Resource Committee — department of environment and conservationandccee — 27 April 2016

2016-04-27

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

April

27, 2016

RESOURCE

COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Neil King, MHA for Bonavista, substitutes for Pam

Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace Port de Grave, for a portion of the meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Barry Petten, MHA for Conception Bay South,

substitutes for Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis.

The

Committee met at 9 a.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Warr):

I just want to say good

morning and welcome you all to the Estimates on Environment and Conservation and

the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

just had a brief chat with the minister and we will be doing the Office of

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency first, which is 2.6.

Before

we get started this morning just some housekeeping. For staff members who are

asked to respond to a question, please state your name before you do, just for

the people in the communications centre. And I'll certainly invite our minister

and his staff to introduce themselves first and we'll get underway.

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay, well, thank you very

much.

thought we should do Climate Change and Energy Efficiency first given we've got

a little storm outside. These guys need to hurry back and deal with that.

CHAIR:

So if the introductions can

be done.

MR. TRIMPER:

Right on.

To my

right is Chad Blundon with our department. He's the Director of Government

Relations. On my left is Gerald Crane. He's the Director of Research and

Analysis. And our departmental controller is Wanda Trickett.

Back in

the corner I have Emily Timmons who's my Director of Communications, and my

executive assistant, Ian Murphy. Mark Vardy, you're here in the capacity of

budgeting, taking notes.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Mr.

Petten, if you could start the introductions on this side?

MR. PETTEN:

Oh, sure.

Barry

Petten, MHA for CBS and Environment critic.

Megan

Drodge is our researcher.

MR. FINN:

John Finn, MHA, Stephenville

Port au Port.

MS. ROGERS:

And I'm Gerry Rogers. I work

for the good people of St. John's Centre.

MS. WILLIAMS:

Susan Williams, Researcher, Third Party.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo

Island Cape Freels.

MR. DEAN:

Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.

MR. KING:

Neil King from the historic District of Bonavista. I'm filling in for Pam

Parsons for the first hour or so.

CHAIR:

I'm Brian Warr, I'm your

Chair. I'm the MHA for the District of Baie Verte Green Bay.

we'll get started again on the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Will

the Clerk please call the first subhead?

CLERK (Ms. Murphy):

2.2.04.

CHAIR:

2.2.04.

I'd

invite the minister for some opening remarks.

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay, well, thank you very

much.

thought that we've got a couple of pages of notes here that I wanted to read

out. I think people know a lot about the Office of Climate Change and Energy

Efficiency, but I'm not sure everyone has a full understanding of what goes on

there. So if I may take a couple of minutes just to read a couple of thoughts to

describe what happens in this very important unit small, but mighty.

you're aware, climate change is one of the greatest long-term challenges facing

the world and our province today. It is truly a cross-cutting horizontal issue

with implications for all our people, communities and cuts across all sectors of

our economy. Climate change will bring both risks and opportunities, and will

affect all sectors of our economy in all parts of our society.

To be

effective, government must seek to minimize risk and maximize opportunities. It

must balance economic and environmental considerations to ensure that our

province's approach is both environmentally sustainable and economically

prudent.

The

Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has four lines of business. These

include: to lead the development of policy and strategy to establish a path

forward and advance sustained actions that effectively balances economic and

environmental considerations, including deepening public awareness,

understanding and engagement; second, to undertake focused research and analysis

to enable the province to maximize opportunities and minimize risks from the

impacts of climate change and the move towards a low-carbon global economy;

thirdly, to work with departments to better integrate climate change and energy

efficiency considerations into their current and future programs, services,

legislation and regulations and ensure effective coordination across government;

and finally, to advance the province's interests and priorities in regional,

national and international forums on climate change and energy efficiency, and

engage external stakeholders to deepen and widen government's dialogue on next

steps.

Given

the cross-cutting and complex nature of these issues, the office is positioned

as a central agency in the Executive Council. This increases the office's

effectiveness as the office is not aligned with the interests of any particular

department, but is instead an independent voice on climate change and energy

efficiency. It addresses issues both within government and externally.

The

office is a resource to support all departments and agencies, as well as

coordinate policy across government. This requires working horizontally with

many different entities simultaneously, ensuring that synergies are made and

gaps are addressed.

2015-2016 the office advanced work in many sectors and with many partners and

I just wanted to mention these again, because I feel it's important to

understand all that's happening here. First, the continued work on greenhouse

gas emissions regulations for the large industrial sector. This is a key

commitment in the Liberal Party's electoral platform and it's certainly on my

mandate letter. We wish to act on it in the near term.

This

work is ongoing and being formed by a new federal-provincial process on a

pan-Canadian approach to climate change. The intent of these regulations is to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the large industrial sector in an

economically prudent manner.

second project last year, and in partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, was the completion of a pilot project to determine how and if individuals

in the province change their electricity consumption behaviour when provided

with real-time information about their electricity use. The project report will

be posted on the government's website shortly.

Third,

and in partnership with the Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development, it completed the HotShots initiative which provided students and

teachers across the province with new resources on energy conservation. While

this project was not funded by the office it was funded through Education and

Early Childhood Development. The office led the implementation activities.

Fourth

and you might have heard the office has just completed a refreshing of the

Turn Back the Tide website based on user data gathered since 2012. This is a

very comprehensive website. I'd invite you to have a look. It's also in the form

of a Facebook page. It contains practical tips, resources and information to

help inform residents and encourage them to take action.

The

office also conducted stakeholder consultations regarding the potential adoption

of the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings. These consultations met a

key commitment in the 2011 Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Action Plans. A

report on these consultations is posted on the government's website. Internal

engagement with other departments will be held during this fiscal year to

determine the next steps.

Finally, in support of adaptation the office developed a single-window website

portal that contains a host of climate data to support stakeholders in

understanding and making decisions, bearing in mind the impact of climate

change. The website portal includes historical Environment Canada data, weather

data and updated intensity-duration-frequency curves that are used by engineers

The

office will continue its important work to improve resilience to the impacts of

climate change, reduce GHGs greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy

efficiency in 2016-2017 based on the budget allocations we've set out in these

Estimates.

I thank

you and look forward to any questions you may have.

CHAIR:

Thank you Mr. Trimper.

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

Pardon me, I have to stand.

I have a bad back.

Minister, if you don't mind, I'd like to just ask a couple of general questions

before

MR. TRIMPER:

Sure.

MR. PETTEN:

What is the plan within the

department for carbon control, carbon pricing, basically? Where are you to with

that?

MR. TRIMPER:

In terms of carbon pricing,

I'm very pleased to say that we hit the ground running. As I became familiar

with this office we've started, first of all, to get myself caught up to speed

with what's been ongoing.

The end

of January I was in Ottawa at the first ever federal-provincial-territorial

meeting of my counterparts addressing climate change. So in terms of climate

pricing, what we are doing is exploring lessons learned from other

jurisdictions. And as I just indicated, and as is indicated in my mandate

letter, we're coming forward with a strategy to start with on large industrial

emitters. So I look forward to speaking about that in the near future.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

With

the new plan it seems to be I know with the prime minister it's big on his

agenda and it looks like all provinces are working towards an agreement. In the

event of carbon pricing or some kind of control coming in, will all departments

have to send their policy legislation through the office as a part of the

development of this? If we come in with a carbon price, will everything be

reviewed by Climate Change for all departments when they bring in their policy

and legislation?

MR. TRIMPER:

I believe the answer to what

you're asking is yes. That interaction is happening now. This office crosscuts

it. It's not necessarily affiliated with any one entity; it actually reaches

into all departments of provincial government. What decisions are being made,

they are certainly reviewed by everyone.

As I

indicated in my opening remarks, it's very important to strike a balance between

the environmental considerations and the economic fragility of our province

right now. Finding that appropriate way to go forward in a measured progress

that doesn't upset the apple cart if I can use an analogy like that is very

important. So we certainly hear from pro-economic to very pro-environmental

considerations.

MR. PETTEN:

Well, yes, it's ironic. That

kind of brought me to one other question I had on it. As you're well aware and

I learned it with my time I spent in Environment a few years back. We attended a

climate change conference actually. Minister Kent was the minister of the day.

There's

a lot of concern over we have very few polluters. And the polluters we have

our biggest polluters are pretty fragile, especially in our economy now. You

look at Come By Chance, down in Labrador, or the Holyrood plant up there I

guess that all depends on Muskrat too. But it is fragile; we have few polluters

that cause a small group of polluters.

A while

back I was asked actually, I was interviewed. And my answer was I believe in

carbon reducing the emissions, we have to protect our environment. But what

kind of consultation, what kind of we just can't just come in. Because,

ultimately, the tax will come down, it all trickles on down. So it could have a

detrimental impact, for instance, on Come By Chance. It could be the end of Come

By Chance, who knows. It depends how it all unfolds. What kind of consultation

process is happening in conjunction with the planned carbon tax?

MR. TRIMPER:

I would suggest, and from my

observation I can turn to Gerald for a follow-up comment when I'm done, if I

could ask you to do that I don't know if I would even describe it as periodic.

It's almost continuous between we have about a half dozen of these sorts of

large industrial emitters right now, land-based, in this province. And the

interaction and dialogue is frequent if not, as I would say, continuous.

There's

a key consideration here. Yes, we're very aware of their challenges

economically, so we are striking the correct I would say a very correct

balance between the need to move forward. We have an obligation as a province,

too, to join in with Canada's recent commitments in Paris. So it's very

important for us to step forward with something that's going to be very

appropriate for our unique circumstance, but at the same time sitting back is

hardly a role model.

Certainly, if we were to do nothing, if we decided that we just didn't want to

play this game, the federal government has an opportunity to come in and

legislate. So we feel it's much preferred for us to go forward with a strategy

that works for Newfoundland and Labrador, as opposed to having some national

edict come down.

