question, shall 6.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 6.1.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Before we continue, I
certainly want to welcome my colleague, Chris Tibbs, for Grand Falls-Windsor -
Buchans to our Committee meeting and Chris will be looking after our next set of
subheads.
So if I
can have the Clerk call our next set of subheads, please.
CLERK:
Labour, 4.1.01 to 4.1.03.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.03
carry?
MHA
Tibbs.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Warr, and good morning to my buddy, Minister Davis –
B. DAVIS:
Good morning to you.
C. TIBBS:
– and the team behind you.
Thank you for all the work you do, the work behind the scenes; we all know is
the real work that is done. I know Minister Davis does a lot of hard work but no
person is without their team.
So
we'll start off at 4.1.01, Labour Relations. Minister, can you provide us with
the amount of conciliation, preventative mediation and arbitration processes
that were undertaken and the results of these processes? And how many employees
are in the division themselves.
B. DAVIS:
We can provide you with the
document for that, for sure. I don't know if we have the information right here
in front of us – Tara?
T. KELLY:
Yeah, I have that.
For
staffing perspective there are six positions: director, two industrial relation
specialists, two senior meditators and one clerk. Then as far as the numbers go:
conciliation request, we had 36 new ones in this past year; 22 that we're
carrying over from last year, so that is a total of 58 people that we're working
on; 36 appointment of arbitrators; preventative mediation requests was 51; and
first collective agreement mediator was one.
I don't
have the result at this time but you could follow up on that if you wanted.
C. TIBBS:
Perfect. Thank you, Ms.
Kelly.
We'll
switch over to Salaries. There are $38,300 more budgeted this year compared to
what was spent. What is the reason for this, Minister?
B. DAVIS:
The deference is a little
step increase – it is actually lower than it was budgeted for last year but what
was actually spent on revised last year was based on lower staff – vacancy rates
at staff there. So now the staff is full complement and that would be the
$471,800; that would be the full complement there.
C. TIBBS:
Perfect.
For the
Transportation and Communications cost, there was $10,000 less spent compared to
what was budgeted. What was the reason for this one?
B. DAVIS:
As I said to MHA Forsey,
you're going to see in T and C most of those things will be COVID related; less
meetings, less travel with respect to meetings and things. So you're going to
see in T and C right across the board is going to be, as I say, cause COVID.
C. TIBBS:
Hopefully we are away from
that, finally.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, hopefully.
C. TIBBS:
4.1.02, Standing Fish Price
Setting Panel.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. TIBBS:
What is the remuneration for
the members of this panel?
B. DAVIS:
I don't have that number
right in front of me but I think we may be able to get that. We can get that for
you. I don't know offhand what the remuneration is. I know they are remunerated
for it; I think the total for Salaries would be $107,500 so there is a
three-person panel and two alternates as well –
C. TIBBS:
Perfect, thank you.
B. DAVIS:
– that would be involved in
that process. We can get that for you, MHA Tibbs.
C. TIBBS:
I appreciate it.
For
Professional Services, there was $8,000 more spent last year compared to what
was budgeted this year. What would be the reason for that?
B. DAVIS:
The higher was due to
increased hearings and anticipated costs for an independent consultant.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Sir.
4.1.03,
are there any reviews planned for the
Labour Standards Act and, if so, when should this be completed and will
there be any new legislation brought in?
B. DAVIS:
As I said many times in the
House whenever I'm asked a question about Labour Standards is we look to the
public, if there are concerns people have, we look at legislation. Legislation
is living document that can be changed when it needs to be done, but we also
have to look at the balance that exists within labour. You have to look at the
balance of the employer and the employee with those standards. So that's what we
always juggle with.
Obviously, there is a minimum wage review that would be coming into that and
Truth and Reconciliation Day that will all have to feed into that when that work
is done.
C. TIBBS:
Sure.
Nothing
slated as of right now, though, in concrete?
B. DAVIS:
No.
C. TIBBS:
Okay, perfect, thank you.
Moving
to Salaries, there's $31,100 more budgeted this year compared to what was spent
last year. What would be the reason for this, Minister?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, we're actually down on
what was actually budgeted the previous year, but the difference is obviously
there was a vacancy in the revised of last year so the Salaries are a little
lower than they were in last year's budget.
C. TIBBS:
Great.
Of
course, Transportation and Communications, there was $11,400 more budgeted this
year compared to what was last year. What was the reason for this?
B. DAVIS:
That's the same thing that
would be there. It was down last year because of COVID and we're bringing it
back up to the level that it would be normal, as you said, post-COVID,
hopefully.
C. TIBBS:
Hopefully.
Professional Services, there was $10,000 spent last year that wasn't budgeted.
Can you explain this figure?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, that is board fees. We
decided as a government that the individuals that sit on the Minimum Wage Review
Committee should be compensated to sit on that. It used to be a volunteer
committee. Those five individuals that sit on that Committee are compensated for
their –
C. TIBBS:
So like a remuneration or
something?
B. DAVIS:
Remuneration, yeah.
C. TIBBS:
Perfect. Thank you, Sir.
Revenue
there was $3,000 spent less revenue last year compared to what was collected.
What was the reason for this?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, so the decrease in
revenue is due to clearance certificates that come out of this department.
C. TIBBS:
Sorry what was that?
B. DAVIS:
Clearance certificates for downturn in the real estate activity.
That would be ensuring that you're in good standing with the
Labour Standards Act. There was less of that required. We anticipate that
will come back a little bit more over time, right.
C. TIBBS:
That's all for me.
Thank you, Minister. Thank
you, Team.
B. DAVIS:
Perfect.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA Evans, 4.1.01 to 4.1.03
inclusive.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Chair.
4.1.01,
under Labour Relations: Have there been any new unions who are bargaining units
that have been certified in the past year? How many first collective agreements
have been successfully negotiated?
B. DAVIS:
Very good question. I don't
know. Tara, do you have the numbers for …?
T. KELLY:
We had one request.
B. DAVIS:
We had one request and I
think it was certified. So I can check that, MHA Evans, from the Labour
Relations Board. They're sort of arm's length on that stuff; we don't get into
that, but I can get that information for you.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
What
were the total number of strikes and lockouts in this province in the previous
year? Do they represent an increase or demand from the previous year, 2020?
B. DAVIS:
That is a very good
question. I can get that through our Labour Relations Division and have it
forwarded to your office.
L. EVANS:
Okay. And everybody?
B. DAVIS:
And everybody. When I send
it to you, it is going to be for everybody. Just like Lay's chips, I give one to
you; I got to give one to everyone.
L. EVANS:
I had a cat who loved Lay's
chips, by the way.
B. DAVIS:
I have a dog that loves
them.
L. EVANS:
Have any changes been
considered to the union certification processes and what arguments have been
raised against reinstating card certification?
B. DAVIS:
Very good question. We are
always, as I said to MHA Tibbs, looking at ways we can improve the legislation
that exists and the processes that we do. We haven't heard much outcry with
respect to what you're asking for now. The system, although we always look for
ways to improve it, the Labour Relations Board as well as Labour Relations in
general, we look from not only our own staff to look at ways to improve it but
also the general public and our trade unions that will be operating in the
province.
If
there are concerns that come forward with respect to that, we'll definitely look
at that and see what can be done. But I know there are changes that were made
for a reason, back before even our mandate – before 2015 – and we're always
looking for ways to improve when we need to.
L. EVANS:
So you're not really
considering any changes right now to –
B. DAVIS:
No. That was a long answer
for saying no.
L. EVANS:
Yeah. Okay, thank you.
Now
that the federal government is implementing anti-replacement worker legislation,
will the department consider tabling similar legislation in this province?
B. DAVIS:
As I have said to your
colleague, I think it was the day before yesterday in the House with a question
of similar nature; we always look to the federal government when they bring
forward things like that. We always look and evaluate the need for that.
We
understand that labour relations and any changes that we make to labour
standards; we've got to look at both the employer and the employee side of that.
In this
province, I guess we've been blessed that we haven't had major long-term
strikes, and I know that when we do have long-term strikes, we're looking at
ways to find solutions. Sometimes that could be our conciliation officers that
comes in, or a conciliation board that we've had constituted when we had some
opportunities for negotiation that weren't moving as fast.
But, as
I've said to your colleague, we're always looking at ways to improve it. There
is nothing on the horizon that says we're moving in that direction, other than
what you've highlighted as the federal government. So we're always looking at
that.
L. EVANS:
So when the federal
government implements their anti-replacement worker legislation, will you
actually have a review and look at it?
B. DAVIS:
We will have a consultation
with our stakeholders that are involved in that area as well. As I said, maybe I
wasn't clear enough on that. When the federal government implements anything,
whether it be from a labour relation standpoint or a labour standards
standpoint, we're going to be evaluating that as well, and part of that
evaluation is going to be a consultation that we will do with our stakeholders,
both labour unions, as well as our employers.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
4.1.03,
Labour Standards: Is there any move to bring in paid sick leave for all
employees in the province, and are there any hesitations on the – sorry, I'll
just do the first one. Is there any move to bring in paid sick leave for all
employees in the province?
B. DAVIS:
Again, the federal
government mentioned that through the federal minister of Labour, just before
Christmas brought in legislation. Obviously, we've had conversations at our FTP
table with respect to that. All of us at the table, all of us ministers, agree
that's a positive move forward, but we're going to need some support from the
federal government who's instituting this, to support our businesses that would
be impacted by something like this.
That's
not a cost that the federal government have to bear. We've given options as
ministers to the federal government, similar to the employment insurance
benefits that can be done, that already exists. It is not creating a new pool of
money, but it's an opportunity to create flexibility in that fund to allow
workers and businesses to avail of that to provide that benefit to employees.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
So the answer is yes, we're
looking at it, and that's something that we're working on at our FTP table.
L. EVANS:
And you say you're working
on it, but just to be clear, what would some of the major stumbling blocks be
for you that you'd actually have to overcome to be able to bring in full paid
sick leave?
B. DAVIS:
Well, if you were to add one
day of sick leave to every person in the province that's working, it's up to $48
million a day that would be borne by businesses and government agencies and the
like. Most of it borne by businesses and small businesses, so we are trying to
navigate a very challenging situation that we want to provide that – as
ministers, we want to provide that across the country and support that, but we
have to find a mechanism first for us to be able to do that.
Part of
that is through working with the federal government on funds that they currently
have that they put in place for COVID that they can extend and/or allow
flexibility within the EI program, which is one aspect that us ministers have
floated with the federal minister. We do have another meeting scheduled in June
and I look forward to having a conversation with the federal minister on that.
L. EVANS:
I wonder, have your
department actually looked at the cost of people who can't afford to be off,
bringing sickness – let's say contagious sickness like the flu into their
companies and then have that ripple effect in terms of the cost of loss of
productivity?
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, so that is something
that the federal table is looking at, not just from a provincial side, from
national and there are some positive numbers that say that moving in that
direction helps businesses just as much as it helps the employees too. So that
is sort of what we're working on at the federal table and hopefully we'll be
able to move that forward in the near future through conversation with the
federal government and were very helpful.
The
conversations with Minister O'Regan at the time when we had that meeting, I'm
going to say, six or eight weeks ago maybe, were very positive from all of us at
the FPT table and we have another meeting follow-up in about another three or
four weeks.
We're
looking forward to having those conversations; we're open to looking at all
options, especially – but we all understand how important it is to have the
federal government provide some financial leadership on this file. For the
businesses coming out of COVID and all that stuff, to allow them the flexibility
to get to where they need to be because I think they want to be there too.
L. EVANS:
Yes.
B. DAVIS:
Oh, sorry, I think our
deputy minister can jump in as well.
V. SNOW:
Thank you.
Just to
add to what the minister is saying. I think this federal table is a very good
opportunity for us to learn, not just from the federal government and what
they're doing in terms of the costs and the benefits of the paid leave, but also
some different provinces are also moving in this direction and they have made
significant progress.
