PDF Version

October 7, 2020

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Derrick Bragg, MHA for Fogo Island - Cape Freels,

substitutes for Carol Anne Haley, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair, substitutes for Christopher Mitchelmore, MHA for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux

Meadows.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Haggie, MHA for Gander, substitutes for Pam

Parsons, MHA for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Jim Lester, MHA for Mount Pearl North,

substitutes for Helen Conway Ottenheimer, MHA for Harbour Main.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay,

substitutes for Sherry Gambin-Walsh, MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's.

The Committee met at 5:44 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Trimper):

Okay, thank you very much.

I welcome everybody to these Estimates for the Department of Environment,

Climate Change and Municipalities. As we're through several Estimates, I think

this is my sixth in the last few days so I might sound like a recording, but

they are very interesting. I'm looking forward to learning much more about the

department. I'll ask the minister to make some opening remarks and introduce his

team.

Just a couple reminders about the broadcast for those who haven't been

participating in the Estimates. Because some of you maybe are not familiar to

the folks that are downstairs, I'll ask you to just maybe wave or gesture and

say your name and they will find you. You will see that your light in front of

you will light up and then I'll ask you to speak at that time. Normally when

there's an engagement or a conversation between, say, one on my right and one on

my left, you don't need to say your name. They will understand that there's a

conversation back and forth of question and answer. But if we suddenly pick you

up, we will just start by an intro.

We're scheduled for three hours. We will start with 15 minutes from the

minister's side, then I'll turn to 15 minutes from the Opposition's critic and

then we will get into the back and forth. I'll have the Clerk introduce the

sections of the Estimates that we will discuss, and we will focus our questions

and answers on that

section and try to work through it in a logical fashion.

With that, Minister, the clock can start and you have 15 minutes, if you would

like, to just make some opening remarks.

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, I'm going to keep my remarks short, at first.

CHAIR:

And introduce your team, please.

MR. BENNETT:

Yes.

First of all, I just want to thank Committee Members, staff members, House of

Assembly Members, the Broadcast staff and also my team behind me here tonight.

For upwards of the last five years I've had the opportunity to participate in a

number of Estimates. The majority of them I've been sitting in the back on the

opposite side, but also I've had the honour to have the same role as you do, Mr.

Chair, sitting in that chair. For four years, I've also been involved as

parliamentary secretary with the Department of Children, Seniors and Social

Development and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but this is my first

opportunity, I guess, to be in the hot seat myself as the minister for this

great Department of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

With me I have my staff here tonight and, actually, if you don't mind, I will

ask them to introduce themselves before I actually do my remarks. If that's okay

with you.

CHAIR:

The Deputy Minister.

MR. DUTTON:

Sean Dutton, Deputy Minister.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Dan Michielsen, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Branch.

MS. SQUIRES:

Susan Squires, Assistant Deputy Minister of Climate Change.

MS. STEELE:

Bonnie Steele, Departmental Controller.

MR. HANLON:

Bren Hanlon, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipalities.

MR. SIMMS:

Randy Simms, EA to Minister Bennett.

MS. MUNDON:

Tansy Mundon, Director of Communications.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Minister.

MR. BENNETT:

Okay. Although we're supported by a small team here tonight, we have a much

larger team throughout Newfoundland and Labrador with approximately 200 staff

members in every region.

Good evening and thank you for being here to participate in the Estimates for

the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

As a department we focus on advancing the economic, social and environmental

success and sustainability of municipalities, communities, regions and the

province through the delivery of effective programs, services and supports. As

you know, as I just mentioned, I was recently appointed as Minister for the

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities just short of two

months right now. So far it's been a wonderful learning opportunity to see how

the department engages with residents, governments and stakeholder organizations

to support safe and sustainable communities. Their work is resulting in better

services and outcomes for residents. Since I've been minister I've already seen

first-hand how knowledgeable and dedicated the staff of the department are in

improving the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and their families.