I would

draw your attention to the First Ministers' Meeting with our Premier and his

counterparts in Vancouver just a few weeks ago. It was very important in some of

the decisions that were made there that we did not want to jump in with some of

the larger jurisdictions in the country which have, frankly, advanced their

thinking, their legislation around climate change legislation. We're not there

yet, we're not ready. This is actually our first move, so we want to move

carefully.

That

said, we didn't want to race to where Ontario and Quebec are and have a hurdle

and a hill that we just couldn't climb without putting some companies in serious

situations.

MR. PETTEN:

So there will be a

collaborative approach?

MR. TRIMPER:

It is a collaborative

approach. It has been and it will continue to be.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, so those are my

questions.

MR. TRIMPER:

Gerald, did you have any

follow-up, if I could ask? Is there anything you'd like to say, or did I nail

the

MR. CRANE:

The only thing I would add is we work, as well, very closely with the federal

government and with other provinces to see what's happening in other provinces.

The cost and competitiveness issues are constant across the country, it's not

only here. We see a lot and hear a lot from other provinces and the approaches

in other provinces, and the approaches in other provinces do make accommodation

for competiveness of export industries.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, thanks.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Petten.

Ms.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

First of all, I want to

thank you very much for all your hard work. This is such a crucial department

and the activities are very, very important. I fully understand, as a

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the necessity of that balance between our

economic needs, our environmental needs and our social needs, and what a dance

that is and the challenge to do the right thing and, sometimes, that's not so

clear. So I appreciate the incredible challenge that faces the office and that

faces us, as a province, perhaps now more than ever. I'd like to thank you for

that work.

I have

a few questions as well before we get into some line by lines. Minister, is

there a ministerial advisory committee on climate change?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MS. ROGERS:

advisory committee that are from the activist community, no one from industry?

MR. TRIMPER:

It's a ministerial

committee. Since I've taken my role, we haven't convened a meeting yet.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Is that

something you would consider? For instance, with the Minister of Health, he'll

have an advisory committee for mental health and addictions made up of people

from agencies, activists, people with lived experience.

MR. TRIMPER:

I must say I'm very much of

an open-door kind of guy, so I don't mind taking the idea under consideration.

So if I could park that thought and come back to you, I'd like to do that.

certainly are meeting with a lot of industry associations on climate change but,

as a collective group, we can take a look at that.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

I would

imagine there would be great resources as well in Grenfell College at the

university in Corner Brook.

MR. TRIMPER:

If I may, absolutely, we

have some consultations we're planning for this year. So we're looking for ways

to do that very efficiently. If we can reach out to industry groups, interested

organizations, that would be a great way to reach a lot of people.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, great.

So if

we could start the line by line. I'll have some questions as well as we go

through some of the line by line. The other thing, I want to thank you very much

as well for your opening statement. I'm wondering if it's possible to get a copy

of that because we won't get the Hansard for this until months down the road.

MR. TRIMPER:

You've got it.

MS. ROGERS:

I assume anything I ask for

or the Official Opposition asks for that we can assume that we will both get all

of that.

MR. TRIMPER:

We look forward to walking

the binder across the floor.

MS. ROGERS:

Great, thank you very much.

Under

Salaries, 2.2.04 it almost sounds sometimes like we're calling out a bingo,

doesn't it? Salaries, we see that in '15-'16 the department didn't spend

$121,000. Can you tell me the loss there?

MR. TRIMPER:

We had a vacancy position

that it related to. Gerald, was it one or two?

MR. CRANE:

We had two for several months.

MR. TRIMPER:

It would be two for several

months, primarily one.

MS. ROGERS:

Now those are full?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

By the way, we have eight

staff now in the department, in the office.

MS. ROGERS:

How many did you have last

year?

MR. TRIMPER:

Eight as well.

MS. ROGERS:

media campaign for that, in support of that, was $12,000.

We did

some work on intensity-duration-frequency curves and these are curves that

engineers use when they build a road or a bridge or a water system. We had done

some work in the previous fiscal year. Feedback from users was that we missed a

couple of things so we went back to the consultant and asked the consultant to

do a couple extra pieces of work. That was valued at about $10,000. That was

just a carry forward, essentially, from the previous year.

Similarly, we did some work modeling the business case for the National Energy

Code for Buildings in '14-'15. Last year, in response to user feedback, we went

back and had some additional work done. There are actually two separate

contracts; combined, they were valued at about $4,500.

That

took us to $306,000 out of the $310,000. Because of the salary savings in the

course of the fiscal year, the minister, at the time, indicated we could advance

two priorities that we were scheduled to do some work on in this current fiscal

year. Those were climate change adaptation tools and resources. So we consulted

with municipalities, engineers, some others Chad can speak about that in a bit

more detail. That was valued at about $60,000.

The

last one, we did some work with the university around coastal archaeological

resources. So the federal government funded a major project. They didn't fund a

small element of that project, which was a user guide that others could use.

That was valued at $25,000. Because the federal government was not going to fund

that, we stepped in and supplemented the budget for that.

MR. TRIMPER:

That was a risk assessment.

MR. CRANE:

That was a risk assessment, yes.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Do you

have any evaluation or data on the outcomes of some of the projects? For

instance, turning the tide, do we know how many people are using that? What's

the rollout of that?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'll get Chad Blundon to

answer that. He works with that website.

MR. BLUNDON:

Thank you.

We do

have metrics in terms of the users that are tracked. So we know how many people

are visiting the web pages and which ones they go to.

The

development work of the new website is now complete, but the website itself is

not yet live. That will be happening very shortly. We will be tracking the

metrics from the old one versus the new one to get a sense of the improvements

that have been made and what impact that's had upon users and the user

experience.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you.

MR. TRIMPER:

What kind of activity did we

have last year?

MR. BLUNDON:

I have some metrics here. For example, to September 4, 2015 and there's always

a lag in the numbers there were 100,183 website sessions, just over 216,000

page views. There are other metrics in terms of we find out where people come to

the website from. For example, almost half of them are from Google searches and

so forth. By far, they would be the top one but we do have metrics to better

understand how people are getting there and where they come from.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

I think

my time is up.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Ms.

Rogers, do you still have other questions?

MS. ROGERS:

I do, on that same line on Professional Services.

CHAIR:

Excuse me.

Minister, do you mind if we

MR. TRIMPER:

Not at all.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

On Professional Services we

see a significant reduction. Can you explain? Is that deduction for this year?

MR. TRIMPER:

The $160,000, approximately?

MS. ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. TRIMPER:

That's a decrease in our

budget. It relates to the removal of funding for a two-year pilot initiative to

promote energy conservation in homes.

MS. ROGERS:

So that's a program we won't

be doing?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's correct.

MS. ROGERS:

It's a reduction sorry,

for a two year

MR. TRIMPER:

It's a two-year pilot

initiative to promote energy conservation in homes; one of those difficult

decisions.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, when we need it. It's

unfortunate.

there any other work that will be done around the area of helping people to

reduce energy use in their homes?

MR. TRIMPER:

I think I'll turn to Chad.

We're

constantly working in various kinds of incentives, attitude shifts, behavioural

adjustments in all of our work, our public outreach sites and so on.

Chad,

any particular comments as you

MR. BLUNDON:

Yes. The project the minister just spoke of was the one that Gerald had spoken

to a moment ago in terms of that pilot project to determine whether or not the

energy monitors and the various approaches were making any difference to energy

use and energy efficiency in homes. That one is just complete. So we would take

some time to assess the results of that to determine whether or not those sorts

of approaches can work.

Certainly, as we referenced through the public awareness in Turn Back the Tide

campaign, there's extensive information that's provided to homeowners, to

businesses, to communities about what they can do to be more energy efficient.

So I wouldn't characterize the nature of the work in that sphere as just being

in that one particular pilot project. There has been work that's been ongoing

and work would continue.

For

example, the office also participates in various intergovernmental committees

that work in the area of energy efficiency, since it is not just Newfoundland

and Labrador but the federal government is also playing in that sphere, as well

as all of the other provinces.

There

is work, other than the pilot project, which was just intended to be one time to

determine whether or not that particular approach would yield real results.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Are

there any grants available to groups that do education or work around climate

change or energy efficiency for public engagement?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, we currently have a

grant with the Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

How

No, we can't think of

anything at this time.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Thank

you.

MR. TRIMPER:

I might add, though, Gerry,

if I could. We have a great rapport with the federal minister. She is gung-ho on

getting more activity going in provinces, such as ours, which haven't really

stepped up to date. So I look forward to that kind of dialogue and we're

certainly watching for opportunities to access funding on a variety of

initiatives such as that one.

Another

one she talks a lot about is getting communities off diesel. This is another one

that's got our interest.

MS. ROGERS:

I met on Sunday with a group

called Iron & Earth. I don't know if you know about them. They started in BC and

Alberta. They are former workers in oil and mining, any kind of extraction

industry

MR. TRIMPER:

I've heard of them.

MS. ROGERS:

and who are retraining and wanting to work in areas of green technology. So

they're electricians and plumbers and pipefitters. They had their founding

meeting here in Newfoundland and Labrador, in St. John's, on Sunday afternoon.

They expected about 60. There were over 30. Almost all of them were guys, mostly

men who had been working in the oil industry and in mining, who are really

gung-ho, well-educated and have some great ideas. It's already going great guns

in Alberta and BC, but we know for every one job in the oil industry in terms

of the amount of money there are three in the green technology industries.

I hope,

Minister, that you have a chance to meet with them.

MR. TRIMPER:

I've heard of the group.

MS. ROGERS:

Iron & Earth.

MR. TRIMPER:

As I said in my opening

remarks, it's an opportunity. If we step up we can be a leader.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes. A great resource, I

think.

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay, good.

Thanks.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Ms.