British
Columbia is already offering five paid leave days and, in that, they have done a
lot of research in terms of the cost to the government but also the cost of
things you were talking about, like going to work when you are sick. All of that
information that has been gathered and lessons learned from other jurisdictions
is going to be very helpful as we look at this issue.
L. EVANS:
Yes, thank you.
Looking
at that cost per day is huge, but is that a true cost when you look at the loss
of productivity and the impacts through the whole communities and businesses and
things like that. A lot of times we look at the cost and it seems
insurmountable, but when you look at the benefits that would negate most of
those costs, then it's something that would actually be very positive for the
communities.
B. DAVIS:
And I full agree with you.
That's why that table is looking at those options, as our deputy minister just
said too. We look forward to having conversations about that, for sure.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Has the
government considered increasing minimum wage above and beyond any increases
tied to inflation, to the $15 an hour, for example?
B. DAVIS:
Very good question. As I
mentioned in my rather lengthy intro, we have a Minimum Wage Review Committee
that has been constituted. They've got their work completed. My understanding is
they're going to be doing a presentation to me later this month of that report.
I look
forward to receiving it. I don't want to prejudge what's going to come in, but
obviously we're going to take that advice, look at it, do some work on what
impacts that would be, and hopefully it's something that we can move on quickly,
because we all understand how important it is for minimum wage to be where it
needs to be.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA
Evans, do you have much left in this section?
L. EVANS:
No, I don't.
CHAIR:
Are you finished?
L. EVANS:
Yes, actually I am. I was
thinking –
B. DAVIS:
Great timing.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
If the
Committee is ready for the question, shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.03 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 to 4.1.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I have the Clerk call
the next subhead, please?
CLERK:
Labour Relations Board,
5.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 carry?
MHA
Tibbs.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you.
Just a
couple of general questions here, Minister. How many employees are currently
employed, and how many vacancies are there?
B. DAVIS:
At the Labour Relations
Board?
C. TIBBS:
Yes, Sir.
B. DAVIS:
Susan, do you have the exact
numbers there?
S. SQUIRES:
There are six positions on
the board, as past positions, and one is currently vacant.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you.
And
there were $13,000 less spent last year compared to what was budgeted. What was
the reason for this, Minister?
B. DAVIS:
Vacancies.
C. TIBBS:
Vacancies, it is.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. TIBBS:
Thank you, Sir.
B. DAVIS:
And delays in the
recruitment process.
C. TIBBS:
Sure.
Just
one final question: Do we have an update on the privacy breach that effected the
Grieg hatchery some time ago?
B. DAVIS:
No, I don't have one here,
but I can get that for you. The previous chair has finished her term. There's a
new chair put in place, I think as of about a month ago, maybe, Susan?
(Inaudible) I know that the chair change that happened since then, but they're
working on that stuff.
Susan.
S. SQUIRES:
Yes, a new chair came in in
early March, but the board has circulated a number of policies, one of which was
the receipt and retention of union membership information. They did do that and
that happened in the fall. I understand they circulated and had a webinar with
stakeholders. As a result of that incident, they did review their processes and
they have tabled some new policy processes as a result.
C. TIBBS:
Okay. We look forward to
that because we know how important it is.
That's
it for me.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
5.1.01,
MHA Evans.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
How
many hearings went before the board in the previous year? Do these numbers
represent the increase over the previous year? What kind of disputes did they
involve?
B. DAVIS:
Susan.
S. SQUIRES:
The Labour Relations Board
actually received, this past year, 62 applications, which was a 40 per cent
increase from the year before of 44 applications. They currently have 45 active
files that they're considering. That was of April 6, so it might be slightly
different now, but the beginning of the fiscal year, they had 45 active files.
L. EVANS:
Okay. The type of disputes?
S. SQUIRES:
I don't have a breakdown of
the number of active files and what they pertain to, but I know that in
2021-2022, for example, they went through seven certifications. They had a
number of hearings. So there is certainly a mix between union certifications,
hearings. I guess there are typical things that they hear before the board.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
S. SQUIRES:
But we certainly can ask if
there's a breakdown of those 45 active cases.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
We also have regular
stakeholder meetings with respect to, not just the board, but the stakeholders
that meet with the board and have requested the services of the board. So when
we do find out there are issues or anything that comes up, something is taking
longer than it should, or in their mind it should be faster, or hasn't got the
result that they would like, then we can bring that forward to the board as
well. Obviously, they're arm's length from us, but we can say that someone has
expressed a concern and encourage them to go to the right people on the board
and have those concerns heard.
But one
of the benefits of having good stakeholder engagement with your people is that
you find those concerns earlier, so hopefully they don't fester and they don't
have longer term problems.
L. EVANS:
Okay. Thank you.
If there is a breakdown, you will be sharing it with everybody?
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
L. EVANS:
Okay. Thank you.
Is there currently a backlog in the number of cases to be heard and if so how
many?
S. SQUIRES:
So there are 45 active cases and that was as of April 6. So that's what we would
define as the current number that needs to go through whether that I guess could
be defined as a backlog.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
That is my questions for this section.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
If the Committee is ready for the question.
Shall 5.1.01 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against.
Carried.
On motion, subhead 5.1.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I ask the Clerk to call the next set of subheads, please?
CLERK:
Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to 1.2.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive carry?
MHA Pardy, we are on 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
A new portfolio for me so I ask for your patience as I forge ahead through this
very important section. Just before we start, just going to the minister's
preamble and his address at the start, just three quick questions in relation to
that.
When you had your program that offered the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador to switch from oil to electric, you had stated that you had 100
applications on the first go around. This time there are 140. Have you done an
analysis of what the household income of those 140 would be?
I'm just curious now because I know you have got a discrepancy on the peninsula
that I serve and whether it's the upper part or the lower part, there is
significance in that.
B. DAVIS:
Yeah. So there is no need for them to disclose income levels for the program, it
doesn't matter what income level they have for this particular program.
There is income-tested programs that are in other – the oil change program. The
HESP, I think it is, has increased the threshold from $32,500 to $52,500. That
one would have an income test, obviously, but this one, the one we have
announced in the budget, doesn't have an income test so there is no reason for
us to collect that information. I may be wrong on that but there is no reason to
collect any information.
I think Mr. Michael Harvey
would have a problem if we were collecting information we didn't need to.
C. PARDY:
Yeah.
Here is
the genesis of why I ask that and the rationale being that if you've got
everybody that's $100,000 and above or $80,000 household income that is availing
of this, then you know that below $80,000 you've got an area that they just
can't afford it.
B. DAVIS:
Right.
C. PARDY:
Then $5,000 doesn't cover
it. But as any money that is necessary in order for them to retrofit, they just
don't have.
That
was the genesis of my question. I know the Privacy Commission, I know that there
is a danger in that, but it would still be nice to know what clientele we're
serving. We can talk about it, then you can talk about a great initiative, but
if you have a portion of the population, like on the Bonavista Peninsula, the
lower part that got $47,000 household income that can't look at it, which is
what I hear, then – that was the genesis of my question.
B. DAVIS:
So just to answer that very
quickly. There are three programs that can work for an individual that would be
in a similar situation to you and work in varying levels of success, of course.
You've got, obviously the HESP with oil, that is for anyone that has $52,500 or
less; that is a $5,000 non-repayable grant. Then you can bookend our program as
well with that, so that is an additional $5,000 for that individual as well,
non-repayable grant. Then you have the Greener Homes program from the federal
government, that is an additional $5,000 to that for particular – they have more
threshold programs that are a little different than that. So that is essentially
$15,000.
Now,
the federal program you have to pay in advance to receive that money. But at the
end of the day, I know there are going to be gaps and when we find gaps – if
you've identified any – have them reach out to our office so we can try to make
those changes to the programs that are required to make them better suit the
needs of people from all parts of the province.
We get
the breakdown of what type of heat they have installed after; where they're
happening in the province. The Central region there was 20 of those 140 or so
that have received that and there is another 88 on the Avalon. So right across
the province there are applications and approvals, albeit there is more on the
Avalon because there is more population here.
C. PARDY:
That's good there are other
options. I wasn't totally aware of that but I will do my homework on that as
well.
B. DAVIS:
No problem; we're here to
help.
C. PARDY:
Indeed you are; that's good.
You
mentioned about the net-zero council. Are they listed? I'm assuming your office
would appoint them.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, they were appointed.
They are listed on our website. There are eight people with varying backgrounds.
I can forward you a list of that, no problem, and I'll forward it to everyone at
the Estimates here today.
C. PARDY:
That's good.
The
third point on your message was you mentioned that you're doing the waste water
testing.
B. DAVIS:
Correct.
C. PARDY:
You mentioned the
significance of doing so, the early warning signs. How extensive is your testing
of waste water? I don't think it's on the Bonavista Peninsula.
B. DAVIS:
We've got by far the best
person in this province, probably this country, to assess that, through Haseen
here. We have not expanded right across the province, but we are expanding that
process and working with the federal government, but Haseen you can jump in and
–
H. KHAN:
Currently, we are monitoring
17 locations throughout the province. We intend to extend that to cover the
entire province to about 70, 80 locations, slowly and gradually. In terms of
cost, an analysis is done, free of cost by federal government national lab in
Winnipeg. So testing is costing nothing to the province, but if you go to the
private sector, each sample will cost us about $300. At this point in time, it
is costing us nothing.
C. PARDY:
Obviously, we'll use the
national lab when possible. We'll stay clear of the private labs.
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
So we can move across the
province, really, at no cost other than I guess the –
B. DAVIS:
The collections.
C. PARDY:
Yeah, the collections. Okay,
good to know. Thank you for those answers.
I'm
assuming in the binder we'll receive the employment status of the vacancies –
we'll have all that there, so we don't need to waste time with that.
B. DAVIS:
All of that.
C. PARDY:
Did the minister or the
Department of Finance give you any attrition fiscal targets?
B. DAVIS:
Every department, every
agency would have attrition targets. I can go to Bonnie and Bonnie can give the
attrition, but I'm fairly confident that – let me just check to see if I've got
it right here in front of me.
C. PARDY:
I just want to chime in,
Minister, I just left the – oh my God, I'm losing track of time now. That was
Tuesday was the Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture but they had received
nothing from the Department of Finance for attrition for this year. They did in
the past two years, but –
B. DAVIS:
So our attrition target, I
think, $69,166. Both positions happened to be vacant that were there – a data
entry operator and an environmental monitoring specialist.
C. PARDY:
Okay, good.
B. DAVIS:
And Bonnie –
B. STEELE:
There is no new target for
this fiscal. The numbers that we just gave were for the past two fiscals.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
B. STEELE:
Just to confirm that that
was the target that we did have for fiscals 2020-2021 to '21-'22. We haven't
been given a new target.
C. PARDY:
I am glad you clarified
that. I didn't want to create any division between Environment and Climate
Change and FFA.
B. STEELE:
Just confirming.
C. PARDY:
That's good. So nothing this
year in attritions.
Just in my time I will stick
– an academic study of young people worldwide found that most suffer from
eco-anxiety. I listen to my children, and rightfully so. When I was the
administrator of a school, our mission in environment was picking up litter. But
I think, at this point in time, our children are certainly focused on the
economy and climate change because it is such a big statement in our society and
what we have.
But what was concerning was
two-thirds are scared and sad is what this academic study stated, while almost
half say their worries impact their daily lives. I just ask for a comment on
that as we go about making changes and reducing emissions in our society.
B. DAVIS:
No, I get it. You are correct. I hear it from my nieces, nephews and students
when I go visit classrooms and things. There is no doubt people are worried
about what the future holds from a climate change perspective. That is why we
have put in place our Climate Change Action Plan with 45 actions. You know, 67
per cent of them are already completed.
It is not enough. It is
definitely not enough. We are working hard to try to do even more. Some of the
things that are required from a carbon-capture perspective for our future
haven't even been created yet that we are going to have to use as a world. But
there are thousands and thousands of people in this global community that are
working on these targets to try to make sure all of us, as a global community,
can hit it. I am hopeful that every jurisdiction around the world is working as
hard as we are trying to work in this department to make our difference to our 1
per cent of Canada's 1 per cent of the world.