Following my appointment as minister, our department underwent a name change and

with that came changes realigning some divisions and branches. Our government

has a positive working relationship with municipalities within Newfoundland and

Labrador. Municipalities will have the same access to programs today that they

did before the department restructuring. It is important to note that we are

maintaining the municipal operating grants for municipalities. Municipal issues

will continue to be a priority. This new structure will foster a positive

working relationship between municipalities and the three ministers. My

department will work collaboratively with the Department of Transportation and

Infrastructure as we move forward with decisions related to municipal

infrastructure. In our close work with communities, we continue to provide

community funding programs such as the Gas Tax and the Community Enhancement

Employment Program. We will also support and encourage strong local governance

and high-quality services.

The staff of Fire and Emergency Services operates through the Department of

Justice and Public Safety and it aligns with the department's mandate, as it is

responsible for both policing services and the fire services. Natural Areas was

a part of the department before and it aligns with our department's mandate of

protecting the environment. It is a natural fit and we look forward to working

with groups and organizations.

Protecting the environment for future generations is a priority of our

government and particularly our department. During COVID-19, work has continued

towards the goal outlined in the five-year Climate Change Action Plan. The

action plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate clean innovation and

growth and build resilience to climate change impacts.

In March, our government wrote the federal government to commit to net-zero

environmental protection and reducing carbon emissions. This year we announced

six programs for energy efficiency and fuel switching. By 2030, these programs

are anticipated to deliver 830,000 tons of accumulative greenhouse gas

reductions and approximately 650 direct person years of employment.

In addition, the province continues to implement the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to

reduce industrial emissions and set a reduction target. Electrification of our

economy is a key energy priority, as 98 per cent of our buildings' electricity

will come from renewable energy by 2021. We are supporting the development of a

clean economy and climate resilient infrastructure and we are working on

initiatives to support an environmentally and economically sustainable future

for our province for generations to come.

Last week we became the second province in Canada to enact the provincial ban on

the distribution of retail plastic bags and it's good to see today that our

federal colleagues are following our suit. In April 2019, the provincial

government amended the Environmental

Protection Act and began drafting regulations to ban the distribution of

retail plastic bags. Over the last year, residents, businesses, governments and

organizations have been actively decreasing the amount of plastic waste created

by single-use plastic bags and working to put alternatives in place. Banning

retail plastic bags begins on the province's ongoing work with the council on

the Zero Plastic Waste Strategy as a part of the

Ocean Plastics Charter . As we

navigate through the pandemic, consumers using their own reusable bags are

encouraged to wash them frequently.

These are just some of the many initiatives that I'm proud to highlight for the

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

Before I conclude, I would just like to acknowledge the hard work and to thank

the officials and staff of our department. As a government, we will remain

committed to working closely with our community partners so we can continue to

deliver better services and achieve better outcomes for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you, Minister.

I'll now turn to the Member representing the Opposition Party to introduce

himself and all those others that are sitting here. Then I'll have a little –

I'll seek some leave from the team.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Jim Lester, Mount Pearl North. (Inaudible) thank you for Chairing (inaudible).

CHAIR:

Just introduce yourself. We'll go around then I'll come back to you; starting

here to my far right.

MS. BONIA:

Laurie Bonia, Official Opposition Office.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lane.

MR. LANE:

Paul Lane, MHA, District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. FLEMING:

Scott Fleming, Researcher, Third Party caucus office.

MR. BROWN:

Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West, critic for municipal affairs.

MR. J. DINN:

Jim Dinn, MHA for St. John's Centre.

MR. WARR:

Brian Warr, MHA, Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR. HAGGIE:

John Haggie, MHA for the beautiful district of almost perfectly centred Gander.

MS. DEMPSTER:

He stole that from me.

Lisa Dempster, MHA for the beautiful District of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, MHA for the historic District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

CHAIR:

Right on, thank you all for your adjectives.

We have one little item of business. Mr. Lane and Mr. Brown are not Members of

this Committee; I suspect that they're here interested in also asking some

questions. So if I can seek leave, or seek the consent of the other Committee

Members, we will allow them to participate. Is that all right with everyone

here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Leave.

CHAIR:

Leave?

Okay, fine, thanks.

Mr. Lester, please. Oh, Mr. Dinn has a (inaudible).

MR. J. DINN:

(Inaudible) Jordan, MHA Brown, I think he was notified that he would be on the

Committee as well. I apologize if that didn't get to you.