Rogers, anything further? I would like to move on if we can.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes.

What

are our greenhouse gas emission targets for 2020? Do we have those?

MR. TRIMPER:

The objective is to be 10

per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

So we've got some work to

do.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Is the

waste audit of the West Block for 2014 available?

MR. TRIMPER:

It's on the website now.

MS. ROGERS:

So that's on the Office of

Climate Change website?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, you can go in there and

find that.

MS. ROGERS:

Great. Thank you.

The

research that's been done around energy efficiency and government vehicles is

there any movement there? Is there anything planned there?

MR. TRIMPER:

Well, I bought an electric

car. There's one start.

Certainly, dialogue and discussion; I'm very keenly interested in moving that

forward.

Gerald,

anything particular to comment that we

MR. CRANE:

We've explored putting in charging stations at the West Block and in the other

government offices within the city where an electric vehicle may be appropriate

to be located.

There

have been some fiscal challenges. We've done the research in the background but

we haven't taken any concrete steps.

MR. TRIMPER:

If I may, just to add, you

might recall this office released a report in November on electric vehicles in

this province and the infrastructure that's available, the needs and so on.

That's a very handy, useful reference.

MS. ROGERS:

There's also a national

group of activists and postal workers who are looking at our post offices across

the country. I think there are 60,000 of them across the country, an incredible

infrastructure. They're looking at how do we use our post offices they could

be charging stations how do we use them for energy efficiency.

It's

kind of interesting. I'll give you the information I have.

MR. TRIMPER:

Perfect.

MS. ROGERS:

Just one last question.

Bringing the national energy building code to Newfoundland and Labrador, where

are with at that?

MR. TRIMPER:

Do you want to take that,

Gerald?

MR. CRANE:

We committed to doing some stakeholder consultations and produce a report, which

we did. That was released the last fiscal year.

Right

now, we're in the process of meeting with the Departments of Municipal Affairs,

SNL and Transportation and Works to determine what an appropriate path forward

is. For us to do it, it would have to come in through a regulation or a piece of

legislation somehow, so finding the appropriate tool and the appropriate

timelines for doing that.

The

other challenge for us right now is that we're looking at a 2011 code. These

codes are updated every five years. The 2011 code will shortly be outdated so we

have to build that into our work as well.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Thank

you very, very much.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

Before

we call the subhead, Mr. Petten, do you have any final questions? Just to be

fair.

MR. PETTEN:

No, that's fine. She did a

great job actually. She asked a lot of the questions I had to ask anyway.

There

was one thing just when Ms. Rogers asked. That pilot program, the home energy

efficiency program, what was the name of that?

MR. CRANE:

The formal name; it was the residential real-time monitoring energy conservation

program.

MR. PETTEN:

You provided grants or you

provided

MR. CRANE:

Five hundred monitors to go on meters. It was actually a Blue Line monitor. The

monitor would go on the outside of your home. There would be a little credit

card-sized monitor that would go inside the home, and as the meter was churning,

you could see how fast it was churning in real time.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Was

there was big uptake on that?

MR. CRANE:

We had funding for 500 monitors and all 500 were installed.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

That's

good. I just wanted to clarify that.

Thanks.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Petten.

Would

the Clerk please recall the subhead?

CLERK:

2.2.04.

CHAIR:

2.2.04.

Shall

the subhead carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, subhead 2.2.04 carried.

motion, Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, total head, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency carried

without amendment.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Again,

just in the interest of time, if we could get started.

Welcome

to the Estimates Committee of the Department of Environment and Conservation. I

welcome everyone here this morning. I'd first turn it to the minister to

introduce himself and his staff, please.

MR. TRIMPER:

Perry Trimper, Minister

Responsible for Environment and Conservation. I'm very pleased to have a very

high-quality team with me here this morning. It's a great honour to work in this

department. As with all of them, I'm so impressed with the caliber of people at

the top of the game.

To my

right is Mr. Ross Firth. He's the ADM for the Natural Heritage Branch. He's

based in Corner Brook. To my immediate left is Ms. Colleen Janes. She's the

deputy minister of the department. Beside her is an ADM responsible for the

Environment Branch, Mr. Martin Goebel.

Behind

him yes, everybody is sitting where they should be Ms. Colleen Johnson,

she's our manager of finance and budgeting. Our controller, Ms. Robyn Hayes, is

right behind us. Ms. Melanie Thomas, right behind myself, is the Director of

Policy and Planning.

As I

introduced in the back, doing the heckling, is Ms. Emily Timmins, Director of

Communications and Mr. Ian Murphy, my executive assistant.

That's

our team.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr.

Petten, we're just doing the introductions right now.

MR. PETTEN:

Barry Petten, MHA for

Conception Bay South and Environment and Conservation critic.

MS. DRODGE:

Megan Drodge, Researcher, Official Opposition caucus.

MS. ROGERS:

I'm Gerry Rogers and I work

for the good people of St. John's Centre.

MS. WILLIAMS:

Susan Williams, Researcher, the Third Party.

MR. KING:

Neil King, MHA for the

historic District of Bonavista. I'm filling in for Pam Parsons.

MR. DEAN:

Jerry Dean, MHA, Exploits.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA, Fogo

Island Cape Freels.

CHAIR:

My name is Brian Warr. I'm

the Chair of the Resource Committee. I'm the MHA for the District of Baie Verte

Green Bay.

Before

we get started, just again in housekeeping, if one of the staff are asked to

answer a question on behalf of the department, I'd certainly appreciate if you'd

say your name first and wait for your tally light, then you can go ahead and

answer the question.

Thank

you very much. We'll get started.

Would

the Clerk please call the first subhead?

CLERK:

1.1.01.

CHAIR:

1.1.01.

Minister, your opening remarks, please.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much.

Chair,

members of the Committee, I'd just like to say a few words about the process and

the decisions that lead to the creation of our departmental budget for

2016-2017.

When

our government began the Government Renewal Initiative in January, the executive

team sat together to plan a way forward and to set guiding principles for the

difficult decisions that were to come. As a team, we decided we would be guided

by the principles of environmental stewardship in Newfoundland and Labrador. In

other words, we would maintain the core priority areas of safe and sustainable

drinking water, big game and wildlife management, do protection of species of

conservation status, protected areas and overall environmental protection.

These

decisions were made with the utmost consideration and with the best advice

possible. We welcomed and encouraged input from department staff. We gathered

information and suggestions from the government-wide, open-dialogue initiatives.

Our

senior management team, which is around me now, includes highly-skilled

engineers, biologists and other experts entered this process with an open mind

and provided measured and sound advice on how we could do things differently

while saving public money and generating much needed revenue.

recognized we must contribute to revenue generation and bring our fees more in

line with other jurisdictions. As part of this exercise, department officials

conducted reviews of our fees and jurisdictional scans to inform our decisions.

In many cases, our fees have fallen behind other provinces, particularly in

Atlantic Canada. In others, the fees do not achieve cost recovery or did not

fairly reflect the tremendous value of our natural resources.

For

example, the budget sees the first increase in environmental assessment fees in

18 years. We are raising the water rental rate for hydro-electric developments

to come in line with other provinces and better reflect the value of this

natural commodity.

If I

may say an additional word about the most difficult aspects of the budget, some

of the hardest decisions were those that led to an elimination of a public

sector position. Beginning on budget bay, our officials began the difficult task

of giving notice to 11 employees that their positions were being eliminated.

Three other employees were notified that their positions were changing from

full-time to seasonal. In addition, six employees were advised that their

positions are in effected out years, in the coming years.

We are

acutely aware that budgets are not merely exercising in mathematics and with

every choice people are directly affected, both within the public service and

within the public we serve. Our team took this charge seriously, and while we

have reduced funding and shifted focus in some areas, we sit before you today

knowing we have made the best choice, the best possible decisions, decisions

that preserve the core functions of the department for the benefit of the people

of this province.

I thank

you and we welcome your questions.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

Mr.

Petten, we're currently speaking to 1.1.01.

MR. PETTEN:

Good morning, everyone.

Some

familiar faces from my previous times. Thank you all for coming here to answer

our questions.

Again,

Minister, if you don't mind, I have some general questions before we go into

line items.

MR. TRIMPER:

Please.

MR. PETTEN:

I guess I'll start off where

you just finished there first. You say about positions where were those

positions you cut? What divisions were they cut from?

MR. TRIMPER:

I have a line by line. Do

you want me to go through each of those or sort of a general

MR. PETTEN:

Just a general.

MR. TRIMPER:

Perhaps I'll go to

Colleen, do you want to just describe in general where, please?

MS. JANES:

Good morning.

Our

positions are generally dispersed throughout the department in a number of

examples in terms of environmental scientists. We have a couple of

administrative positions that were impacted as well. We have some park rangers

that were impacted in terms of full-time to seasonal capacity. I would say

fairly dispersed in Pollution Prevention. We restructured the division and moved

from six sections down to three. So there were some positions removed in that

process. There were several we were able to achieve through natural attrition,

retirements or the elimination of vacancies.

But as

the minister reflected in his opening remarks, there were 11 individuals who

were in occupying positions that were notified of position eliminations and

three that we're moving from year-round to a seasonal occupation.

MR. PETTEN:

During the budget they

announced it was 650 positions. Are those part of the 650?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's correct.

MR. PETTEN:

Those 11 positions?

MR. TRIMPER:

Absolutely, yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

It was

announced in last year's budget, the attrition plan, were there any positions

identified under the attrition plan or any elimination because of the announced

attrition plan last year?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'll let my deputy take

that.

MS. JANES:

Yes, in addition to initiatives that we undertook through the budget in GRI

process, we also identified three positions as part of the former Attrition

Management Plan. So that's not reflected in the numbers the minister just

referenced, in terms of our overall 19 that arose from budget and GRI processes.