We are doing our part to do
that and we are going to work, everybody together, to try to achieve those
goals, but burying our head in the sand and not talking about it is not an
option. Young people have really brought that forward with Fridays For Future
and many other initiatives that they're pushing.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
I just
remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.
1.1.01
to 1.2.01 inclusive, MHA Evans.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Just
some general questions to start off with. Although Industry, Energy and
Technology released an outline for the transition to a green economy last
December, we did notice that there was relatively little regarding supports for
workers as they moved from one industry to another. Especially for workers in
the oil and gas sector.
So is
this department filling that piece of the puzzle and looking at ways to make
this truly a just transition where workers come out of its more prosperous and
lucrative jobs with better job security than before? So the just transition
really.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, MHA Evans.
Obviously, it' s going to be an all-of-government approach on helping spur
economic development, not just in the green economy, which is our focus, and
IET's focus but in every aspect. Whether it be in education or in immigration,
we're all trying to spur economic development so that people have opportunities
to have the jobs they want to, whether it be in oil and gas, obviously moving
from there to – whether it's lifting the ban on wind, the moratorium that was on
wind.
Those
are the future of how we see our province moving. I don't think anyone can
disagree that our province is one of the windiest ones. I think we took the
title from Chicago recently. Lifting that moratorium is going to help spur
another industry and, hopefully, one that's going to be able to be high-paying
jobs and numerous jobs for people to transition as we move through that oil to
the greener economy as we transition to there.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
The
reason why we brought that up is because, as the oil industry and a lot of the
supports for the oil industry ween off, there's going to be a displacement of
workers. So it's important for us to be able to help those workers, especially
at the larger salary levels because it has such a direct impact to our economy.
So we are looking for more information. I guess as you develop it, it would be
good to see that, exactly how we're going to support workers.
Moving
on to the next question: How much work has been done thus far by the Net-Zero
Advisory Council? I know it was brought up earlier, but how much work has been
done and what types of work are they going to be doing in the upcoming year?
B. DAVIS:
Very good question. Thank
you for the ability to be able to talk about the Net-Zero Advisory Council.
So they
are going to be looking at providing recommendations – they haven't provided any
yet, I expect that will – they have done, I don't know how many meetings. Susan,
three? Three. There is another one on the horizon as well.
So they
are looking at getting established themselves. Over this year, I fully expect
that they will be providing some advice and recommendations on some of the
things that we can do to improve, using other jurisdictions as a measuring
stick, I guess, and other jurisdiction, not just in this country but in the
global community on best practices and things that will get us the best bang for
our investment to get greenhouse gas emissions reduced.
I think
that is where they'll go. I'm going to be as anxious as you are to see what they
come forward with and don't worry, it will be shared with everybody.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Has
there been any consideration given to creating new mechanisms for incorporating
the cost of pollution into the price of the products to reflect the true cost of
their production and their consumption?
B. DAVIS:
We have legislation in place
for industry emitters and stringent requirements that they have to meet. I will
say that they have exceeded all of the targets that we have set recently, in the
past couple of years, and those targets are going to get harder each and every
year for them, too. But they are working hard. Our staff meets with them on a
regular basis to see what they are going to be doing in the future to better
address those emissions that they do have.
The
federal government has also come forward with initiatives and stringent
requirements that people have to meet as well. So we are always working to
ensure the big emitters are covering the cost of their emissions.
But in
addition to that, if you just look on a more granular level down to the MMSB
level where we're looking at EPR programs that exist, you know Extended Producer
Responsibility programs. We're looking at one now; there was public consultation
on what we call PPP, packaging and paper products. Industry players, when they
produce a cereal box, have to come forward and pay for the disposal of that
cereal box.
In this
province, that's what we need these Extended Producer Responsibility processes
in place for. That's one of the ones we're working on now. We have several in
the province now and those will cover the cost of recycling that product, or at
least alleviate some of the cost for it. Because recycling is very expensive in
this province and anything we can cover the cost of and reuse is going to be
better for us in the longer term.
L. EVANS:
Thank you for that answer.
Actually, that kind of goes to what we were getting at, because when you look at
the cost of pollution in producing something and consuming it, we normally think
of things like big oil or mining, but common things. The cost of a plastic
container in the restaurant industry or the cost of some of the products that
people use as household items that actually creates a lot of pollution to
produce it. Then, of course, people don't really realize it. So like I said, it
would be really good if we could look at some of those things, even in the forms
of mid – you talk about big companies but I'm talking about mid-companies as
well.
It's
something that we've all got to get on board with. I think it's something that
the province should be looking at. Something as symbolic as the sugar tax, if we
could start looking at ways to actually identify products that take so much
energy to produce and then of course create pollution in their consumption or
their inability to be consumed.
Sorry,
my mind is just kind of rushing ahead, so I'm sorry.
Moving
on to line items now, 1.2.01, Executive Support. What was the one-time expense –
oh you already did that, I do apologize for that.
I'm
going to move right on over to the provincial revenue in that line item. What
was the source of the provincial revenue listed here?
B. DAVIS:
Which section are you
talking about, sorry?
L. EVANS:
1.2.01, Executive Support,
provincial revenue.
B. DAVIS:
Oh the revenue.
L. EVANS:
Yes.
B. DAVIS:
Okay, so that's similar to
what we had come through with respect to the review division from WorkplaceNL.
That is money that comes through from the MMSB to the department to pay for the
CEO of MMSB. It's a cost-recovery model. The increased revenue would be the cost
recovery for the CEO of MMSB.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
That's
the end of my questions for that section.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA
Pardy, do you have anything left in 1.1.01 to 1.2.01?
C. PARDY:
Yes, Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
C. PARDY:
Just before I continue on,
the last note and I'll leave our conversation for the climate change section,
but just to follow up when I talked about the youth and the concern and the
anxiety that this academic study had. One thing that the article references
talks about the UN Climate Panel finds that even if we do nothing to mitigate
climate change, the impact by the end of the century will be a reduction of an
average income increase from 450 per cent to 438 per cent. And keep in mind, I'm
in favour, and I think we are in favour of reducing greenhouse gases and
emissions. I, we, would be in favour of our renewables wind energy and doing all
that. So we're on board. The only questions we would have sometimes is the pace
and the concern that would be around that.
You
mentioned in your intro, as well, the Fish Price Setting Panel. Recently, we
created a little stir in my other portfolio with the Fisheries, a little stir I
think that went about the province when we looked at the appointee. The
appointments of the Fish Price Setting Panel are done from the Independent
Appointments Commission.
Can you
share with me: This Commission will give you a candidate or will they you give
you a choice of three candidates and your office will select which one? Just
curious because I don't know when I ask.
B. DAVIS:
So I guess it depends on the
number of applicants that come in and how many comes through. I can't remember
exactly how many were recommended in that case. There was multiple, but there
was multiple positions to be filled. In that case, I think there was a regular
member and two alternates that needed to be filled and I think we received three
or four names in total and varying backgrounds.
With
respect to the Fish Price Setting Panel, you have backgrounds with harvesting
and processing. So they try to map so you don't have positions dictated for
that. They're supposed to be outside of that realm, but they have to have
experience in that. The Independent Appointments Commission brings forward the
names and then it comes forward to LGIC.
C. PARDY:
So you had three or four
vacancies?
B. DAVIS:
That's correct.
C. PARDY:
So just enough appointments
or names to fill the vacancies that you had?
B. DAVIS:
Correct.
C. PARDY:
No more?
B. DAVIS:
No more.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
When it
comes to this panel, and fisheries-wise, I know David Vardy was the one who
headed up a panel. I think the eminent fish-pricing panel back in 2000, around
that time. The latest appointee to the panel was on that as well, part of that
study.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. PARDY:
But one thing that I
gleaned, in reading that study, was the fact that that panel needed to make sure
that it was neutral. I could read, throughout the document, that it needs to be
perceived as neutral and it needs to be neutral. I would think then, so we don't
have people staking claim or a power struggle between the panel, if all of the
panel are perceived as being neutral.
That
was the gist of my question when I asked. I knew it wasn't the Fisheries who
selected the panel, but at least for going forward, it's a thought and a
consideration when you do select this panel for the fishers out there, if they
perceive it to be independent, then I think you have much better chance that
they're going to adhere and believe in what is happening.
If I
can move on, before the Chair pushes me on, 1.1.01. If I can go through a few
line items now quickly. We've got in 1.1.01, Minister's Office, the Salaries. We
had $25,000 less last year in the Salaries in the Minister's Office compared to
what was budgeted. If you can explain that.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, so there was a vacancy
with respect to the departmental secretary to the minister for a period of time.
During that period, where we had just constituted the new office, we were
sharing some resources. So we were able to do that for the short term while we
were getting that position filled.
C. PARDY:
Thank you.
I'm
assuming Transportation and Communications here and through the other items will
be COVID related?
B. DAVIS:
Correct.
C. PARDY:
So we don't need – just
assume.
1.2.01,
Executive Support.
B. DAVIS:
1.2.01, okay.
C. PARDY:
We look at Salaries there,
Minister.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. PARDY:
So we had $129,700 more – I
think that might be the right math – budgeted this year compared to what was
spent last year.
B. DAVIS:
That, last year, didn't
include a communications director position. That has to be included now, so
we're working through vacancy factor to fill that position.
C. PARDY:
Okay, so communications
director being added.
B. DAVIS:
Correct.
C. PARDY:
2.1.02
– Chair, we are moving right along. 2.1.02, that's environmental. If I were –
CHAIR:
We are not there yet.
B. DAVIS:
You're too quick.
C. PARDY:
Well, I am good with that section.
CHAIR:
So if the Committee is ready for the question, shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive
carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On motion, subheads 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Can I get the Clerk to call the next set of subheads?
CLERK:
Environment, 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive carry?
MHA Pardy.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
Environmental – if I were to ask on carbon tax this year, anything to do with
that, I am better off waiting for the carbon section?
B. DAVIS:
Carbon tax is held through Finance but if you want to ask us the questions, that
is fine. You don't necessarily need to do it in Pollution Prevention. You can do
it in Climate Change and the other sections.
C. PARDY:
Okay. I will wait until that time.
Looking at some of the line items here. Professional Services – significant
difference in Professional Services from what was budgeted to what was spent
last year and certainly to what is budgeted this year.
B. DAVIS:
Yes. So you are going to see – sorry, I didn't mean to jump in there quickly.
C. PARDY:
No, that's good.
B. DAVIS:
You are going to see that in a couple of line items here where you are going to
see in and outs coming in. Generally, that's to do with the former US military
sites in Labrador project. We moved the money back because we couldn't spend it
last year. So now that had to be removed and brought back into this year's
budget, with the hopes of spending some of it.
We are in the process of consultations with Indigenous governments and the
federal government to go forward on what the ask is going to be for that. So we
put some money in there as a starting point, but there is definitely going to be
more spent over the next subsequent years. But it is just essentially a push
out, moving into the next years.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
If I can go back to the Salaries in the same section, 2.1.01, Minister? $24,600
more budgeted this year than was spent last year. If you can explain that.
B. DAVIS:
Just higher due to forecasted salary increases.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
And what was spent last year was down a little bit based on the fact that there
were vacant positions, similar to what happens in the divisions.
C. PARDY:
Yes.
Purchased Services, in the same section, there were $283,000 more budgeted this
year compared to what was spent last year. If you can give us a breakdown of
what those expenses were for. That is Purchased Services under 2.1.01.01.
B. DAVIS:
So that deals directly with
the US military sites in Labrador as well. So that is in two separate sections
there and you'll see it come through in, I guess, four sections. If Bonnie wants
to jump in, she can clarify it. But the way it is accounted for in the public
accounting systems is the way we're doing it. It is not the easiest to
understand but that is the way it is.