CHAIR:

It didn't seem to. I just had a little note passed to me that that needed to be

done. Regardless, we have him in.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

So, Mr. Lester, I'll turn to you for some opening remarks, or if you're ready we

can dive into the sections; however you would like.

MR. LESTER:

I'll go right into it, please.

CHAIR:

Okay, let's go right into it. So I'll ask the Clerk to introduce us to the first

section.

CLERK (Hawley George):

For the Estimates of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities, 1.1.01 to

1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lester.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

Can we be provided with a copy of the minister's briefing note or briefing

binder?

MR. BENNETT:

Binders, yeah, no problem.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

In August, your department was realigned, can you explain what changes occurred?

MR. BENNETT:

Within our department structure?

MR. LESTER:

Yes.

MR. BENNETT:

Within the department structure, since the realignment, the Department of

Justice and Public Safety – Fire and Emergency Services have moved to that

department. Also, under the Municipal Operating Grants, such as the – I'm just

trying to remember the grant now – the Operating Grants for infrastructure have

moved under the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. That would

include things such as regular Municipal Operating Grants and also other grants

that would do infrastructure work within our department, previously.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

Is the attrition plan still being followed or has there been amendments made to

the attrition plan for your department?

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, there have been some changes with our – we have been following the

attrition plan. There were three positions that have been taken into

consideration from 2018 to 2020. This year now, from 2020 to 2022, actually,

there's only one additional position that will be eliminated.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

How many people are currently employed within the department?

MR. BENNETT:

Within the department, as of today, there are approximately 196 employees within

our department.

MR. LESTER:

Of that 196, how many would be permanent, seasonal, temporary and contractual?

MR. BENNETT:

We currently have 126 that are permanent positions, 46 are temporary and five

are contractual.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, thank you.

How many retirements have occurred in the department this past year? Were these

positions refilled?

MR. BENNETT:

We've had eight retirements, seven resignations, one end of employment and we've

had three new hires.

MR. LESTER:

Has there been any positions eliminated within your department?

MR. BENNETT:

No, other than the restructuring process where some staff members have left for

the Infrastructure Department. We've also gained some employees with regard to

Natural Areas.

MR. LESTER:

Has COVID had any impact on your department and its delivery of service?

MR. BENNETT:

Overall, I guess, COVID had an impact on pretty well every department with

regard to staff being able to come in and work at the office and that. Our

department adapted quite well with that. Our staff both worked at home and also

some were able to come into the building, but, overall, I think we were able to

continue with services at a very acceptable level.

MR. LESTER:

Did your department receive any money from the COVID fund? If so, what for?

MR. DUTTON:

Just for clarity, do you mean the contingency fund?

MR. LESTER:

Yes.

MR. DUTTON:

There was none.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Do you anticipate having to avail of any of that fund?

MR. DUTTON

As of right now, no.

MR. LESTER:

I did notice in your

preamble that you did mention the Gas Tax and the

transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles. Has there been any

consideration given as to how we're going to compensate the reduction in the Gas

Tax when we all drive electric vehicles?

MR. BENNETT:

Right now, we're still with a Gas Tax that has been going out to municipalities.

We still maintain the same level of funding that has been allotted over the last

number of years.

MR. LESTER:

So despite having people convert to electric vehicles, we're still consuming the

same amount of fuel?

MR. BENNETT:

Obviously, as the natural trend goes from gas vehicles to electric vehicles,

yeah, there will be some change in it but that will obviously take a number of

years for that transition to happen.

MR. LESTER:

Community relocation: Can you provide an update on the community relocation

program?

MR. BENNETT:

Sorry, could you repeat that?

MR. LESTER:

Community relocation program: Can you provide an update if there are any

relocation requests being considered at this point?

MR. BENNETT:

To my knowledge there are no new requests.

MR. LESTER:

Is there any consultation or discussion ongoing about amending the relocation

program?

MR. BENNETT:

The amendments were made, I think, back in late 2018, early 2019. Right now,

there has been no consideration to re-amend that.

MR. LESTER:

In reference to regional governance, or sharing of services, has there been any

development within the plan to encourage regionalization and sharing of

services?