We did have three positions associated with the Attrition Management Plan that

were also put into effect near the end of March.

MR. PETTEN:

So that makes it 14 then,

does it?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's actually a total of

19 positions.

MR. PETTEN:

Nineteen.

MR. TRIMPER:

Nineteen positions overall

are affected by the budget; three of them were through attrition, 11 are being

eliminated. We had five vacant positions that are being eliminated.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

If I could, the deputy wants

to clarify a point.

MS. JOHNSON:

The 19 positions that the minister has referred to arose from decisions from the

budget and GRI processes. In addition to that, we also had our attrition

management plan that we continue to implement. That was three additional

positions.

We also

had a position that was contractual for a short-term period. We concluded that

at the end of March which was its designated end. Then we had six positions that

were clean up from prior years. They'd been vacant for a while and it was really

getting the positions off the books.

When

you add all of those together, the impact on '16-'17 is 26 less positions, but

You just mentioned Pippy

Park. Fees from that park that goes directly to the government accounts,

general revenue?

MS. JOHNSON:

No.

MR. PETTEN:

No. It goes to Pippy Park?

MS. JOHNSON:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Right. My other question is

what kind of impact does the cut because they got their grant cut as well.

What kind of impact is that going to have on Pippy Park?

MR. TRIMPER:

If I may, well, obviously

it's a cut in their operations, but they do receive revenues from other sources.

We work very closely with the folks overseeing the Pippy Park Commission and its

operations. So as painful as it was, it is a plan that we feel we can work with

and continues to operate the facility.

MR. PETTEN:

Again, with fees, I notice

there were a great deal of fee increases in your department as opposed to a lot

of others. Is there any perceived impact? I know that (inaudible) fee increase

something, but there are a lot of fees increased, from license renewals to the

full gamut. In asking impacts, what the impact will be is a broad, broad

statement, but I guess are you anticipating to have much negative do you

anticipate that will be accepted negatively?

MR. TRIMPER:

Obviously, no one likes to

pay more, but as I said in my opening remarks and I'd like to elaborate a

little bit just on some of the rationale for the fee increases we found a lot

of them were very much out of sync with Atlantic Canada and across the country.

We found some of them had not been moved since 1998.

Our

environmental assessment fees, for example, hadn't been touched in years. You've

got entities coming forward with multi-million dollar undertakings and it's a

huge demand on our staff. So we wanted to move to, first of all, increase after

almost 20 years, but also a tremendous amount of time and energy is demanded of

government to provide these services. So we're moving towards some cost-recovery

opportunity.

I think

by way of example, if I could, just in the last two days we have launched our

online camp reservation system with new rates and fees and so on. I would point

that within one to two minutes in each of the different regions that we went

online with we completely sold out. So it doesn't seem to have slowed down, at

least those aspects of what we do. A tremendous interest and I feel it's really

a recognition of the important natural commodities that we offer in this

province.

MR. PETTEN:

What operational changes

were made in the game management? How is this money going to be saved? I can't

remember the exact figure, but in game management there is a is it how we do

our census?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'm going to put out some

opening thoughts and then I'll turn to Ross Firth for a comment.

Many

jurisdictions are moving more to habitat modelling, using the data and the

information that has been collected for many years, and many decades in our

case, to better understand what's on the ground, and more or less work with that

information to forecast in the future, for example, what harvest rates should

be, where populations are going and so on.

Traditionally, wildlife ecology and management has been one of very much

inventory based; counting animals, coming up with adjustments and then setting

quotas. We're shifting away from that somewhat. So there will be less frequent

inventory. For example, in moose management areas we'll be doing fewer of them

each year and they will not be done as often; nevertheless, we still will be out

there. We're moving more to more habitat based and other population modelling.

Ross,

did you have a comment on that?

MR. FIRTH:

Just in addition to what the

minister mentioned, just to give you an example, we're going to be stopping the

coyote carcass collection program. As you know, we've been collecting coyote

carcasses for a number of years and have built up an incredibly robust database.

We've been collecting a number of variables such as body conditioning, age, sex

of the animal and reproductive status. We have quite a strong database right now

which allows us to do analysis and, as the minister indicated, project trends

over time in the future. So we do have some good strong databases right now and

that's an example right now.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Just in

the interest of adding some order to our deliberations here this morning, we are

on 1.1.01. I noticed that the minister and his department are flicking back and

forth in their books because there are sections on the park, there are sections

on wildlife, so if we could just stick to the headings. There will be an

opportunity where we will go inclusive from a certain heading to another

heading. They'll be inclusive and you can ask questions pertinent to those

different sections, but if we could stick it would be just a little bit of order

for everybody in the interest of time.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

I want

to go to the Minister's Office, 1.1.01. My question is what caused the revised

numbers to go over budget by $78,000 Salaries, sorry, by $78,000? How will the

savings be achieved in this fiscal year?

MR. TRIMPER:

The increase over the

projected budget for last year was a result of a retirement and we had leave

payouts for two political staff. The slight decrease is in relation to my

executive assistant. We pay him less but I would suggest he's worth more. I'll

just enter that into the record.

MR. PETTEN:

In Transportation and

Communications, I see there's an increase of $24,000. Why the increase this year

over last?

MR. TRIMPER:

I happen to live in Labrador

and it's a pretty expensive place to come back and forth, versus my predecessor

who was able to be home at night. It's a fair dollar to go back and forth.

Welcome

to my reality. I'm doing my best to keep the cost down but that's the reality.

MR. PETTEN:

Under 1.2.01.01, Salaries,

there was a savings last year, I guess, of $73,000 in the revised. Was there a

vacant position that caused this to drop? If it was, is it being filled? Because

it looks like it's gone back up a bit this year.

MR. TRIMPER:

The $76,300 you're talking

about?

MR. PETTEN:

Yes.

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay.

We had

a vacancy. It was a secretary to the ADM, and we had a communications director

at a lower step level than budgeted. Again, worth more, paid less.

MR. PETTEN:

A question under Executive

Support, Revenue Provincial, where does that revenue come from? What is this

revenue?

MR. TRIMPER:

We handle the salary for the

chair of the MMSB.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

The CEO, I'm sorry.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much.

I would

like to thank all of you for your dedication and hard work. Some of our most

precious treasures are in your hands for your stewardship. Your leadership is so

important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in how we also all handle

the incredible treasures that we have in our province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. So I thank you for your work. I know how hard it is with the present

fiscal situation.

I've

come to start calling the GRI exercise, the grim exercise, because I know how

tough some of those decisions are. I guess my role is to try and push for as

much as we possibly can so that we can all do the work to our best ability, and

particularly in this area of protection and stewardship and looking to the

future and how to best handle the wonderful treasures that are part of our

province. So thank you for your work; thank you for being here today.

I just

have one question that was raised earlier before we continue on with the line by

line. When the deputy minister said we had 26 fewer positions, are any of those

outside of the number of jobs was it 600 or 650 government had announced

that would be directly cut?

MR. TRIMPER:

Colleen Janes.

MS. ROGERS:

Thanks, Colleen.

MS. JANES:

The 650 that was referenced

by the Minister of Finance as part of the budget; my understanding, at least our

component of that, would be that those numbers would have been reflected of the

budget and GRI decisions. The other numbers I referenced are a contract position

that was coming to a natural end. That concluded March 31, which was prior to

the budget. There were six positions identified in prior years for that, as no

longer required. So really it was getting the position numbers off our books.

MS. ROGERS:

Right. So those six, would

they be part of the 650 or those are outside?

MS. JANES:

Not to my understanding.

What I believe was included in the 650 are the 19 positions that the minister

would have referred to.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you very much.

So if

we continue on our line by lines, 1.2.02, Administrative Support. The Salaries,

we see a reduction in '15-'16 of $45,000, $46,000. Did we lose a position there?

MR. TRIMPER:

It just reflects less

students that were anticipated for this fiscal.

MS. ROGERS:

Summer students working in

the park area?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, summer students.

MS. ROGERS:

So that was '15-'16. There

were fewer students there were there?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'm sorry. We had four co-op

students there, too.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. We've lost those four

co-op students but the anticipation for '16-'17 is that those numbers will go up

again?

MR. TRIMPER:

Colleen Janes is going to

take that.

MS. ROGERS:

This is under Administrative

Support, yes?

MS. JANES:

Yes. So what you're seeing there is a reduction in our revised expenditure from

what was budgeted for '15-'16. That was reflective of the fact that we only had

two summer students plus four co-op students last year and we had anticipated

eight summer students and four co-ops. We had achieved the level of co-op

students but underachieved on our number of summer students. We are anticipating

and have budgeted for the eight, plus four again for this fiscal year.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

So try

again.

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Grants

and Subsidies, can you give me an idea to who the grants and subsidies go to?

What kinds of work that would be?

MR. TRIMPER:

Sure.

2015-2016, for example, the two CCME, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment, there was $16,794, and to the Canadian Parks Council an additional

$2,000.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

1.2.03,

Policy Development and Planning, under Professional Services there was a budget

for $35,000 and it was revised to zero in '15-'16 and also zero in '16-'17. Can

you tell me the type of professional services you had anticipated and now

there's no budget for that there?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'll get Melanie Thomas to

comment on that.

MS. THOMAS:

Typically, the policy division would, as required, undertake evaluations of

departmental programs and research. So, traditionally, that's how our

Professional Services dollars have been used. Those were not required in '15-'16

and it's not anticipated in the current year either.

MS. ROGERS:

Can you tell me, Melanie, a

little bit of what kinds of programs you would have had evaluated?

MS. THOMAS:

It has varied over the years. More recently, and I believe it was in concluding,

in '14-'15 there would have been a review of the Green Fund, which was a funding

initiative the department had launched a number of years ago, a cost-shared

program with the federal government.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

And

then, moving on to General Administration, 1.2.04, can we just have an idea of

what the plans are for some of the capital expenses?