So that
$283,000 is a reduction in what we put in place for US military sites. It is
just going to be carried forward in future years.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
Grants
and Subsidies, in that section as well, I know we are back to the $2 million
budgeted; would the list of those be in the binder that we've received?
B. DAVIS:
We can get you a list of the
grants that were passed out. That's no problem, for that section.
The
Grants and Subsidies decrease over last year was based on the provincial waste
management projects and unused funding because of COVID, not closing down
landfills and things like that. That is essentially where that would be a
reduction in. That money is still going to be spent; it is just going to be
moved out to a subsequent year.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
You had
the revenue section, Minister.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. PARDY:
There was $2 million in
revenue budgeted last year but nothing was collected, if you can explain that,
and the $25,000 expected to be collected this year.
B. DAVIS:
Right, so that $2 million
is, again, to do with the US former military sites. It's the money that we
didn't receive from the federal contribution for it because we didn't do the
work. We're still in that process of meeting with the federal government.
They've
got a budget line there, through their treasury board process, but now we're in
the consultations with Indigenous organizations and governments to figure out
what the actual extent of the cleanup is, what the cost of that will be and then
we will both be going back to the federal government to determine what the
actual cost is. This is money that was budgeted for but we didn't spend.
C. PARDY:
And they're paying fully for
the cleanup? Will they pay fully –?
B. DAVIS:
I'm going to say hopefully. But I don't expect that will be the case. Maybe,
Bonnie, do you want to jump in on that one a little bit?
B. STEELE:
Actually, I think we'll get Rob to speak to that because he is …
R. LOCKE:
The former military sites
are potentially going to be funded through a 50/50 cost-shared agreement with
the federal government. As the minister said, while we are consulting with
Indigenous governments and organizations, we can't put a fixed number on that to
finalize consultations until we have the final cost of what the cleanups could
cost. We don't want to go in, for example, with an ask of $20 million only to
find out that the cleanups could actually cost $30 million. Certainly, doing due
diligence now, speaking with those groups in trying to build consensus toward a
cost.
The
revenue that you're seeing, the difference is that until we finalize a
cost-shared agreement with federal government, there will be no anticipated
revenue, until we actually start to do the work, invoice the federal government
and then receive revenue back in return.
The
framework we have initially worked out is that there would be an anticipated
revenue, roughly 50 per cent of what the province could spend. That is reflected
in the $4 million you've seen pushed out to future years in Professional
Services and Purchased Services. Similarly, then, the removal of the $2 million
that will come back from the federal government. So all of that has been pushed
now to future years until we can finalize that agreement.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr. Locke.
I
remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.
2.1.01
to 2.3.01 inclusive.
MHA
Evans.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Chair.
2.1.01,
Pollution Prevention: How many estimated liabilities for contaminated sites are
currently calculated and how will the estimated process unfold in the future,
for example, for Come By Chance Refinery?
B. DAVIS:
I think we can get you that
list. I don't know if we have it here today.
Robert,
do you have a list of contaminated sites? We can get it for you.
R. LOCKE:
We can certainly get that,
yeah.
B. DAVIS:
We don't have it here, I
don't think, but obviously the liability would be pretty high in certain areas,
of course.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Would
you have an update on the Impacted Sites Liability Assessment Program and what
cleanup plans are in the works for this upcoming year?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, we're just the, I
guess, the holder of the list. We're not necessarily the ones that –
Transportation and Infrastructure would be more of the ones that would determine
what gets cleaned and when and the budget associated with that. We're just the
holder of the list. I won't say this to diminish it, but more of an accounting
of what we have out there and what the potential liabilities could be. Until you
actually get in there and dig into what the site would look like after it has
started to be cleaned up, it's hard to say exactly what would be there.
But we
can get you the information we have on the registry, is probably the best word
to describe it. But I think your question about what order in which it will be
done and the magnitude in which it will be done, would be better served to
Transportation and Infrastructure.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
B. DAVIS:
I think you have an
opportunity tonight, though, for that.
L. EVANS:
I was just thinking that.
Looking
at greenhouse gas emissions: What are we currently doing to date for
implementing the 45 actions that were to take place by 2024 to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions?
B. DAVIS:
Thank you for the question.
Currently, of the 45 recommendations, we have 67 per cent of them fully
completed; 33 per cent of them are in progress, at varying degrees of progress,
but we're continuing to know that's definitely not going to be enough to reach
our 2030 or 2050 targets. We're going to have to do more. That's going to be why
we're starting to look at the next plan, but that's a part of the reason why we
put in place the Net-Zero Advisory Council to provide some insight into that.
The
federal government has really doubled down on this. It's truly doubled down on
the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund, because, in this past budget, they
announced $2.2 billion for that fund again, which will give us a similar number,
we hope, to what we did the last five years, which was about $90 million to
change out buildings and electrification and putting things in place for our
transportation and heating of buildings, which are big pillars of – they account
for 30 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions now in the province.
If we
can tackle the transportation network, not just from a personal vehicle
standpoint, which we're trying to attack, but also where the next levels go for
public transit, what we can do for shipping and things like that.
Those
technologies are moving on and I know the federal government put also another
$9.2 billion into the green economy and green tech and all those things that are
going to try to help us hit those targets about carbon capture and other things
to go along with that. But it is a moving target as we speak and we're doing
everything we can to hold industry accountable but also help individuals
transition to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Can we
get that update, the 67 actions that are completed and the 33 that are in
progress?
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
L. EVANS:
Can we just get, like, a
written report summarizing the progress?
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Has
there been any progress made in the last year to improve or specify the policies
and procedures for calculating the liability of a given site, as per the Auditor
General's report in 2020?
B. DAVIS:
We'll throw it back to our
resident expert, Robert.
R. LOCKE:
Yes, so in response to the Auditor General's report, my division staff have –
we've revised the guidance document that departments and agencies follow with
respect to calculating liabilities for those sites. One of the main improvements
is that there is now a cost for inflation that gets added to the liabilities.
We're still in the process of finalizing this year's report, but once it's
available we can certainly make those calculations and numbers available.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
I'm not
sure if this is the right place to ask it but just another question here that
just came up: Has the government started calculating its corporate carbon
footprint?
B. DAVIS:
I'm going to say yes, we do
that, through Susan's shop.
Susan,
would you like to make a comment on that as well?
S. SQUIRES:
All of our GHG emissions in the province are calculated and we participate in
the national reporting inventory for all our GHG emissions. That's broken down
by sector, so we would report into those just like industry, manufacturing,
residential use, all of it. We have initiatives over this Climate Change Action
Plan about greening government and different departments have done different
things, so there is, I guess, a multitude of areas in which we're working on
that.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Moving
to 2.2.01, Water Resources Management. It's good to see you, Dr. Khan. I've
worked with you in the past.
So
2.2.01, Water Resources Management: How many municipalities have been on a
boil-water advisory for more than a month, one year and how many residents do
such long-term advisories currently impact?
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, so as of April 28 – we
can get you more up-to-date information but that's not that long ago – there was
188 boil-water advisories in place. There are 146 communities affected by those
boil-water advisories, serving a population of about 43,000 people, so just a
little over almost 10 per cent of the population, a little less.
But 174 of those, which is
the interesting part of this, which is something that I know the previous
minister – Minister Bragg – when he was with MAPA, or whatever the iteration was
before, was really firm on when we give funding to municipalities and
organizations like that, instead of building a recreation complex in a
community, we should be really focusing on giving clean drinking water to the
constituencies there. It is not, as they say, the big, shiny building that is
sitting in a community, but it is something that is going to make a big impact.
But the point of that
statement was that 174 of those are non-microbiological reasons so they can be
fixed – I won't say easy, but there are systems in place. There is funding
available within the government to fix these things. We just need the
communities to apply, and I never miss an opportunity to encourage individuals,
municipalities, LSDs to apply to clean their drinking water.
The ones that are very
challenging, those ones are the ones we will all try to step up and try to find
solutions for. But they are very small numbers, the ones that are more
challenging to fix. The rest, you know, it could be that they have a system
already in place and they are not putting chlorine in it or chemicals in it that
needs to be put into it, because some people don't like the taste of the
chorine. Those are the things that we can fix and try to find ways to work
together on. So a very good question, MHA Evans.
L. EVANS:
And will be able to get a
breakdown of the ones that have been on the boil-water advisory for more than a
month, more than a year?
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, we can do that.
L. EVANS:
You can just send it over.
B. DAVIS:
They are online, but we can get you a copy. That is no problem.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
I guess about tying the
boil-water advisories to access to funding is one of the things you are doing,
but what are you doing to address the boil-water advisories that have been in
place for a long time?
B. DAVIS:
Well, that is a very good question. We have reduced that number. That was well
over 200 not too long ago. I think it was 240 or 235. So we have reduced that
over the last couple of years by putting in place, as I mentioned in my intro,
the water operator program, to help those smaller communities that don't have
the experience and/or skilled staff – they have skilled staff but not
necessarily in that particular area.
These individuals are
someone they can call to help those communities and they have helped a number of
communities get their systems back up and running, helped them maintain them
when they do have a faulty part or something like that. So those are things that
we're doing, tangible, that can help them. But we're encouraging people – like,
in this House of Assembly, I encourage every MHA to talk to their district
communities that don't have clean drinking water to reach out to us. We want
this fixed; we want to support it. It is a priority for not just our provincial
government, but our federal government as well.
We're
pushing hard to try to get this stuff, but it is going to take all of us, the
municipalities, our MHAs on both sides of the aisle here, to work together to
try to get these communities fixed because that is the only way that it is going
to work. Communities, like all of us, like to see the big infrastructure that's
above ground so that every person can go in and visit. They don't necessarily
worry as much about infrastructure that lies underneath the ground. That is
something that is really important for the livelihoods of individuals. It is
part of the Health Accord. It is something that we are committed to and we have
been committed to well before the Health Accord as well. So very good question.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister, and
thank you, MHA Evans.
Just
before we go back to MHA Pardy, out of respect for our friends down at the
Broadcast Centre, I'm asking for five minutes. So we'll reconvene at 11:30 a.m.
B. DAVIS:
Perfect.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Okay. If we can just gather
our seats again, please.
So we
are back on 2.1.01 to 2.3.01.
MHA
Pardy.
C. PARDY:
A question on the
remediation of the old dump sites: What would be the estimated cost of
remediation of a dump site? I know outside of St. John's, here in Robin Hood
Bay, I think you can get probably a handle on what those dump sites would be.
B. DAVIS:
I guess that is the
million-dollar, probably billion-dollar question. I don't know if we could ever
get a handle on what the full remediation will be of sites. I don't have it off
the top of my head, but what I do know is that we're working with some of the
sites like Discovery region in Coast of Bays to try to find some ways to have
them move in their garbage so we can get rid of those sites. That's what that
money that was carried over – that $2 million was it – for sites. That's where
we need to go.
So when
we get those deals done, like with your region down there in Discovery, once we
get that worked out, that'll help us close out those dump sites and then
transition people to the landfill that's closest to them, whether it be Eastern,
Central or Western.
C. PARDY:
We're struggling in our
district with our dump site capacity –
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
– as you well know.
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
I keep telling the residents
and the councils that my understanding was the year before last and then it was
last year, so I'm assuming, surely, we wouldn't be too far off.
B. DAVIS:
Well, the whole thing is
we're waiting for the Discovery region, right, that's where we're working
through. It's not just on our end; we're waiting for – what's the best word –
Robert, you can sort of jump in there
R. LOCKE:
MHA Pardy, as it happens, we
actually have a meeting that we're arranging now with representatives from
Discovery region. The whole purpose would be to advance the strategy in that
area, to work with them, to consolidate closed sites and to move into the modern
waste management system for the Eastern region.
C. PARDY:
So the rubber is hitting the
road now?
R. LOCKE:
Yes, it is indeed. Our staff
are actually – I think, they have a meeting planned, if it's not, within the
next week or two, I think it's very imminent.