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, we have a working committee right now with Professional Municipal

Administrators and also Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador working

committee to look at different options with regard to regional government and

also shared services. There are terms of reference that have been developed and

now we're just working on finalizing those terms of reference with the two

groups.

We obviously, as a department, have put a priority – and also of government – in

promoting regional governments and regional services. We certainly encourage

that as much as possible. If there are towns, municipalities or local service

districts that would like to work with our department in order to enhance

regional services or amalgamation, we would certainly entertain that.

CHAIR:

Just a reminder to the Member and everyone else that we're going to try to keep

the questions relevant to the section. There's a lot of leeway and as structured

as it is, there's still a fair bit of informality.

I just found myself looking at some of the regional governance questions. It may

be better later but I just put it out there for some suggestion.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, well, under advisement, those are all the questions I have for that

section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

I'll turn it over to Mr. Brown, if possible.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section 1.2.01, under Salaries: I know that a lot of it is with the extra pay

week and that, but this is a $350,000 difference. What is the reasoning for such

a large drop in Salaries here?

MR. BENNETT:

You say …?

MR. BROWN:

1.2.01.

MR. BENNETT:

The drop of $11,300?

MR. BROWN:

Yeah, that's for

section 1.2.01. Under Salaries there's a $350,000 drop in

Salaries budgeted. I'm just wondering the reason for that.

MR. BENNETT:

That's a result of higher salary steps for ministerial staff and also for, as

you probably hear of quite commonly, the 27 –

MR. BROWN:

No, it's dropped.

MR. BENNETT:

Oh, sorry.

MR. BROWN:

It's significantly dropped.

CHAIR:

1.2.01.

MR. BENNETT:

Oh, sorry.

MR. BROWN:

That's fine.

MR. BENNETT:

The decrease of $53,000 is what you're referring to?

MR. BROWN:

The decrease of $350,000 under 1.2.01, Executive Support, Salaries.

MR. BENNETT:

Okay.

The Salaries line item for budget '20-'21 reflects the funding of the positions

that were in the former department at the time the budget submission was

prepared. The Waste Management Strategy review was conducted so two related

positions were not included in the Estimates.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so there are people no longer in that division?

MR. BENNETT:

Correct.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Professional Services: It budgeted $50,000, $22,518 was spent, but they're not

budgeting for any Professional Services this year.

MR. BENNETT:

Again, that reflects the cost of the consultants with regard to the Waste

Management Strategy. That strategy has been completed now.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, that money went with those individuals.

MR. BENNETT:

Correct.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Provincial revenue: Can you explain why budgeted revenue was lower in actuals

compared to what was budgeted?

MR. BENNETT:

There's a decrease of $34,151 in 2019 actuals from, as you referenced, the

budgeted. This is related to revenue from MMSB for the CEO salary. That's an

invoice that we pay but then we invoice back to MMSB.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so you budgeted a little higher revenue and this is all that was actually

given to them at the end of the day.

MR. BENNETT:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Section 1.2.02, under Salaries: It's being budgeted as double compared to last

year.

MR. BENNETT:

The increase of $127,000 reflects an adjustment for summer students, which we

had an increase. It also reflects the 27-week pay period that will be in this

year's budget, as well as $110,000 for the 27-week period for municipal

infrastructure.

Municipal infrastructure funding was keyed into the line item late into the

budget process, after the infrastructure strategy decision had been made. So

partly because it was already put into our budget before the decision was made

with regard to infrastructure –

MR. BROWN:

So there will be a correction in the next budget.

MR. BENNETT:

Correct.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

For Transportation and Communications, a significant drop in this division

there. What's the reason for budgeting lower than last year?

MR. BENNETT:

The reason there is before we were into contracts and that with our cellphones

and communication,

whereas now we purchase our phones so the price came in a

little lower.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, savings.

MR. BENNETT:

There's cost savings there and you'll notice that in other –

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so instead of going with plan phones, you purchased the phones outright –

MR. BENNETT:

Correct.

MR. BROWN:

– and recovered some savings that way.