MR. TRIMPER:

Some of the capital

expenditures?

MS. ROGERS:

Yes. I guess in '15-'16

there was nothing budgeted but then there was an expense of $16,000.

MR. TRIMPER:

I can go through each of

those items. First of all, that $16,100 reflects an infrastructure piece at

Butter Pot park. We were putting a bridge in. That work is done.

The

next line item, $55,000, that's actually a redeployment of vehicles within a

department. It had initially been proposed to buy them. We were able to find

them within our fleet, so we just redeployed them.

Then

finally, we had an additional line item of $2,900. That was where we used less

funds than required to replace a vehicle and a generator at Butter Pot, so small

items there.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

1.2.05,

Pippy Park Commission, we see a reduction this year of $142,300. How will that

affect Pippy Park? What is that reduction based on?

MR. TRIMPER:

This was an amount that we

collaborated with the folks running the park, as I indicated earlier. It

represents that effort to reduce expenditures throughout government.

We have

$142,300. That represents one grounds maintenance position. It was an equipment

operator, so that was lost through attrition. We cancelled the purchase of two

vehicles, but I'd like to note that we, again, found some more vehicles in our

fleet. So we provided to Pippy Park two vehicles they were looking for; moving

them around so they'd be better used.

There's

a reduction in building and equipment maintenance projects, a reduction in some

maintenance supplies, reduction in park signage, a reduction in lumber for

picnic tables, travel and some reduction in training.

MS. ROGERS:

It's a bit of a hit there

for Pippy Park, isn't it? When we look at the additional fees we will only

anticipate bringing in $9,000.

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MS. ROGERS:

So that's, what, almost

it's over 25 per cent or 25 per cent reduction.

MR. TRIMPER:

It's 25 per cent of what we

provide, but not in their overall budget.

MS. ROGERS:

Oh, okay. So there's more

they have more money coming in from other places in the department?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's correct.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, all right. Thank you

very much.

And if

we move on to 2.1.01, Environmental Management

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Can we

just stick to 1.2.01 to 1.2.05, and then we'll

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, absolutely.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Any

further questions, Ms. Rogers, on 1.2.01 to 1.2.05?

MS. ROGERS:

I guess back to Pippy Park,

do you anticipate no, it's okay. I'm satisfied with the answers.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Thank

you, Ms. Rogers.

Mr.

Petten, anything on 1.2.01 to 1.2.05, inclusive?

MR. PETTEN:

Yes, just one question,

actually. I just wanted to ask on Pippy Park, what's the total operational

budget for Pippy Park? I know that's what we provide as the government, $2.6

million I guess. What is the total operational budget of Pippy Park?

MR. TRIMPER:

We're looking around to see;

it may be one of those ones we'll have to get back to you on. We'll come back to

you on that, if we could. Make a note of that. You stumped us.

CHAIR:

Okay, would the Clerk please

call the next subhead?

CLERK:

2.1.01.

CHAIR:

2.1.01.

Ms.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

Oh, is it not my colleague's

CHAIR:

He's finished with

MS. ROGERS:

The line by lines?

CHAIR:

1.2.01 to 1.2.05. We are only on

2.1.01 now.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes. Okay, thank you very

much.

under Salaries, we see the revised budget for '15-'16, an increase of $174,000,

and then in '16-'17 a decrease of $153,000. Can you just explain that?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'll take the increase

first. That reflects retirement and leave payouts for the director and the

manager. That represented some $306,300. That was offset by vacancies for a

portion of the fiscal year. We had two environmental engineer positions and one

manager position. So on balance, that represents an increase.

The

decrease you referenced, the $2,339,000 and why that number is down from the

budget of the previous year, that decrease of about $153,600 reflects reductions

during our GRI, our budget process. There are two positions of which one is

vacant. So that's a manager and an environmental engineer. That's offset by

salary costs arising from the JES representing another $27,000.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Professional Services; we see an increase of $77,000 in '15-'16 and then another

increase of $150,000 in '16-'17. Can you explain the types of professional

services those increases might represent?

MR. TRIMPER:

Sure. I'll make a comment

and then I'll probably turn to Martin Goebel for a little follow-up.

First

of all in the increase of the $77,000 that reflects costs associated with

contaminated sites contracts at Shoal Point, Hopedale, Butter Pot, Camp 33, Come

by Chance and New Harbour. It's a monitoring and an ISLAP, Phase I ESA reports

on old military sites in Trinity Loop. There's a variety of sites that's

involved there.

Is that

what you were looking for?

MS. ROGERS:

I think so, yes.

MR. TRIMPER:

Martin, anything further to

add?

MR. GOEBEL:

Thank you, Minister.

No,

that was just pretty well exactly what it is. They're professional services

where consultants are engaged to do site assessment type work for the most part.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Then

under Purchased Services we see quite a reduction there of $223,000 in '15-'16

and $338,000 in '16-'17. Can you explain anything you may have had to

discontinue?

MR. TRIMPER:

This relates to work going

on at Hopedale. It's a former US military site. To date, government has spent

some $12 million. This year we're anticipating spending another $1.46 million

I'm getting nods, $1.46 million. We did pull back on an anticipated some

$200,000. There are two elements to that project. One is dealing with the

remediation of contaminated soil such as PCBs and so on. We are proceeding with

that. That's a human health issue. We're very concerned about it, so we're

complete status quo. We're progressing on that.

The

other element is a site called the Old Dump Pond and there's metal and debris

that is not contaminated. It's certainly a bit of an eyesore, but it's not a

health issue, so we've foregone that activity this year. That had been

earmarked, but we pulled back to address this fiscal situation.

MS. ROGERS:

The Old Dump Pond is that

one location or is that a number of locations?

MR. TRIMPER:

I turn to Martin.

MR. GOEBEL:

It's one location near the community of Hopedale.

MS. ROGERS:

Right. Okay, thank you very

much.

The

Revenue from the federal government, we see there was a dip in the revised for

2015-16 and anticipation once again for $25,000. What would that revenue be?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's related to site

inspections for Health Canada.

MS. ROGERS:

Our province does them and

Health Canada pays for them. Is that it?

MR. GOEBEL:

That is correct. It's an MOU we have with Health Canada, under pesticides

actually, to do site inspections, as the minister mentioned.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you.

The

Revenue on the provincial level, what would that be for? We see quite a jump

there in the anticipated revenue in '16-'17.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you.

It's

interesting; our department actually oversees a variety of fees that are out

there.

What

you are seeing here is an increase of some $922,500 reflecting our increased

revenue due to those modifications that we projected and implemented, as well as

revenue from MMSB, Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, for environmental

initiatives. So we've received $1 million from them and we'll be using it on

programs.

MS. ROGERS:

What kinds of programs might

you be using that for?

MR. TRIMPER:

That is going towards the

Hopedale remediation work that I just indicated, for this example.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. Thank you.

I'm

just seeing if there are any other questions I had in that area. No, I think

we're fine.

2.2.01,

Water Resources Management.

CHAIR:

No, we're still on 2.1.01.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. I'm done there.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

Mr.

Petten, 2.1.01.

MR. PETTEN:

My colleague asked most all

of them. I just have one brief question under Employee Benefits. What changed

for the budget to change from $10,000 last year to $900 this year?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, that's just reflecting

a line-by-line review, just looking for efficiency in there. We were just

rightsizing.

MR. PETTEN:

What's included in Employee

Benefits? What would that be?

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay.

Colleen

Janes is going to answer that one.

MS. JANES:

Typically, under Employee Benefits we would pay out things such as conferences

that are related to our mandate that include opportunities for staff to avail of

new information and take that back to deploy in the workplace.

So in

terms of the expenditure under this activity last year, there was a backyard

composting conference, there was a Department of Fisheries and Ocean Fisheries

Act workshop; things of that nature is what you would expect under Employee

Benefits.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

That's

all I have on that section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Thank

you, Mr. Petten.

Would

the Clerk please call the next set of subheads?

CLERK:

2.2.01 to 2.2.02.

CHAIR:

2.2.01 to 2.2.02 inclusive.

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Salaries, it appears Salaries are increasing. Could you explain that for me,

please? It might not be a lot but there has been an increase.

MR. TRIMPER:

There's an increase of some

$54,900 that reflects both JES and some reclassification costs.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

There's some sun setting of

funding from the Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association, or ACASA. So

that's a decrease of $48,000. We've also identified some savings through our GRI

in our budget process of $44,800. There's a Clerk Typist III and other

departmental centralization of administrative services in the St. John's

location. So it's a combination of things, moving parts in there, and you're

seeing a slight increase.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, thank you.

Under

Professional Services, what type of services is included here?

MR. TRIMPER:

Well, we're talking about

okay, I'm going to give it to Martin Goebel.

MR. GOEBEL:

The current budget for Professional Services has four components: $821,000 is

for the Hydrometric Agreement, which is a cost-shared program that measures

water quantity; $275,000 is for a flood damage reduction study of the Waterford

River, which will be continued. It's ongoing now and it will be continued in

2016-17; $180,000 is for contract work for a new project to look at adapting

standard operating procedures for boil-water advisories. This is a drinking

water initiative. Another $50,000 will be for a contract to look at dam safety.

MR. PETTEN:

What accounts for the

$500,000 in the revised for 2015-16? I see it's gone back up a bit but it's

still not what the original budget was of last year of $1.553 million.

MR. TRIMPER:

We have a hydrometric

agreement. There's some savings there due to decommissioning of several industry

funded stations. We have reduced projects under ACASA, as we mentioned, and as

well we have a delay in the flood risk mapping project for the Waterford River.

MR. PETTEN:

There is a delay in that you

say?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's correct.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Purchased Services, I guess the question there is what type of things would be

there under Water Resources when you look at Purchased Services? What's included

in that?