C. PARDY:
Perfect.
Last,
before I move on to another topic, the US military bases, we must have an
estimate – even though when I ask that question I know how precarious that is
and tough job to get an estimate because you don't know what's lying beneath.
But do we have an estimate that we're working on that we're going to go 50/50 on
with the feds?
B. DAVIS:
We'll let Robert jump in
there because he's been working intimately with the file.
R. LOCKE:
Yes, so the latest estimate
we have is approximately $25 million, $27 million. As I said, that number is not
finalized and we don't want it to be finalized until we fully consulted with the
Indigenous governments and organizations, the people who use the land. We need
to know what the proposed land use will be. There's historical knowledge in
those communities that previous assessments may not have picked up. So we are
looking to potentially have sessions actually in each of the communities with
the Indigenous organizations to gather knowledge and basically for both of us to
work together to build consensus on what is there and how best to remediate in
order to meet the needs and improve these sites going forward.
C. PARDY:
Okay, good. Good, good,
good.
One
quick point on the ATV tires, and I know you're not MMSB. It fails me when we
look at the environment that a small business in Clarenville can change tires,
they don't sell the tires but they can change someone's tire on the ATVs, four
tires. What MMSB has really expected them to do is to give that back to them to
take with them and to dispose of themselves.
Sometimes that's problematic. Sometimes it doesn't get where it ought to be. So
what the business owner opted to do was he would save the tires and he would
bring them out. So at one point in time he brought it out in his business truck
and you know that didn't work. So they didn't take them. The only thing being
was that if he went home and changed his truck and brought them back out, they
would be taken.
What
our goal would be environmentally was to take those tires out of the circulation
that don't end up on streets or in waking trails that we would have, but once we
put that barrier up – and we have it – and once those leave his business and
bring those ATV tires out, if there's even 20 per cent that don't make it to the
transfer station, then that's 20 per cent too much.
There
might be a little tweaking or another analysis that I would see. I know it's not
for discussion here, but it's probably something we should look at with that.
I had a
fisherman that brought a net up. He had a net in the back and only to get to the
transfer station in Clarenville and they don't take nets. So he called: Well,
what do I do with that? They don't take it. It's Robin Hood Bay.
If you
think most fishermen are going to transfer it, that would be living in the
District of Bonavista and make the track for there, then I said, not going to
happen.
B. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) I tend to agree
with you on that.
The
MMSB has put an RFP out for tires. I know that's clued up now, or very close to
cluing up. I think that's going to be an opportunity for us to look at a local
options, hopefully, that will deal with the tires. Because normally you can't
deal with the ATV tires anyway because of the mud and stuff, based on where we
were bringing them to, which was in Quebec, they couldn't cross borders because
of the potato bug and all that stuff could potentially come in.
We're
working on things. It's not lost on me, because anything we can take out of the
landfill and recycle is going to be better for us for the longer term, not just
from a greenhouse gas emission and a waste management position, but anything we
can divert out of those landfills to increase better than 50 per cent of the
diversion is where we need to be, as, not just the government, as a people.
C. PARDY:
Now, I'm not going to raise
about how shipping our tires out of the – because I think you had stated in
Estimates last year, the fact that we just don't have the volume. It's just for
us to do something with it, but I don't know what the carbon footprint would be
using the concrete plant in Quebec. I'm assuming –
B. DAVIS:
Yes, obviously, we're
looking at options. Hopefully – stay tuned – there'll be an option that would be
better than that forth coming.
I can't
speak to that yet at this point because I don't know if it's finalized or if
it's even clued up that way, so stay tuned. Obviously, it's not falling on deaf
ears, I agree with you 100 per cent on let's divert as much as we possibly can
and use it if we can.
The
problem that I've always heard is that we have an awful lot of tires, but
nowhere near what it needs to be in industry. But that doesn't negate the fact
that we can't use something for it. So stay tuned, we're working on some things.
Hopefully, when you ask me next year in Estimates, you won't even ask me, you'll
say congratulations, Minister, on the great program that you've put in place for
these tires.
C. PARDY:
Good.
Keep in mind the debate that we had about the all-terrain vehicles and helmets
in Side By Sides.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. PARDY:
Remember, the stats would tell you that we have got double the ATVs per capita.
We have got the highest in Canada. So once we look at our per capita, we are not
normal as far as in Newfoundland and Labrador thinking that we haven't –
B. DAVIS:
I would think we definitely are normal.
C. PARDY:
No, we are not normal, I don't think.
B. DAVIS:
I think the people would think differently if you had said they were abnormal.
C. PARDY:
Definitely not abnormal. But we are not the normal breed.
If I can go to Water Resources Management, you had stated there – and I commend
you on that – the onus is on MHAs to make safe drinking water available and for
us to be all a part of it. Let me give you a scenario and you tell me what you
would think.
So we have got a community that has been on a boil-water order – 66, 70
households. They just got a Municipal Capital Works Project last year for
$250,000 because they figured that is what they could afford to pay. They have
been on a boil-water advisory. So this is the second one they have got. The
first one they got, they paid it off. Now they have got another one for
$250,000. Well, they have probably got another three to go, but they can't
afford that one million to pay it off in what the lending institutions would
provide for them for six or seven years.
We have got a community with a boil order since 1985 and, at a public meeting,
they were wondering if government can say we will grant you enough to do a job
that your drinking water will be safe to drink and you will come off the
boil-water advisory. The only thing being is we need to be able to have a longer
borrowing term.
Is there something that government can do that would help communities like
Newman's Cove to be able to get there much sooner than having to wait for
another decade and go through the trickles of the $250,000?
B. DAVIS:
Well, before I throw it to Haseen, I just want to say, yes, would be what I
would like to say, but I haven't specifically had a conversation with them to
see what their requirements are as you described them. I would be more than
happy to sit down with them to try to find solutions on what we can do.
Haseen is probably more intimately involved in this, obviously, than I have. But
if there is anything we can do with respect to gas tax, federal government and
provincial government to work towards getting that there – we are all in this
together to try and get them there. Let's figure out how we can do it and Haseen
–
H. KHAN:
Thank you, Minister, and MHA Pardy.
As the minister said, there are two options. For these type of communities, we
have launched a special program that every year we will select four or five such
communities. We will
work with them one on one – what is the cause of this problem, how the problem
can be fixed and these are the options. So this is one option.
The
second option is, as the minister mentioned, drinking water safety is our
priority. We can also provide these communities with a small potable water
dispensing unit, which will provide them with clean and safe water for drinking
purposes.
We have
done that for a number of such communities, and there are 32 potable water
dispensing units operating throughout the province. So yes, there are options to
respond to these types of special situations, MHA Pardy.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
We'll
go back to MHA Evans, 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.
L. EVANS:
Thank you, Chair.
Just
going back to 2.1.01, under Pollution Prevention for waste management there.
Given the large carbon footprint associated with solid waste, is the department
giving any consideration to diverting organics from the regional waste
management sites?
B. DAVIS:
The short answer is yes,
we've given consideration – it is a costly venture, so we're looking at options
on smaller sites that we could do it in. I'll give you one example and I'll let
Robert jump in on this after I give this one. I was in Deer Lake. They do some
composting in their site, for their own – I guess they have a municipal site but
the residents can come get the product. It's a fenced-in yard, they'll open it
up when it's ready to go and they can take it out.
There's
a program that smaller communities can use together for regional sites, where
they can actually get tumblers from MMSB and that's one of the options that
we're using for smaller scale to try to reach across the Island to get some
people moving in that diversion point. Robert, if you want to jump in on that
one, that'd be great.
R. LOCKE:
Sure, thank you, Minister.
Certainly a recognition that organic waste going to landfill is an issue.
Overall, from a provincial perspective, that is certainly recognized that we
would be working toward a provincial solution for organic waste management from
the municipal side.
From
the industrial side, there are a number of companies that have approached us
over the last while with solutions that they're certainly looking at
implementing and we're supporting, where possible, to divert organic waste from
landfill. Things like sewage waste treatment, enhanced treatment or processing
of aquaculture waste, things like that. So it is certainly something the
department is working with stakeholders to address.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Moving
back to 2.2.01, Water Resources Management. Just looking for an update. How far
along is the work now on the Drinking Water Safety Action Plan?
B. DAVIS:
Good question. I mentioned
earlier that we have already done a public consultation and that has been clued
up. The department is working on the report from there. I would say, as I said
to MHA Pardy, stay tuned, it is not going to be very far and we'll have that
released.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Could
we get an update on the monitoring of methylmercury levels downstream? I know
you are monitoring the methylmercury in the water, but also I am looking at
bioaccumulation in the food chain. In addition to the water methylmercury
monitoring you're doing, are you testing any organisms, such as fish and also
waterfowl that feed on the aquatic vegetation and the insects and organisms in
the water?
This
monitoring that you're going to talk to me about now, are there reports
available to residents that would actually show the methylmercury levels in
water and also in the food chain?
B. DAVIS:
I think it is available on
our website for the levels. I will let Haseen jump in here on this one because
he can talk about it a little bit more in detail from scientist to scientist
more than MHA to scientist.
L. EVANS:
Just to clarify, we're
looking at what testing is going on, on what and where are the reports.
H. KHAN:
Thanks, MHA.
Methylmercury monitoring has been going on in three mediums: water, sediment and
biota. Water data is available on the Department of Environment and Climate
Change website. It is updated on a regular basis, as and when data is provided
to us by the lab.
Sediment and biota monitoring is undertaken by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
as a part of EA release requirements. They submit annual reports to the
department on their findings. We post those reports also on our web page. So
there is a one-point contact to the public for all information on methylmercury,
which has been collected to date. We, as the departmental, are lead on
methylmercury monitoring in water. To date, monitoring has not shown any
increase in methylmercury levels.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
So
where did you say the other reports are? Is that available to the public?
B. DAVIS:
The Newfoundland (inaudible)
is public as well on our website.
L. EVANS:
On the website.
Thank
you.
H. KHAN:
We can send you the link.
L. EVANS:
No, that's good.
Are
there any priorities for flood-risk mapping to be conducted this coming year?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, good question.
We were
pleased to put in $1.2 million in this budget for flood-risk mapping, $600,000
from the federal government and $600,000 for the province. In 2022, just so we
know, we conducted flood-risk mapping in Ferryland, Brigus and other places. In
2023, it's looking at the Codroy Valley where we've had some issues as of recent
with respect to flooding in the fall.
So
we're looking at those areas of highest priority where we have issues that can
provide information to the municipality and the community groups to ensure that
those areas are not impacted in infrastructure and the costs come forward.
But I
will throw it back to Haseen again on flood-risk mapping, if there is anything
he'd like to add, because I think it's not known widely, but it's a very big
service that's provided by the department, that's used by many other departments
and agencies across the province.
Haseen.
H. KHAN:
Thank you, Minister.
The
province has been involved in flood-risk mapping since the 1980s under various
federal-provincial cost-shared programs. We, as a province, have developed
flood-risk maps for about 46 communities. We maintain that information on our
web page.
Every year we try to select four or five communities from our priority list,
which is available on the web page.
As of today, there are about 22 communities which are on the priority list. So
either the maps have to be updated – our maps have to be done right from
scratch. So, as the minister mentioned, it is an ongoing process and we will
continue to update flood-risk maps as prepared maps for those areas for which we
have no information.
For the information of Members, there are 50 communities in the province which
are kind of prone to flooding from time to time.
B. DAVIS:
One of the things that I think is novel about ours is that we factor in climate
change numbers and initiatives that come forward that some other jurisdictions
don't do but we do that because I think it's important to factor that in.
Thank you, MHA Evans.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Is it possible to get an update on the implementation of the Regional Water and
Wastewater Operator Pilot Program?
B. DAVIS:
Yes, good question.