MR. BENNETT:

Exactly.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Under Purchased Services it was budgeted for $35,000, but it came in at $28,000

in actuals. What was the reason for that?

MR. BENNETT:

It was budgeted at $35,000 and it came in at $48,000?

MR. BROWN:

Yes, in the actuals for last year.

MR. BENNETT:

The increase of $12,612 in 2019-2020 actuals is a result of moving the Fire and

Emergency Services building. They were under a tender or lease agreement from

the move from the Hallett building to Major's Path. Most of our leased

buildings, the tenders expire after so long. When we retender then there's an

associated cost to move the office space.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so this is a new office space.

Grants and Subsidies under this division: What is the grant that is given out?

MR. BENNETT:

Are you referring to the $128,000?

MR. BROWN:

The $16,000 –

MR. BENNETT:

Oh, sorry, the Grants. Okay.

You get that one, Sean.

MR. DUTTON:

This is the department's membership in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. DUTTON:

They're all slotted in Grants and Subsidies but, obviously, it's not technically

a grant.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. DUTTON:

It's a membership in the association.

MR. BROWN:

This is a membership fee for the department.

MR. DUTTON:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Provincial revenue under this one: It's quite significantly higher than actually

budgeted for. What was this revenue?

MR. BENNETT:

The $128,853 reflects higher miscellaneous revenue from payments from the prior

year's relocation grant funding for William's Harbour, which was $66,300, and a

repayment from prior year's Community Enhancement program grant from other

departments and other (inaudible).

MR. BROWN:

Oh, this is leftover money that came back in?

MR. BENNETT:

Correct, yeah.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

1.2.03, Strategic Financial Management: There's a significant salary jump here.

What was the reason for that?

MR. BENNETT:

The increase of $114,300 is for two positions which was in the '20-'21 salary

budget, which was increased from the 2019-2020 budgets. They were basically to

fill vacant positions. Also, it reflects the 27-week pay period again.

MR. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay, so this is the end of this section, correct, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR:

1.2.03.

MR. BROWN:

Yeah, perfect. I'll end my questioning there.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lane, do you have any questions on this?

MR. LANE:

Under 1.2.03, the Salaries that we just talked about, what were the two

positions? Are they new positions or are they just unfilled positions that got

filled?

MS. STEELE:

The positions here are not new positions; they're currently vacant. One is due

to an illness, somebody on leave. The other person is on maternity leave and due

to come back this year. Both positions will be filled. Last year they were not

budgeted for because we planned to leave them just vacant and the other staff

covered most of the work that was done. But in evaluating that requirement we

decided that when these people come back the positions need to be refilled.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you.

I'm just wondering – I've asked this at every Estimates, so why stop now –

through COVID-19 there were obviously savings that would have been realized

through the use of Zoom and so on, instead of meetings, travel and so on, and

other opportunities through technology. I know that we've seen changes in some

departments where service is offered to the public online, things being done

over the telephone, there are people working from home and all that kind of

stuff.

Are there any learnings from that in the Department of Environment, Climate

Change and Municipalities of ways we can make this a permanent thing so we can

continue to save money after COVID is done?

MR. BENNETT:

I think it's safe to say, yes, there are definitely opportunities for us to save

money into the future using virtual means of meetings and that. Now, that

doesn't dismiss the fact that a lot of our travel and that is because of site

visits and things like that there. From a ministerial and department officials,

there are times that municipalities and other stakeholders and that do want to

meet in person and visit their communities and things like that. So, yes, there

are definitely opportunities to save money and we will avail of it as much as

possible, but, like I say, we also feel that the face to face is also important

from time to time.

MR. LANE:

Are there any significant costs associated with changing the departments around?

I mean, we see this in government all the time where people are moving from this

building to that building, this department to that department and then there's a

new letterhead and there are new business cards and everything else associated

to it. This particular move, was there any significant costs to this one?

MR. BENNETT:

You may want to correct me, but I think it has been pretty seamless, actually.

The department of Fire and Emergency Services, they were kind of their own

little division working from a different location. Our infrastructure team that

will be moving with Transportation and Infrastructure, they were their own

department working in conjunction with us. So we still will avail of services

where needed and work in partnership with each other, but I don't think there

were any major expenses, by no means, as a result of the realignment of

departments.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you.