MR. TRIMPER:

Do you want to take that,

Martin?

MR. GOEBEL:

The Purchased Services are

used for such activities as drinking water testing, the hurricane flood alert

work and other activities related to the mandate of the division.

Basically, it's mostly drinking water testing for the most part. It's the

provision of the laboratory services that are required because we do the testing

at accredited laboratories.

MR. PETTEN:

It was $60,000 over budget

last year and it's $100,000 less this year. What was the reason? Why did it go

over budget? Why did we have to revise it in 2015-16?

MR. GOEBEL:

There was some money

transferred into that account for the purpose of working on the hurricane alert

system.

During

the hurricane season, our department models the anticipated rainfall and

converts that in terms of flooding in communities. We alert communities that are

in a hurricane trajectory a weather trajectory to alert them not just of the

rainfall precipitation but whether there could be flooding. That work is a

purchased service because we use a weather service consultant for that.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, I see there's nothing there this year. What's been

eliminated?

MR. TRIMPER:

It's reflecting the sun

setting of the funding for that ACASA program. It was a period of time how

many years? Three years?

Okay.

What

about the provincial portion, what's

MR. TRIMPER:

That's a rightsizing, just

based on historical revenues. It's offset by fee modifications. So there are a

couple of things going on there, but it's just reflecting the past and an

estimate of what we would probably see this year.

MR. PETTEN:

In the 2.2.02, Salaries,

were dollars saved by positions being vacant $123,000 in savings? Are the

positions being removed? Is that what happened here or retirements?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'm going to get Colleen to

MR. PETTEN:

Sure.

MS. JANES:

There are a couple of things occurring here as well. The overall decrease from

last year to this year is $123,200. That's reflective of reductions through the

budget GRI process of

$78,000 associated with an environmental scientist in Water Resources

Management. We also have the Attrition Management Plan that we referenced

earlier, in terms of a position that came out in '15-'16 that is no longer

budgeted for now in '16-'17.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Flip

down to the Revenue on this

section here too. So the federal revenue on this

one, what's this federal revenue from here? We see it's $76,000, down from

$121,000?

MR. TRIMPER:

don't mind, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. TRIMPER:

That's fine.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MR. PETTEN:

Under your Purchased

Services up here, there's a noticeable drop, obviously. It was budgeted for

$100,000. It's down now to $45,900. I notice last year it was only $27,000 used.

What's included there and how are these savings achieved? I guess it's all a

part of the same question.

MR. TRIMPER:

That is actually a decrease

of about $72,400. It's reflecting we cancelled a real-time workshop and some

other related activities that were associated with the mining industry because

of that slowdown. We decided to cancel the workshop. There was associated

downsizing of industry-funded network as well.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Petten.

Ms.

Rogers, 2.2.01 to 2.2.02.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you.

I'm

good with the line by lines. I just have a few quick questions.

The

groundwater pollution study around the Torbay Airport, has that been completed?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'll turn to Martin Goebel.

MR. GOEBEL:

I can't say for sure, I'm

sorry.

MR. TRIMPER:

We're not sure. We can get

back to you.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, great. Thank you.

Do we

have any idea whether the federal government is going to take responsibility?

Because I know the pollution was due to the federal firefighting training over

the decades. Is there any idea of what's going on there?

MR. GOEBEL:

We've been discussing this

with the federal government. Of course, they're more than aware of this, but

there has been really no discussion as to that aspect of it. We have to, I

guess, first really delineate the extent of that plume and whether it's having

an impact downstream and to what extent.

MS. ROGERS:

So, Martin, is it that we're

just not sure if the study is finished or it's finished, we just don't quite

have a handle on it yet. What do you think?

MR. GOEBEL:

I'm just not quite sure if we have the final report that I could say, yes, it's

finished, and then I could give you the report. But I'm not quite sure about

that aspect.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, great. Thank you.

It's an

interesting area.

How

many boil-water advisories do we have now? Do we have a sense of what's been

happening in the past year? Have they been changing? How many communities are

affected?

MR. TRIMPER:

While Martin is looking

the number changes quite frequently.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, I know.

MR. TRIMPER:

But I'll flip over to

Martin, maybe, for the latest update, if you're able.

MR. GOEBEL:

Yes, as the minister mentioned, this is a number that changes quite frequently

in each community's circumstance. But just to answer your question, more

specifically in total in 2015-16 this would be up to March 31 there were 336

boil advisories issued. In that same period, there were 324 boil advisories that

were lifted. So there are actually many cases where a community would have a

boil advisory, they correct the problem. So that's not reflective of the number

of communities, but that's just the raw number of boil advisories.

The

difference between those two numbers is 12. There's a constant turnover of boil

advisories for various reasons. It could be anything from routine maintenance

that requires a boil advisory because water is being flushed through the system,

to testing results where there are inadequate chlorine residuals or whatever the

case may be.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. I imagine some are

short in duration, some can be longer.

MR. GOEBEL:

Absolutely, yes.

MS. ROGERS:

Do we have any communities

that are on a permanent boil order and how many?

MR. GOEBEL:

Well, we define long-term boil advisories as boil advisories that are five years

or more. Yes, we do have a number of those. In some cases, they've been on for

many years; they simply don't have a chlorination system. But we are working

towards reducing those long-term ones.

We've

had fairly good success in a couple of examples where we've used standard

operating procedures, a study that was completed just last year. There was a

pilot done on two communities to see if standard operating procedures would help

and, in fact, it has. So we're hopeful that with the upcoming study I mentioned

earlier that we'd be able to put in place standard operating procedures that

would address many of the long-term boil advisories.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

And

about how many would be on long term, about how many communities? Just sort of a

ballpark.

MR. GOEBEL:

I want to say roughly about 150 or so. That's a very round figure if you don't

mind me saying it that way.

MS. ROGERS:

And has that number been consistent over a while, the number of communities?

MR. GOEBEL:

Well, it's been consistent because obviously it's longer than five years. The

total number of boil advisories at any given time has dropped from over 300 when

we first started tracking boil advisories in 2001, to roughly right now around

220 boil advisories that are in place on average. Again, as I mentioned earlier,

the actual boil advisories come and go, but on an average we're around that

number.

They

tend to go up a little bit more in the summertime because you have a couple of

factors such as warm water temperatures combined with more maintenance being

carried out. So we tend to get a bit higher number during the summer and then

during the winter that drops off. But that number has been somewhat steady. It's

been a bit hard to get that below 220 simply because there are a fair number

that are on the long-term basis where it's a bigger problem to correct the boil

advisory.

MS. ROGERS:

So the 150 communities that's been pretty steady for a while, has it, around

that number of communities that are on a long-term boil order?

MR. GOEBEL:

It's been fairly steady. It's largely the same communities. We do have a very

comprehensive list that we maintain on our website so the public can, at any

time, access that list and can get all the information about that boil advisory

such as what the reason is and why it's been placed to the community that's

affected, the water supply in that community.

You

have to remember that some communities have more than one water supply and

that's not always a given that each water supply in that community has a boil

advisory, or even a boil advisory for the same reason. So that information is

maintained very accurately and is the best source of information on a daily

basis.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

I'm

fine thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

Would

the Clerk please call the next subhead?

CLERK:

2.3.01

CHAIR:

2.3.01.

Ms.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

2.3.01, Environmental

Assessment and Sustainable Development. When we look at Salaries we see a

reduction in the revised amount in '15-'16 and then also a significant reduction

in 2016-17. Can you just please identify what that represents.

MR. TRIMPER:

The first reduction from the

2015-2016, that's about $119,800. That reflects vacant positions for a portion

of the fiscal year; there was an environmental scientist and a wildlife project

biologist.

Then

for our Estimate for 2016-17, that's a decrease of $320,700. It reflects

reductions that comprise four positions of which one was vacant. So there's a

sustainable development research scientist, an administrative officer,

environmental scientist and a WPEO is a word processing equipment operator.

MS. ROGERS:

Do we still have word

processors? No.

MR. TRIMPER:

It's the classification I

guess.

MS. ROGERS:

It's a classification, yeah.

MR. TRIMPER:

It's a new acronym for me.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Transportation and Communications; we see a significant drop in both the revised

amount and then for 2016-17. Is there anything in particular that was planned

for and not undertaken? What are we not doing there now?

MR. TRIMPER:

No, not at all. It's really

just rightsizing. It's our line-by-line review in both cases. We're just

anticipating less travel this year.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Purchased Services we see what kinds of purchased services would be there and

what are we anticipating not doing?

MR. TRIMPER:

We have a little reference

here. I'll get that for you.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thanks.

MR. TRIMPER:

For last year, for example,

it refers to things like leased accommodations, vehicle maintenance and there

are shredding and copier charges.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Thank

you very much.

In the

revenue we see a significant drop in provincial revenue. What would that revenue

be and why has it dropped so much?

MR. TRIMPER:

The first one, the

2015-2016, that's just less revenue received from the permits as well as

recovery costs from industry. It's project-based, so it depends on what's

happening at the time.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, yes.

MR. TRIMPER:

Then, projecting this year,

we're just rightsizing. Looking back you only see one year here, but we've gone

back several, of course, to say let's just put our hopes where they should be in

our anticipated amounts.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, good.

Thank

you.

I'm

fine, thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

2.3.01.

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

I'm fine as well.

CHAIR:

Okay. Thank you.

Would

the Clerk please call the set of subheads?

CLERK:

3.1.01 and 3.1.02.

CHAIR:

3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

first one I want to ask about is Salaries, of course. Why the increase in

Salaries from the budget of 2015 to the revised '16? Yeah, it's not a big

increase, but there is an increase.

MR. TRIMPER:

First of all, referring to

what happened in the previous year, there's an increase of $41,200. That's

reflecting the extension of some seasonal staff. We kept them on for fall

maintenance and then there were severance costs associated, offset by vacancies.