Myself and Minister Howell were in Gander at the Water Operators Provincial
Conference – I think that's what it was called – where we announced $240,000,
almost $250,000, to maintain that program to ensure that communities that don't
have the readily available skill sets have the ability to utilize those trained
professionals to learn how to operate their system or maintain their systems. I
look at it as almost like you call a friend thing, when you have a problem it
gives you an opportunity to call someone who knows and walks you through that
system and knows your system well.
L. EVANS:
Just looking at weather forecasts now. When you are actually predicting the
impacts from weather emergencies such as blizzards and hurricanes, where do you
get your information to make such forecasts?
B. DAVIS:
I get it from Haseen, but I'm going to throw is back to Haseen to say where
Haseen gets it.
So thank you, Haseen, for providing that information to me and everybody else.
H. KHAN:
We do lots of work in this area. We kind of compile our own information in
consultation with communities as well as through our own ongoing monitoring
programs, because we cannot make informed decision making until we know what is
happening out in the field. So we have a very strong network and partnership
with communities, as well as with operators and that is how we get information.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Mr.
Khan, and thank you, MHA Evans.
2.1.01
to 2.3.01, MHA Pardy.
C. PARDY:
Just a couple of more points
to finish up there.
On the
Newman's Cove situation, which I just mentioned, we can discuss that –
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
– and have a look, that's
something that we can explore. In the response on number two, where it mentioned
that we had drinking water safety, small water dispensing program, I'm assuming
that would be under the special assistance grant through municipalities?
B. DAVIS:
For those PWDU systems?
C. PARDY:
Or would it be through your
department?
H. KHAN:
It goes through the Capital Works program.
C. PARDY:
Okay, Capital Works program.
B. DAVIS:
We're more than happy to sit
down with you, MHA, just like any other MHA, if there are issues within your
district, we want to try to support those as best we can. I mean, the answer may
not be exactly what you want or the time frame you want, but we're going to try
to do it as fast as we possibly can, given the resources that we have.
C. PARDY:
Thank you. That's good.
I was
the mayor of George's Brook-Milton prior to offering myself and running in the
election. At that point in time, we had a very, very poor water infrastructure
system. In fact, our supply dried up. We are adjacent to a rather large
municipality; we had asked for water from their municipality, which I would
assume the millions that were spent to develop their system was probably based
on us anyhow, as a regional system, is what was our understanding, but we
couldn't get water.
So we
contacted the government. I think last year's Estimates, Mr. Michielsen was part
and he did yeoman work in trying to broker. What I thought strange was, as
gallant an attempt as it was for him to broker for us to get water, it didn't
happen. And the sad part was that it was on an 80/20 split that we, as
taxpayers, contribute 80 per cent of the $10 million, $12 million water
treatment plant that exists. To think that we could not, or the government could
not – I hate to say dictate – but to direct to supply water.
Well,
after four or five days of us begging and paying the highest price in
Newfoundland and Labrador for water to come into our community – higher than St.
John's, the highest level – that was one of the things that I said, well, I
wouldn't mind running in the next election, just based on some of those
principles.
I would
say right now in George's Brook-Milton where we are, well, we're having a
parallel system that we get government funding to enhance our water system. I
would say when we look at efficiencies, that when we farm out the monies in
these water projects that you would do under your department, we have to make
sure that there are conditions involved that if there was a neighbouring
community that needs that water, then the neighbouring community can access that
water that would be available.
I know
a lot depends on the amount of usage that they have. But I just wanted to slip
that in, because it was very significant to us at the time. I would think that
by me stating to you, going forward in the discussions that you have, it may
come up some point in time that in future that we do have control that if we put
in 80 per cent of our funds, then the contract and the agreement that is signed
we know that if it's a neighbouring community that's in need, then the water
ought to go to them. Because financially it makes sense for us to do so.
B. DAVIS:
Are you sure you're not
speaking for Minister Howell on regionalization there? Just wondering – I'll
make sure I send that message to her, too.
C. PARDY:
I am a fan of
regionalization.
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
If it works for the people,
it works for me.
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
On the assessment, the
2.3.01 – and I know that we haven't gone through a lot of the lines.
B. DAVIS:
Okay, 2.3.01, you said?
C. PARDY:
Yes.
B. DAVIS:
Okay, sorry, I'm there.
C. PARDY:
Again, I'm learning, and I
know you're not here to impart your knowledge on to me. But the only thing I
would say is that when you do an environmental assessment, I'm assuming that you
look at the environment, but you also look at what the magnitude or what the
potential would be of what you're assessing – potential for the province.
You
might say, well, I wonder what is he referring to right now. I would say if we
look at Tors Cove, the sealing that would be in your department right now and
looking at an environmental assessment. I would look at on a bigger picture as
to how significant – and we had a good discussion in the House on sealing and
where we ought to be and what we think the benefits would be.
Trinity
train loop, I've had businesspeople looking at that, but I think that's tied up
in an environmental assessment. And probably all valuable – it's all
significant, but the only thing being is that we have people who are out there
waiting to invest money to turn it over to something that we can create an
economic return on.
B. DAVIS:
It's the first I heard of
that one, by the way.
C. PARDY:
I state that because that's
what I understand is that there's an environmental component of Trinity train
loop before it's ever divested from the provincial government.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA
Evans, did you have anything left in 2.1.01 to 2.3.01?
L. EVANS:
Yes, I did.
CHAIR:
Okay.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Under
2.2.01, Water Resources Management: Looking at the Supplies and Professional
Services, spending went over budget last year; what was the extra money spent
on?
B. DAVIS:
Could you say that again?
Which section again, 2.3.01?
L. EVANS:
Water Resources Management.
B. DAVIS:
Okay, sorry. Let me get back
there.
Say
that question again, please.
L. EVANS:
Supplies and Professional
Services went over budget last year; what was the extra money spent on?
B. DAVIS:
Higher field supplies to the
drinking water program equipment and supplies. Hydrometric and Climate Program
equipment as well.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Federal
revenue was much higher than expected last year.
B. DAVIS:
Cost shared on climate
change adaptation flood risk mapping, the $600,000. That was put in the budget.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Moving
to 2.2.02, Water Quality Agreement. Under Supplies, what accounts for the budget
increase?
B. DAVIS:
The same thing from
previous. Supplies for field equipment budgeted for the program expansion
related to real time water quality agreements.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
2.3.01,
Environmental Assessment and Sustainable Development.
B. DAVIS:
Okay.
L. EVANS:
Just moving down the page.
B. DAVIS:
Moving right along.
L. EVANS:
What recommendations have
been implemented as a result of the waste management review and which ones will
be put in place in the next year?
B. DAVIS:
Okay. So the waste
management review was received, I think, in 2020. We're working through those. I
always use the example that we're knocking the low-hanging fruit that is there
available for us to make changes to and then the larger discussions will come
with the municipalities and the organizations that would have concerns with
doing some of the things that were in the report.
Not
that we're going to implement everything that was in the report, but we're
working towards the things that make sense for municipalities and organizations.
That is what we're working on. The things that don't make sense are going to be
conversations with them to see what is a better use of resources or whatnot.
Similar to the discussion we had with Discovery with MHA Pardy a second ago.
L. EVANS:
So would we be
able to get an overview of the recommendations though?
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, we can give you a full copy of the recommendation. I can also give you an
update of where we are to with some of the changes that have already been made
and implemented.
L. EVANS:
Yes, those are the ones I am looking for. Just an update on those ones.
B. DAVIS:
No problem.
L. EVANS:
Would we be able to have am update on the environmental assessment process
review?
B. DAVIS:
Yeah. I can sort of give you a treetops one. Right now, we are in the process of
doing that. I encourage individuals that have some concerns expressed, similar
to what MHA Pardy had mentioned just earlier, if they have those concerns please
forward them to our director who is in the process of doing that as we speak.
It is a legislatively governed process that I believe takes into account all of
the things highlighted earlier here today as well. It is a solid process but
there are always opportunities to make improvements, and that is why we are
doing an evaluation on the process.
That is the update I have right now. I don't know a timeline when it will be
completed but, as I have always said, I would sooner the work be done correctly
and right than fast and wrong. We have seen those things happen before.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Has there been any progress made in combatting illegal dumping, as my fellow
colleague was talking about the issue with tires and things like that? Do we
have any means of measuring the problem, first off, and like the volume of
garbage that is being dumped in a given year?
B. DAVIS:
So the short answer is yes, there has been progress made. We have put in place,
I think – it was Estimates last year – 140 or 160 positions in FFA or
thereabouts that would be doing evaluations as they are doing their regular job
of dump sites that would be in the province. Obviously the MMSB has a fantastic
role in trying to educate the public that if it appears in the woods on your
trail system, it started in somebody's hand to get there.
I think that is an important piece that all of us should be doing. I think those
type of community cleanups like we have with the Come Home Year Cleanup and
cleanups, like in my own area, the Outer Ring Road as an example, send a message
to others that this is not something we should be doing and have to do every
year. It is something that you can control yourself.
So the short answer is yes, there has been extra money put in enforcement. The
other side that I mentioned earlier about ERP programs – any time you make it
more cost effective to dispose of waste, more people will do it to make it
easier for them.
Because landfills can expand their hours, they can accept more things. If you
can drop off your fishing net in location X and save yourself a drive for 100
kilometres, well then that's good for recycling and it's good for your
environment, it's good for you from a cost perspective, so we're always looking
at ways we can improve on that.
But
point well taken about cleaning up our dump sites that exist. I know that the
hon. Member for Ferryland last year, I went in and we had some sites cleaned up
by volunteers and we were able to find some money to help dispose of that,
tipping fees, to help him get rid of buses and stuff that were in the woods at
campgrounds.
So, you
know, those are things that, when we hear about them, we'll try our best to work
to find solutions.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Under
Professional Services, what was the $11,500 used for last year?
B. DAVIS:
Legal costs for the Northern
Harvest versus the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
Under
provincial revenue, why was this far less than expected last year, than was
budgeted?
B. DAVIS:
Okay, so that was because
there was a delay in the revenue to come from Grieg NL project, based on the
environmental assessment and the condition of release, was they had to hire a
monitor. We had to hire a monitor, they were paying for it, but it never needed
to be implemented because they weren't at that stage of the development that
they are now. So that monitor is in the process of being hired now.
L. EVANS:
Thank you.
I
missed an item up here, just going back, 2.2.02.
B. DAVIS:
2.2.02, give me one second.
L. EVANS:
Water Quality Agreement.
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
L. EVANS:
Purchased Services came in
under budget last year. Why was that?
B. DAVIS:
Lower costs due to decreased
water testing related to COVID-19 restrictions during the field season and
decreased maintenance costs for repairs needed for the equipment.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
One of the few things that
decreased during COVID.
L. EVANS:
Just going back to page 99,
I think it is, under 2.2.01, Water Resources Management on page 99.
B. DAVIS:
Okay.
L. EVANS:
It's not a line item, but I
know you want to find it in the book.
How many inspectors are there now for monitoring aquaculture sites and how often
are the sites inspected?
B. DAVIS:
Good question.
I don't know off the top of my head. I'm going to look to staff. How many
monitors? Can you say that again, if you don't mind, MHA Evans?
L. EVANS:
How many inspectors are there now monitoring the aquaculture sites?
OFFICIAL:
Fisheries.
B. DAVIS:
Oh that would be in Fisheries, wouldn't it?
So that would be in FFA. Sorry about that.
L. EVANS:
And I skipped over it intentionally because I knew we asked it and I had a
couple of questions there but I didn't think we asked all of them.
B. DAVIS:
And I think we sparked that question in your mind because we talked about the
monitor that was there for Grieg and that was – it's just a condition of release
that it sits in our department. Sometimes conditions of release, it would be in
FFA because it is more reflective of the management that FFA would do of it.
L. EVANS:
Exactly.
Where I have got four seconds, I will take this time to – no, thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
So if the Committee is ready for the question.
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive carry?
CHAIR:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Before I get the last set of subheads called, I just want to remind everybody
that we are scheduled to finish at 12:30 p.m. So we will see where it goes and
we will make a decision by then.
So if I can have the Clerk call the next set of subheads, please.