I'm finished on this section.

CHAIR:

Any further questions from anyone on this section? No.

Seeing none, I'll ask the Clerk and we'll vote on this

section of the Estimates.

CLERK:

1.1.01 to 1.2.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall sections 1.1.01 through to 1.2.03 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

section is carried forward.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.

CHAIR:

The next section, Madam Clerk.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lester.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In reference to 2.1.01, Transportation and Communications: Why would we have

double the budget this year versus what we actually spent last year?

MR. DUTTON:

In 2019-20, there was less spent than anticipated due to lower staff travel and

communication costs. There were some vacancies in the department and there was

lower board-related travel than anticipated. For the new fiscal year it's

roughly what the historic amount was and, as you will also note, they're some of

the positions we would anticipate to be filled that had been vacant during the

previous year and that's reflected in the increased salary amount in the first

line.

MR. LESTER:

Given the restrictions on travel and anticipated, I guess, safety measures, do

you feel it's fair that we will be projecting this much travel this year as we

did last year?

MR. DUTTON:

The projections would have been based on the budget submitted last fall. I guess

at that point it wouldn't have been apparent what was going to happen both with

the coronavirus and with the other vacancies. Certainly, from the standpoint of

having the money in the budget, that's an area that we continue to report on

through our monthly budget monitoring and identify any savings throughout the

year as the year goes on, so those savings would be captured as the year

progressed.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Would those savings be captured for repurposing or returned to the general fund?

MR. DUTTON:

If there was some other cost pressure in another line item, then the requirement

would be to go to Treasury Board to seek an approval to be able to reprofile it

into another area where there were cost pressures. That would be the normal

controls that we would have throughout the fiscal year. Otherwise, then it would

reduce in less expenditure than anticipated and that would help the government's

overall bottom line on the deficit at the end of the year.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

The Salaries are more or less reflective of just changes within the department

and filling of the vacancies that were there last year. Is that correct? Why

we're spending –

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, that's correct.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

MR. BENNETT:

There were vacant positions and we went through a recruitment period.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Grants and Subsidies, I understand this is generally for feasibility studies. Is

that all that's included here? Would it be also memberships under this category

as well?

MR. BENNETT:

The Grants and Subsidies, that was partially because of the – why we didn't use

the money, we didn't have the Long Service Awards and we had money put in place

for amalgamation studies that we didn't use. It's back in there this year and

also if we need money for regional governments and pilot projects, we did put a

budget item in for that.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, all right.

The Revenue line: Is it correct that these are fees from regional appeal boards?

What explains the reduced revenue last year? Is it because of reduced hearings?

MR. BENNETT:

The revenues, a lot these are from land use planning amendments and, like I say,

they do fluctuate annually.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

While on the topic of appeal boards: Can you give me an update on the status of

the boards and appeals in the regions across the province? Given the

circumstances that we are in, is there a backlog or are appeals being processed

in a timely fashion?

MR. BENNETT:

With regard to the appeal boards, right now in the Eastern region we have 36

appeals outstanding, three in the Central region, 15 in Western and two in

Labrador. Right now the oldest appeal for the Eastern region, the oldest appeal

that we have outstanding right now, is back from August of 2019 and we do have

one that's a little older in Central which goes back to February of 2018, but

that's basically waiting on a Supreme Court decision before that one gets

adhered to.

We've been actively trying to catch up on all of our appeals and right now we're

holding appeal board hearings every month. They rotate from region to region,

but we are trying to hold them every month right now.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

The standard of service and process, would you feel confident in saying that it

has not changed despite the pandemic situation we find ourselves in?

MR. BENNETT:

You may want to correct me, but as a result of the pandemic it did slow down

because we – during the height of the pandemic, but we've been trying to do as

many by virtual now as possible to catch up.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

I think that shall be all from me for now.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Brown is it, or Mr. Dinn?

Mr. Brown.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are there any communities actively pursuing the community relocation funding and

are there any groups that have expressed interest in this?