There was a manager and an environmental scientist involved there.

The

amount that you're seeing here now projected in our Estimate for '16-'17,

there's an increase of $69,400. That's reflecting salary costs arising from a

JES which amounts for $85,000, as well as a variance in the year-two funding for

Mistaken Point. That represents $125,800.

There

are five additional positions. Again, moving parts partially offset by our

budget exercise and initiatives, which represent $141,400. There are operational

efficiencies. So as I indicated earlier, we've moved back away from the

year-round operations at Butter Pot, Notre Dame and Barachois. We are proposing

to no longer operate this winter coming.

MR. PETTEN:

Under your Professional

Services, I noticed nothing was budgeted, but $29,000 was spent in 2015-2016

under revised. So what's being forecast for 2016-17 to go from zero to $286,000?

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay, so a couple of things

here. They all relate, frankly, around the T'Railway and the trestle at Terra

Nova.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

The $29,000 actually

reflects a contract for the Terra Nova trestle plus the legal fees.

The

$286,500 reflects new funding that we've allocated for an assessment of

T'Railway structures across the Island. So we've allocated a quarter-million

dollars to complete an inventory of the state and condition of some 130

overpasses that comprise this park.

MR. PETTEN:

And the T'Railway.

MR. TRIMPER:

And the T'Railway.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Purchased Services; I noticed that's increased, too, by a fair amount, $262,000

or close on it. What's contained in this line item?

MR. TRIMPER:

That's the other part. We

break up the repairs to the Terra Nova trestle. There are consulting fees that I

just described and this is the actual contractor. We've allocated some $243,500

for that.

MR. PETTEN:

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes. There's nothing

necessarily removed, it's just a line-by-line review. The $8,000 drop in the

$3,300, that's just a reflection of less travel than was anticipated.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

One

more question. Up on top under 3.1.01 in Supplies, what type of supplies? It's a

fair amount of money.

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay, I'll just look this up

for you.

Supplies; we have things like office supplies, heating fuel, propane, food

items, small tools, appliances, first aid kits, some of the larger items and

construction and maintenance supplies associated with cleaning in the parks.

We've got some machinery, fuel for government services, personal and household

supplies, construction and field safety. It's quite a wide range.

MR. PETTEN:

Mishmash.

Okay,

Mr. Chair, I'm good on those two sections.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Petten.

The

Chair would request that we take a five-minute recess prior to 3.1.01 and 3.1.02

for you Ms. Rogers. Five minutes, so if we could be back by 11 o'clock.

Thank

you.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, we'll get started.

We're on 3.1.01 to 3.1.02 inclusive.

Ms.

Rogers you're up.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I'm

satisfied with the line by line; I just have a few questions. We know that the

ecological reserve managers that we lost were removed in 2013 in Cape St. Mary's

in the Witless Bay ecological seabird reserve. We've been hearing a little bit

about an increase in violations. Without the on-site managers, is there any plan

But

none of the ecological and wilderness reserves have monitoring or protection.

Will the natural areas system plan that your government has committed to moving

forward with consider assigning conservation and wildlife officers to these

reserves?

MR. TRIMPER:

I guess, first of all, the

task before us is to identify those areas and make sure they represent the

various ecosystems in the province. Then, through that planning process, I guess

at that time we'd undertake to see what steps will be required to ensure their

integrity going forward.

Ross is

perhaps going to add a comment.

MR. FIRTH:

Just to add to your comment

that none of those reserves have any monitoring or management. I would suggest

that, in fact, they do. We have staff that do, in fact, do monitoring of our

wilderness reserves and our ecological reserves. And there are management plans

in place for many of those reserves as well.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

I guess

this stems from folks who are concerned about perhaps not enough in their eyes

monitoring and are concerned about the status of that for our parks, for our

reserves.

The

wilderness and the ecological reserves advisory committee, will that be meeting

regularly and working on the natural areas systems plan?

MR. TRIMPER:

Absolutely. Actually, they

were in my office just a few days ago. I know several of them; I've worked with

them prior to my own political situation.

No, I

see this as an extremely important group. We've had a very productive discussion

just last week and are in regular contact. So I see it being a key source of

MR. TRIMPER:

So that's associated with mail-out costs of licences and applications for big

game for two fiscal years. We had a delay in the mail out so it just got carried

over.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Delay

in carry-over. Thank you.

So then

you were back again to what would have been anticipated for the year.

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, that's correct.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you.

Purchased Services an increase in the revised amount in '15'16 and a decrease

of $51,000 for '16'17. Can you just talk a little bit about that? What kinds of

Purchased Services would they have been?

MR. TRIMPER:

Sure.

First

of all, the increase, that's about $63,600. That's associated with banking fees

and the preparation of the mail out of the big game applications. That's a big

activity in our department. And the decrease, we've identified savings there.

We're using more online tools for the Hunting and Trapping Guide, so there's a

savings of $21,000 there, and further reductions that we identified during our

budget GRI process of $30,000.

I'll

just look to see if my colleagues have any additional comments.

MS. ROGERS:

It's great that the

licensing is going online for hunting and fishing, but will there still be print

copies and mail-in registration?

MR. TRIMPER:

We've provided print copies

in all of our offices across the Island, a limited supply. But, yes, they were

available for hard copy.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. And will be this year

as well, this coming fiscal year?

MR. FIRTH:

You're talking about the Hunting and Trapping Guide, are you?

MS. ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. FIRTH:

Yes, they're available this year.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank

you very much.

3.2.02,

Endangered Species and Biodiversity; so the revised from '15 '16 was a drop in

$80,000. If I could just have some information on that.

MR. TRIMPER:

You're referring to the

Salaries?

Yes,

that's a reflection of two vacant ecosystem management ecologist positions for a

portion of the fiscal year. One was due to maternity leave.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

And

Transportation and Communications, there's a small drop there.

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, similar to my earlier

comment on one of the other sections. It's just a reflection of less travel. It

was anticipated in that line-by-line review, so there's nothing that was

necessarily removed; it was just rightsizing.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Now,

the previous government removed the guardians at the Burnt Cape Reserve on the

Northern Peninsula. That was for the protection of the rare Braya plants.

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MS. ROGERS:

Will the guardians be

reinstated this year?

MR. TRIMPER:

At this time we have no

plans to do that.

Correct?

OFFICIAL:

Yes.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Can we

have an update on the Species Status Advisory Committee and how often they meet?

MR. TRIMPER:

Perhaps I'll turn to Ross

for that comment. I could describe elements of it but Ross is more familiar.

MR. FIRTH:

The SSAC, the Species Status Advisory Committee, meets on a pretty regular

basis, I believe. Most recently, they met, I think, it was in February or March

of this year. They remain active.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

terms of the corridor for the transmission lines for Muskrat Falls, I understand

it's a 600-metre corridor, so over half a kilometre. Do we have any idea the

effect that has had on the status of our wild flora and fauna? How has the

collection of our wild flora and fauna been going because I know there were

significant cuts over the past few years?

So I'm

interested in the collection of it and the preservation. Can you talk to me a

little bit about that?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'm going to take the first

part of the question, and Ross, I'll turn to you.

terms of the impacts from that line; as you know, the project went through a

thorough environmental assessment, along with a very robust mitigation program.

Now, as the construction proceeds, there are environmental monitors on site

making sure those promises and commitments, including what we directed, are

being carried out.

terms of the collection of fauna and flora, I'm not sure what you're are you

relating to just an inventory of instead of trying to guess, could you just

elaborate on that question?

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, we used to have a very

specific program where we had a scientist who would collect and catalogue. I'm

just wondering where that is now.

MR. TRIMPER:

Well, the department

certainly has very trained, experienced botanists based in Corner Brook,

primarily, who are engaged in this work on a regular basis. So they are

monitoring especially the species that are on our species of conservation

status list concern. We're keeping a close watch on those.

Ross,

do you want to ?

MR. FIRTH:

The minister is correct in stating that we do have a botanist on staff.

MS. ROGERS:

We have one botanist, is it?

MR. FIRTH:

There's one botanist, yes, within the Wildlife Division who is based in Corner

Brook. That particular position does build and administer a plant collection. So

there is a plant collection and space, a dry area within our laboratory space

within Corner Brook and that collection is maintained there.

MS. ROGERS:

So we don't have any public

displays of flora and rare species, anything like that?

MR. FIRTH:

We have, in the past, loaned out some samples and specimens to The Rooms. If,

from time to time, The Rooms want to display or have certain galleries which

they wish to display, either flora and fauna specimens from time to time, they

will seek specimens from us and we'll do a temporary loan for them.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

(Inaudible) but my time is

done.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Mr. Petten, on 3.2.01 to

3.2.06.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay. Thank you.

3.2.01,

I have just one question up here. Salaries, why are they over by $50,000 last

year and this year they are less $70,000? Is that a position eliminated there as

well?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

Mercifully, this was before my own time, but my sympathy for my colleagues.

The

$52,300 reflects overtime costs associated with the defective salmon tag issue,

and we had a privacy breach that occurred. Big game application packages were

received by incorrect individuals in 2015; so two little challenges there that

resulted in the increase in cost.

The

decrease you see, that's reflecting our budget moves; I think I indicated that.

We've got a Clerk Typist III that implements the new licence validation seal for

hunting and angling, and that's partially offset by increasing salary costs from

the JES.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

3.2.03,

Stewardship and Education; again, with Salaries. Is that a position? How do we

account for the savings there? Was a position eliminated, because it was less

revised but then it is back up again? Last year in revised it dropped to

$100,000, so it's still like $56,000 less than what it was last year.