CLERK:
Climate Change, 3.1.01 to 3.2.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.2.01 inclusive carry?
MHA Pardy.
C. PARDY:
Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to do my best to be very expeditious here.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
C. PARDY:
I'm not known to be every expeditious but I'm going to try my best.
Back to the questions. The average household – I know you didn't get that but
does the department have a cost of what the average household in Newfoundland
and Labrador will pay as a result of the carbon tax this year? Do we have that?
B. DAVIS:
We will throw it back to Susan there.
S. SQUIRES:
So it obviously depends on how much you use fuel because the carbon tax is based
on fuel. So if you have one vehicle versus multiple vehicles and Ski-Doo and
whatnot, you are obviously (inaudible).
The carbon tax is known as a cost per litre and so people kind of judge that. So
it's a bit harder to judge when you are talking about transportation but
certainly easy to calculate if you have your own numbers. We don't, at this
point, pay a carbon tax on home heating fuel, but we do know if
that proceeds to be added as
a cost, you are looking at upwards of hundreds of dollars on home heating fuel.
And, again, people can calculate that depending – they know their own home
heating fuel usage per year and can calculate that.
C. PARDY:
I state that just out of
knowing that I come from a rural district, as things get more centralized you
find that you have to travel to and from more.
I
mentioned about the all-terrain vehicles. I mean, in rural Newfoundland, it's
not uncommon that they have a couple of all-terrain vehicles that they would
have. Amazing, really, because they use those quite a bit. I would think the
carbon, we'll say, impact on them is fairly significant in rural Newfoundland,
to travel. Probably even more so than what it may be in urban. And, again, you
know better than I.
I just
know that from my district to know that medically they'll have to travel to St.
John's. If they can't get the service in Bonavista, they'll travel to
Clarenville. There is so much travel up Route 230 and all that is impacting.
But I
just ask, I didn't know if we had an estimated cost. I know how taxing and how
difficult that is to get. But I didn't know if you had one that you had in your
department that you were using as the impact on us. No.
B. DAVIS:
As Susan said, it's all
individual based on that. You gave the exact example why it's impossible or
close to impossible to determine why. You could have two snow machines, two
trikes or two bikes, three cars, whatever, right. And those things, depending on
what you use for that, would be a challenge.
C. PARDY:
We do estimations, though,
all the time.
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, absolutely.
C. PARDY:
And I know that if the
parliamentary budget office can do it for Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba, then
surely there is a way out there that we can certainly do it for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
So in
the budget they had stated $117 million to be collected in carbon tax this year,
this fiscal. That's a significant amount. So I'm saying, even based on that $117
million and you just work with that totally linearly, you can get an estimate as
to what the impact would be. And I know that it's only an estimate and a very
large ballpark figure.
B. DAVIS:
Right.
C. PARDY:
We can do it. But if you
don't have it, you don't have it.
The
parliamentary budget office for carbon cost, what they're predicting it will be
now in Alberta is $2,282. And they have a rebate program. We don't have a rebate
program in Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead of listing out the other ones,
well, they were there. And that was the basis of which I asked the question,
knowing that they had done their estimation on that.
Newfoundland, I understand and read, emits about 11 million tons of greenhouse
gases per year and the world was 35 billion. So I think you might have
referenced earlier on that we're only a miniscule part of the bigger picture. I
think you had mentioned earlier that it was 36 or 39 per cent of the carbon was
based on transportation.
B. DAVIS:
In the 30s.
C. PARDY:
In the 30s, okay, generally
36.
If I
had a business that was interested in having an EV charging station in the
District of Bonavista, is there a process or have they been selected?
B. DAVIS:
There is an
application-based process through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that people
can apply for. I think there was a subsidy for putting in level 2 charging
stations at businesses. I'll use an example like a hotel or something like that.
I don't know if there was as much uptake as we would have liked, but we're going
to continue to push on that and maybe Susan can jump in and go through some of
that with you.
S. SQUIRES:
The fast-charging locations were picked and they were picked based on an
understanding of trying to get 65 kilometres between fast chargers to get
commuters from across the Island and then Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and
Newfoundland Power are working on additional sites that will get us up and down
the Bonavista Peninsula, Burin Peninsula, Northern Peninsula, whatnot.
So
those sites were picked on a recommended standard on how far they should be
apart. The level 2 chargers, which take longer to charge a vehicle, are what
people would put in their home; they also might put them at their place of
business. It is what we have here, for example, at the Confederation Building to
charge fleet vehicles. Those can be installed by anybody but Newfoundland Power
and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have a program where someone can apply and
get some federal cost-shared support for that. I believe that is open right now
but we certainly can get you more of that information.
C. PARDY:
If you could, that would be
wonderful. Especially when you have someone seeking to have one in Trinity Bay
North, down in the tip of the peninsula –
S. SQUIRES:
I should clarify: They have room in that for a few fast chargers but those are
much more expensive, so the uptake on those is a little bit harder, I think, for
some businesses to take on.
C. PARDY:
And just one thing for
clarification; I would think that our population down there during this tourist
season is probably tenfold. I say that minimally because it is quite possible it
is even more so than that.
B. DAVIS:
I would say even more.
C. PARDY:
Yes.
B. DAVIS:
I think even more of a
concern than that is we want to make sure that infrastructure outpaces vehicles
themselves. So that there's never a thought of range anxiety from individuals.
Because that's one of the concerns; that's a barrier to someone wanting – on the
Bonavista Peninsula, just like it is in St. John's – to purchase an EV.
When
the supply chain starts to solidify and be stronger now, you're going to see
hundreds of these EVs coming into this province, just like across Canada. We're
hopeful that we'll be able to get people to move to those quicker, because of
many of the reasons you identified – for greenhouse gas emissions, to put
savings in your own pocket – these are pennies in relation to most of your
charging is done at home, off-peak times, which is beneficial.
So
there's no doubt that we need to increase the network; that's why we've got 14
fast-charging across the Island, another 19 that are coming this summer, with an
additional 10 or 14 possible that they're going to try to do that – and that
doesn't even equate to the ones that we're looking at in the budget, for the
million dollars we've put into the budget for charging infrastructure.
So it's
known on us how important that is, so we will continue to stay focused on it.
C. PARDY:
Good.
Federal
government, we're going to move from $50 per ton to $170 per ton. If I'm not
mistaken, at $170 per ton, generally the carbon tax will be 30-something cents?
Thirty-three, 35 cents? So if that's where we are, is that really sustainable?
Are we going to be able to do that, where we're talking about in rural
Newfoundland where they have what they utilize now?
We know
that the pace is not going to have – we're not going to electrify these
vehicles, what they certainly use out now, whether it be in their fishing
vessels or on their ATVs or in their vehicles. Is it really …?
B. DAVIS:
I think the answer to your
question is a challenging one. Obviously, it's not something that we can
control. We, like every other province and territory right across this country,
have been thrust into this debate, right here and in every other House, just
like you're having it with me, about carbon tax. It's a federal government
initiative that's been put forward by them, and enforced by them from the
Supreme Court of Canada.
People
that fought it have lost. So we can stand here and debate whether we should be
doing it, but it's already a moot point. It's here, and we've got to try to find
the best way to move people from internal combustion engines to electrification
of anything. Sorry for ….
C. PARDY:
No, no, that's good. Thank
you, I was just trying to make sure I got out a final comment before I pass it
over. I was out of time.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, you'll get another one,
for sure.
C. PARDY:
The only thing I would say
is that we collect the carbon tax; you've got $117 million now. And all I would
say is that we've heard that we're unique; we're unique geography. We're more
like a territory than – so if we got to think about, I come into St. John's here
and I guarantee you, I don't
burn much gas from my location where I live to back and forth. I don't. A
different story when you have got to go out in rural Newfoundland and you are
going for your amenities or you are going for you health appointments. There is
much more distance travel involved.
So it is not all the same. As a government and as a governance we do have an
expectation to make sure that we are as equitable as we possibly can for those
that have a greater need for it or a greater expenditure then there has to be
something – the same doesn't fit for everybody. So that is the last note before
I pass it on.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Pardy.
MHA Evans, we are into Climate change.
L. EVANS:
3.1.01, Climate Change: Could we have an update on the work done as a result of
the Climate Change Action Plan? Now, just looking at the time and the sections
we have, we will gladly accept a written summary as well, mailed to us, rather
than take the time to – the minutes.
B. DAVIS:
Okay. Very quickly, we can get the update on the 45 recommendations that came
out of the Climate Change Action Plan. We can get that to you and I won't speak
any further. I will let you guys try to get your questions in.
L. EVANS:
Yeah, exactly.
Under Grants and Subsidies there is a steep increase to the budget. What will
the funding be going towards?
B. DAVIS:
So that deals directly with the electrical vehicle program and the transition
for the oil to electric program. So that is the grant that is going out for
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to administer those two programs for us.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Under federal revenue budgeted for this year, what is the source of the million
dollars?
B. DAVIS:
Electric vehicle program for infrastructure.
L. EVANS:
Okay. So that is it.
Continuing on there. We understand carbon taxes are governed by Department of
Finance, but can the minister comment on where the revenue from the carbon tax
is going?
B. DAVIS:
The short answer is general revenues but there is, as you have just seen, line
items that come directly from, you know, electric vehicles, oil program.
Obviously there is $40 million in Environment and Climate Change just in our
department alone that deals with that. But there are other departments that have
wings that deal with climate change and greenhouse gas reductions.
In the interest of time, I am trying to be as short as I can but if you need
more, I can try to give you more, even on a sidebar if you would like in the
future.
L. EVANS:
That would be good.
Has the department begun estimating the cost of adaptation yet, the transition,
particularly the coastal risks to provincial roads and infrastructure?
B. DAVIS:
Yeah, so that's part of, I
guess, the flood-risk mapping part. Obviously, there are coastal erosion costs.
We, as a government, don't look at the coastal erosion as much as the feds do
from a financial perspective, but we're always looking and lobbying our
colleagues federally to try to come up with a program because we understand it's
important to try to address some of those concerns that you highlighted.
Obviously, that's something that's changing with respect to climate change.
L. EVANS:
Also, is there financial
support available for the municipalities to write proposals, to access the
low-carbon economy funding? There's a lot of funding out there, but many of the
municipalities don't have the expertise. Every single municipality in my
district can't, actually.
B. DAVIS:
So, very quickly, reach out
to us. We'll help you; we have no problem trying to help municipalities if they
have an idea; tell them if it's functional, if it can work, if we can try to
navigate through that complex system as I've said before.
The
biggest thing I can recommend to anybody is just reach out to us and we'll tell
you if we're able to help you with it but that's one that we definitely will. We
want money all over this province to go and support municipalities, reduce their
costs and, in turn, reduce the cost to residents.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
3.1.02,
Low Carbon Economy, just looking at the number of grant applications now: How
many were made last year for the Climate Change Challenge Fund? What type of
projects were funded? Could we get an approximation of how much carbon they kept
from entering the atmosphere?
B. DAVIS:
So we can give you, in the
interest of time, rather than go through the list, I have it, we can give it to
you and we'll add to that how much reduction it did in greenhouse gas emissions.
I know when we get it fully implemented it will be 830,000 tons of reduction
when we get it fully implemented.
L. EVANS:
Okay, no, that's perfect.
Line
item under Grants and Subsidies: Why was so little money actually given out last
year and why is the budget item for this item cut about $3 million this year?
B. DAVIS:
So I guess the easiest
answer to say is the flow of money. So whether it comes in from the federal
government, it's based on – invoice driven. If the work is not completed, some
of these projects – I'll use an example like Memorial University, changing out
the boilers is an 18- to 24-month project. So we've announced it; it's not going
to flow this budget. Some may, but it's not going to flow a lot this budget, but
the lion's share of that will come in the 2023-2024 budget.