MR. TRIMPER:

The revised; first of all,

that decrease that's $107,300, that's reflecting vacancies for a portion of the

fiscal year. There's a senior manager, and what's classified as an Animal Herder

and Trades Worker I. That's for a position at Salmonier.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

The Salaries under our

Estimates for this year, there's a decrease of $55,800, and that's reflecting

one less funded position due to an attrition move, a retirement.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Just

one small item, but just out of curiosity; Property, Furnishings and Equipment,

there's nothing budgeted in the year, yet it was close on $10,000 went into

revised. What would that be, office furniture or ?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, it's the purchase of

stackable chairs and folding tables for the new

interpretation centre.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

3.2.04,

Transportation and Communications; it's a big drop from what was budgeted last

year. How were these savings achieved?

MR. TRIMPER:

What you're seeing is less helicopter time there. In the $$587,000 reference

there, the revised from last year, there's a decrease of $136,300 and that's

associated with our moose management plan. So less air services for the South

Coast, and there was also a caribou survey that we've pulled back on.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

This year the Estimates,

there's a reprofiling of funds to the research associated with the moose

management plan. We've reduced expenditures around operational changes in game

management and research. As I indicated in my opening remarks and we spoke about

a little bit, the new management approach to how we're monitoring our wildlife

populations and completing our population estimates; a lot more working with

data and computer simulation and modelling.

We do

have an offset because we are still we have some increased funding associated

with year two of our implementation of the moose management plan that government

released last year.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

Under

Supplies, again from last year's budgeted amount to this year is a substantial

drop. Is that all tied to the same thing?

MR. TRIMPER:

What you're seeing there is

particularly associated with the Labrador Caribou Initiative. A lot of these

programs involve upfront purchases, for example, of satellite collars and so on,

very expensive items. Once you have those deployed you're costs go down

dramatically as you roll through your program.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

3.2.05,

Transportation and Communications; would that be as a result of the moose

management as well or research, the transportation increased by a substantial

amount. Was that another ?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, that's air services,

the revised in the 2015-16. We've got an increase in air services.

We've

also got an increase in the reprofiling of funds from the Habitat, Game and Fur

Management, the Moose Management Plan, some $200,000. It's offset by reductions

through our budget the inland fish program. We've announced that we're phasing

out the inland fish program. We've retained the staff but the field component is

not going to occur.

MR. PETTEN:

So I guess that answers why

But this year there is

$125,000 budgeted?

MR. TRIMPER:

Okay, so what we've done is

we've phased out the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Science we're going to get to

that item, I would assume. The contracts that were administered there, we've

moved into this element of our operation.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

So what you're seeing is

about $110,900 moving in to this particular aspect of our budget.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

MR. TRIMPER:

There are four contracts

that are ongoing. We're fulfilling our obligations there to see them to their

completion.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay. Thanks.

Under

3.2.06, Revenue, where does this federal revenue come from? What is this grants

or projects or it's federal money for something. What does it entail?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'm going to get Ross Firth

to explain that.

MR. FIRTH:

Could you just repeat the

question, please?

MR. TRIMPER:

He wanted to know where the

revenue came from, the federal revenue (inaudible).

MR. PETTEN:

Revenue, where does it come

from?

MR. FIRTH:

There are a number of

different sources for that.

As the

minister indicated, one of them is the Eastern Joint Habitat Venture funding.

That's part of a broader North American Waterfowl Management program. We get

money to support waterfowl management through our stewardship program.

We also

get an annual contribution through our firearm safety program from the federal

government. As you know, part of our Firearm Safety/Hunter Education program is

based part on that safety aspect, so the RCMP provides a level of grant funding

for us to actually deliver that program.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay. I'm almost done there

now.

I guess

one other question on Purchased Services. It's not so much a drop but what's

involved in Purchased Services under the Cooperative Wildlife? What would be ?

MR. TRIMPER:

For example, some of the

increases are a result of vehicle maintenance. I think that's primarily just

keeping our gear in place and operations.

ahead, Ross.

MR. FIRTH:

Under the Purchased Services

for the Cooperative Wildlife Projects there are things such as vehicle and

equipment maintenance, equipment rental, satellite usage fees, contribution to

the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre as well. So a variety of

expenditures related to that heading.

MR. PETTEN:

In Purchased Services, a lot

of things don't fit that goes there.

I'm

good, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Petten.

Would

the Clerk please call the next subhead?

CLERK:

3.3.01.

CHAIR:

3.3.01.

MS. ROGERS:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

I'm sorry.

MS. ROGERS:

(Inaudible) it's just I

haven't had a chance to ask any questions here yet on the 3.2s.

CHAIR:

On 3.

MS. ROGERS:

Some of the 3.2 categories.

CHAIR:

I was of the understanding

that you started off at 3.2.01 to 3.2.06, but if you have further questions

Minister, you have no issues?

MR. TRIMPER:

Sure.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Ms.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, great. Thank you very

much.

The

wilderness program for women, Becoming an Outdoors Woman, used to be two days. I

understand this year it's one day. Is it?

MR. FIRTH:

I think you're referring BOW, Becoming an Outdoors Woman.

MS. ROGERS:

Becoming an Outdoors Woman,

yes.

MR. FIRTH:

My understanding is it's still two days. I can check on that and get back to you

for sure, but my understanding is it's two days.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. I've been told that

it's one day and I was just curious about that.

Can we

get an update, or perhaps it's online, I'm not sure, for instance the number of

moose and caribou we have, the number in the herds across the province? If

As I indicated in my opening

remarks, we had some difficult decisions to make. We felt, in similar ways, as

we looked at the province, socially, we really wanted to make sure our resources

were there for the most vulnerable parts of the aspects of what we do in

Environment and Conservation. It's not to say that these species are not

important but the work that goes on there tends to be not so much preoccupied

with species of special conservation status and so on. So we've pulled back on

that aspect of our work.

MS. ROGERS:

Some tough decisions.

MR. TRIMPER:

These tend to be populations

that are stable and doing well, we've pulled back on associated research.

MS. ROGERS:

I'm fine, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you very much.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Ms. Rogers.

Would

the Clerk please call the next subhead.

CLERK:

3.3.01.

CHAIR:

3.3.01.

Mr.

Petten.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't

have a lot of questions on this one. I was somewhat familiar with this division

from my previous life. It's more of an impact question. Undergraduates, there

was a program offered for graduates students, wasn't it, to come in Ph.D.

students and whatnot, out in Grenfell College. They would come in and do their

studies in this

MR. TRIMPER:

I'll let Ross he's more

familiar with the particular situation.

ahead, Ross.

MR. FIRTH:

Yes, you're correct. The research projects were really focused on Memorial

University graduate students, so masters and Ph.D. levels, yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Yes.

there any opportunity now is this moved over? Is that also still available to

those students?

MR. TRIMPER:

As I indicated, we are

fulfilling the commitments that we had with these four ongoing programs. We've

taken the administration of these contracts to other aspects of the department,

but the work will proceed and we're going to continue to support it.

MR. PETTEN:

That's still going to be

available to the students?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

How

many positions were eliminated as a result of this being moved or this division

being

MR. TRIMPER:

Two positions.

MR. PETTEN:

Two positions?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

As we

said, the research will be done but we have that moved over into the Wildlife

Division now, right? It's just incorporated?

There

was a director of that division. Are they still employed? Is that one of the

positions that was eliminated?

MR. TRIMPER:

The positions have been

terminated, both of those positions.

MR. PETTEN:

As a result of the budget?

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes.

MR. PETTEN:

Okay.

That's

all I have to ask there. I think everything else is pretty well okay.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Petten.

Ms.

Rogers.

MS. ROGERS:

Just a point of

clarification for myself. In fact, the research monies that were available

through this program, that same level of research monies will be available but

administered elsewhere in the department. Is that it?

MR. TRIMPER:

For the ongoing contracts

and just for '16'17. For the ones that we had accepted, were funding to a

certain period of time, we are going to fulfil those obligations, but in terms

of having money available for future opportunities, no.

MS. ROGERS:

So, no.

MR. TRIMPER:

No.

As I

said, we decided we needed to pull back to our core services. As important as

this work is and we want to complete these existing contracts. To fund

additional research questions at this time is just not warranted with all the

choices we had to make.

MS. ROGERS:

So there was $80,000 that

was in the pot there for research for the students, is it?

MR. FIRTH:

Yes, I think there were four separate research projects which totalled in the

region of that amount.

MS. ROGERS:

And what kinds of research

projects were they, Ross?

MR. FIRTH:

There were four different ones. One was around greenhouse gas emissions in

peatlands, there was another one on mink farming and house flies, there was a

third one on metapopulation in Labrador caribou and a fourth one was on Mistaken

Point Ecological Reserve.

MS. ROGERS:

So that would be a total

elimination of that kind of money for that kind of research in the province. Do

we know if there is an increase in research money available through MUN, through

Grenfell, for those kinds of research projects?

MR. TRIMPER:

I'm not aware at this time,

Aye.

Carried.

motion, Department of Environment and Conservation, total heads, carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the Estimates

of the Department of Environment and Conservation carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

Carried.

motion, Estimates of the Department of Environment and Conservation carried

without amendment.

CHAIR:

Just some housekeeping

First

of all, I need a mover for the minutes of the Resource Committee for April 21.

MR. DEAN:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Moved by Jerry Dean.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Carried.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

Again, under housekeeping, I

just wanted to remind the Resource Committee that we will be meeting again on

Monday evening at 6 with Advanced Education and Skills here in the Assembly.

I'd

certainly like to take the opportunity to thank the minister and his staff for

your co-operation this morning, and certainly want to thank all Members again

for their co-operation as well.

I would

entertain a motion to adjourn.

MR. BRAGG:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Derrick Bragg.

motion, the Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2016-04-27
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_resource_ga48_2016-04-27rcdepartmentofenvironmentandconservationandccee.html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0c480bbc0e328a3a720b3726fda48ab0111b83c2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).