So you are going to see that number move because as these projects are done –
now, some are smaller. It could be the City of Mount Pearl or we have an
announcement in Labrador coming up at some point very soon and that money may
not flow until 2023. The announcement will be done. The work will start, but
until they get invoices, we won't be able to flow the money. So it's all about
flow.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Under federal revenue there is a steep decrease. Can you just explain that one?
B. DAVIS:
It's all about the invoicing for the – it's exactly that.
L. EVANS:
I figured it was that.
B. DAVIS:
It's the way this –
L. EVANS:
Delay in invoicing.
B. DAVIS:
It's just the invoicing of the project being completed.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
I will move on now to 3.2.01.
B. DAVIS:
Okay.
L. EVANS:
Policy, Planning and Natural Areas.
Just looking at Salaries there. There was an increase: Has there been any new
positions created?
B. DAVIS:
The salary budget is expanded for three new positions that will be funded by –
I'm going to say the federal government to try to move on this. So it's not a
cost to the taxpayers of the province. Well, I guess it is indirectly from the
federal side, but it's not coming out of our budget. It's coming out of theirs.
It has just got to flow through ours.
L. EVANS:
Okay.
Looking at the budget numbers in this entire section here, 3.2.01: Is the
numbers reflective of the Newfoundland and Labrador government's ambitions
around conservation goals?
B. DAVIS:
I think that's where the three new positions were coming in. That's our goal of
trying to expand those areas and more to come, potentially, if the federal
government moves. I had a conversation with the federal minister of ECCC and
that was sort of our conversation. They are willing to support, if we are
willing to move. We're willing to move so I think that support will be
forthcoming.
L. EVANS:
Right.
And just looking at the Eagle River protective area now and the establishment of
that protective area: Has the government adequately budgeted for achieving it by
2025?
B. DAVIS:
So the Eagle River is – and I can only speak to this on the 10,000-view level
because that was my previous department. It was TCAR or Tourism, that's where
that one sits. That's where the negotiations will be happening and Minister
Crocker will be the best to talk to about that. Not to throw him in front of the
proverbial Metrobus, but it is his file. I'm not intimately involved in that
one. I know it's progressing but I don't know where it's to from a financial
perspective.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
Will
WERAC be re-established as soon as possible to pick up the work to move the
Natural Areas System Plan forward?
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
L. EVANS:
I said as soon as possible
and you said yes. So what's your idea of as soon as possible?
B. DAVIS:
Imminently.
L. EVANS:
Imminently. Okay.
B. DAVIS:
I don't actually know the
definition of imminent but it could be – I don't think it's tomorrow but it will
be very soon.
L. EVANS:
Yeah, okay. Perfect, thank
you.
Going
back to the line items now. Purchased Services, they came in under budget last
year and spending is expected to increase this year. Can you just give us a
brief explanation of that?
B. DAVIS:
It was down based on repairs
and maintenance. That's why it was – no, yeah, sorry. It was down because of
reimbursement for fees for Mistaken Point. So the fees to get into the site were
down because of COVID. We anticipate that is going to come back up.
L. EVANS:
Okay, perfect.
Also,
just looking at federal and provincial revenues. We're expecting increases to
these this year. Where will the money come from?
B. DAVIS:
That's a good question. I
think, Susan, it comes from ECCC, I think, right, federally?
S. SQUIRES:
Yeah. So the federal revenue you see there is to match some of the expenditures
that the minister discussed around new positions. Provincially, we collect
revenue there as it relates to fees for Mistaken Point; it's a bit of a flow
through of revenue there.
L. EVANS:
Okay, thank you.
B. DAVIS:
But the lion's share of that
would be from the federal government.
L. EVANS:
Okay. Right on time.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MHA
Pardy.
C. PARDY:
Very efficient use of time,
to my colleague, that's good.
Two to
three minutes for a quick ones and if you give me a quick response at least
we'll get –
B. DAVIS:
Where are we starting to?
C. PARDY:
The EV chargers at the
Health Sciences complex. I understand they have been out and down for some time.
It there a budget for repair of these charging stations or are they a little
outdated and not current? Are there better ones?
B. DAVIS:
I can't speak to the exact
reason why they're down at the Health Sciences Centre because that would be an
RHA thing; they put them in themselves, not through us.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
But if they are down, that's
no problem; we can reach out to our contacts, too, just to see.
You
opened up an opportunity here; I want to say to anybody that sees any of these
charging infrastructure down anywhere, let us know. They can reach out to me
directly or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in particular, would be the best
one because we want to make sure they're up and running all the time.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
Is
there a plan for Confederation Building to have more EV chargers?
B. DAVIS:
Yes is the short answer, but
I can go into more detail if you'd like.
C. PARDY:
No. Not necessary, thanks.
It's all in the prioritization.
B. DAVIS:
Correct.
C. PARDY:
Understandable.
The
greenhouse gas advisory board, I couldn't find the terms of reference. That
doesn't mean that it's not there, but is there a terms of reference for this
board?
B. DAVIS:
Susan.
S. SQUIRES:
So you're referring to the board, advisory body that would be set up under the
Management of Greenhouse Gas Act?
C. PARDY:
Yes.
S. SQUIRES:
So under the Management of Greenhouse Gas
Act, the compliance measure of last resort is a company has to purchase fund
credits from the minister – from the government. When we do that, we collect
that fund and it goes in the greenhouse gas fund.
There's
a legal advisory body that's being set up now; opportunities are open under the
Independent Appointments Commission for people to apply. We will select a group.
There's actually quite a bit on how they will have to run, in the legislation
itself, and they have to advise to the minister how to spend that money on
greenhouse gas reduction projects on a regular cycle.
C. PARDY:
Okay, good. Thank you.
So
quite possibly you won't select it, but they're going to give you the names and
that's the ones you have – quite possibly.
S. SQUIRES:
Yeah, we have to go through the Independent Appointments Commission's process to
get some (inaudible).
C. PARDY:
But they'll give you enough
for what you need for your –?
B. DAVIS:
That's always the hope.
C. PARDY:
Quickly, do you think we'll
see a time where we're going to have the carbon footprint of clothing? You can
go online now and buy a pair of sneakers that have got a carbon footprint of
nine kilograms.
B. DAVIS:
That's a very good question;
I would love to see that day so people know what they're buying, because there
are so many questions that come and people view – I go to these protests
sometimes and they talk about, you know, we've got to stop oil and stop cars,
and all this kind of stuff, when they show up with clothes on. And there's a
huge carbon footprint to that stuff to, so Susan, maybe you can just jump in
from the –
S. SQUIRES:
It is a really neat idea, I
will say that all manufacturing – whatever they use, whatever fuel they use, is
counted in our greenhouse gas emissions. So to your point on the carbon tax,
some of that comes from my car, some of it might come from a small manufacturer
of a clothing. And they might pay the carbon tax. Large industry has a program;
everyone else pays the carbon tax.
So no
one's not counting that, but to your point we're not showing it, almost like an
ENERGY STAR rating or a litres per kilometre on a car – we don't have a way of
sharing to you when you know you're purchasing that. That's a good point. But
the actual emissions are captured in our system.
C. PARDY:
But that's challenging to do
that, really, I can only imagine it.
The
last one I have is that CBC News,
Here and Now, when they interviewed
the minister – Peter Cowan – the minister stated: We just signed an agreement
with the province to have four areas of ocean deemed protected. I should have
had that question, but I had it here in this portfolio. Will you be aware of
that, as to – would that come under your department?
B. DAVIS:
It would, partially, and one
of them we just talked about. I think the –
C. PARDY:
But is that online?
B. DAVIS:
I think the minister
misspoke about four; I think it's three.
C. PARDY:
Okay.
B. DAVIS:
But I didn't want to say
that in that way.
C. PARDY:
No, that is fine.
B. DAVIS:
But it's not a minister
within our House, but it was a minister that misspoke. I think he meant three.
But they are there: two in Labrador, one down in Burgeo.
S. SQUIRES:
Yes, there's a press release. There was a commitment to do Eagle River by 2025
and a commitment to sign an MOU for a feasibility study on a marine protected
area on the South Coast around Burgeo by the end of this year, and a commitment
to advance another opportunity for a marine protected area in Labrador. But the
Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada could've misspoke. There is a
fourth one, but it was already announced. And the Nunatsiavut Government is
doing a marine protected area.
C. PARDY:
Okay, so that'd be four.
S. SQUIRES:
So they're doing that. We are certainly (inaudible) –
B. DAVIS:
So it would be three that
would be within our purview.
C. PARDY:
So there's a press release
on that that I probably didn't –
B. DAVIS:
Yes.
C. PARDY:
Okay, that's out.
B. DAVIS:
Yeah.
C. PARDY:
Okay, good.
B. DAVIS:
We can send it to you.
S. SQUIRES:
That's a federal press release.
C. PARDY:
Yes, do that.
B. DAVIS:
We'll send it to you.
C. PARDY:
Yeah, that'd save time.
B. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
C. PARDY:
Time is everything.
In my
closing piece before I pass it on to my colleague, I thank you all very much.
I've stated at other Estimates that it's refreshing, it's rewarding when you get
a chance to sit down with people who really know their stuff. And not on my side
for it, but at least I ask the questions. But you certainly know when someone
answers the question that they know their game and their business.
So I do
thank you very much. And what I said at the previous Estimates was the fact that
we should never be farming out millions to outside the province to do any work
in Newfoundland and Labrador when we have such a public service here and others
in Newfoundland and Labrador with the capabilities that we should be doing
in-house.
Anyway,
thank you so much for engaging us and for your time.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Pardy.
MHA
Evans, do you have any closing remarks?
L. EVANS:
Well, actually, I do. Just
briefly there, the help to municipalities that don't have the expertise or even
the workforce to be able to do proposal writings for federal dollars, that was a
huge thing. I will be personally coming over from my district.
But
also just looking at the water resources management there. We addressed the
boil-water order. We're working on the boil-water order. In my district we have
a problem with organics in the water, chlorination creating the THMs. It's a
huge problem, and some of them are facing continuous boil-water orders.
Getting to my point. They don't have the ability in their proposal writings to
apply on things that they would actually be able to qualify for funding to
reduce the organics.
So what I'm asking is would your department be open to extending that offer to
help us with our proposal writing so we could actually get some of that money
that would reduce our boil-water orders and solve our THM problem? Because
what's happening now is some of the municipalities are applying on other
infrastructure that they need and they're being turned down. They're not even
being able to access any of moneys for anything in a municipality. So they're
damned if they do and they're damned if they don't and, in actual fact, they
can't do it. So that would be great.
B. DAVIS:
We can do that. I don't want to speak for Haseen but I think we can manage to
help out where we can. That's what we try to do in this department anyway. We
have questions and we try to navigate people through the system. So, you know,
absolutely, I don't see any issue with that.
L. EVANS:
I only became aware of that problem.
I also do want to thank you for your time. This is your second time showing up
here and, as my fellow colleague said, the expertise is there and it's good to
see some familiar faces. I appreciate your time.
Thank you very much.
CHAIR:
Thank you, MHA Evans.
If the Committee is ready for the call: Shall 3.1.01 to 3.2.01 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.2.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, Department of Environment and Climate Change, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Climate Change
carried?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, Estimates of the Department of Environment and Climate Change carried
without amendment.
CHAIR:
Our next meeting is on Monday, May 9, to consider the Estimates of the
Department of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
Just before I finish it off, I'll give Minister Davis a last minute.
B. DAVIS:
I will take a couple of seconds.
I just want to say thank you to the Committee on both parties that were here and
my colleagues for being here (inaudible) for the work they do. I think it also
goes out to the staff in the Broadcast Centre because I tend to jump in pretty
quick and the light always chimes on. So just thank you to them. We couldn't do
the work we do as ministers without the great, fantastic staff that we have and
thank you for both highlighting that here today.
CHAIR:
Thank you, Minister.
C. PARDY:
And to the Chair and the
Table.
B. DAVIS:
Yes, absolutely.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
I'll
entertain a motion for adjournment.
MHA
Pardy.
Thank
you; enjoy your day.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.