MR. BENNETT:

As of today, no, there are no other groups right now that are actively looking

to relocate.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. BENNETT:

However, we're always open and willing to work with any community if they're

willing to relocate.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Civic addressing has been a problem in rural Newfoundland and Labrador for a

long time, and I know Municipalities NL in the past have been pushing for this.

Can we get an update on getting all the properties in rural communities numbered

for fire and emergency services?

MR. BENNETT:

I guess a lot of that would full now under the department of Fire and Emergency

Services. But as a department, I know from a municipal background, it's been

strongly encouraged that each municipality should work with the residents within

their communities, whether it be to do the street naming and numbering as seen

appropriate.

Dan, I don't know if you want to add (inaudible).

CHAIR:

Dan Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, it is primarily the responsibility of municipalities for civic addresses.

My understanding is that in unincorporated areas there's been significant work

done by regional services boards, especially in Eastern, to identify properties

and owners and civic addresses as well. But the role is the municipalities to

provide those civic addresses.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

The regionalization plan, where are we with that currently?

MR. BENNETT:

Regionalization is definitely something that – it's an ongoing plan that we're

working on. We have a partnership with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador

and also PMA to move forward on regionalization and shared services.

As a department, we're always open to any municipality, local service district

or group of municipalities that would like to either amalgamate, join under

regional or local services and we'll continue to work with anybody that is

there.

It has been very challenging, and coming from a municipal background, like the

previous minister, it's an area that we take of great importance and we see the

great benefits. There are a lot of great successes of shared services. In my

district alone, one fire department in New World Island, they currently provide

fire protection for 15 different communities.

These are the things that we're trying to promote. I don't think there's an

immediate need to have a fire department in every little community, although the

services are there and they're very important. With our aging population and

sometimes some of the challenges to get volunteers either involved in fire

departments or even local service districts or municipal councils now, we feel

that there is definitely a need to combine services and not necessarily

amalgamate communities, if that's not their interest, but they can definitely be

sharing more services and have a better source of regional governance.

MR. BROWN:

Perfect.

Are there any communities now that have expressed interest in amalgamation or

anything like that prior to this program or prior to this report?

MR. BENNETT:

Prior to the report? Not that I'm aware of, no, Sir.

MR. HANLON:

We haven't had any regionalization requests, per se. We've had interest in doing

regional water studies. There are some regionalization concepts out there, but

as joining together in full amalgamation, not at this time.

As the minister said, we do have a regionalization working group established

with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and Professional Municipal

Administrators. So that working group will be active over the next little while

to come up with some regionalization (inaudible).

MR. BROWN:

Yeah, I'm just curious if anyone wanted to jump the gun and just say, well,

we're going to do this, right.

All right, perfect, thank you. That's all my questions for this

section right

now.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lane.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess sticking to the topic of regional government and so on, and, Minister, I

appreciate you trying to give the best answers you can there, and I do

appreciate that, but I will just say, as a commentary, and you know this to be

true, you've been involved in the municipal world, as my colleague behind me and

behind you. I've been MHA now for almost 10 years, so it's at least 10 years ago

or longer that I can remember being at a Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador convention/conference. Back then we were passing resolutions and so on

for regional governance and so on. That was a hot topic back then and we still

haven't seen, I'll say, any substantive movement.

Now albeit, there may be some municipalities who are sharing services, and

that's all good. I'm just wondering, from the department's perspective, are you

moving towards a model of county governance – I'm going to call it county

governance, as you'd see in other places – or are we just simply talking about,

as you say, encourage it so if a couple of towns decide to get together and

share a fire department or some other town says, yeah, let's all get together

and build a skating rink between the four communities, that's all wonderful, we

share it.

That's good, but is that the extent of it or is it more about a regional

government, if you will, that would include, by the way, unincorporated areas

who will arguably have no intention ever of being part of this unless they're

forced to be part of it, it's not going to happen. I'm just wondering where the

department is on that, philosophically if you will.

MR. BENNETT:

I'm going to ask Bren to add to it, but I think that's a lot of this working

group that we're putting together now with PMA and MNL is to look at various

options that we can explore with regard to this. It's very difficult and it will

be challenging.

We did have public consultations back in 2018 and there were two in my district,

I think, to be quite honest with you. The feedback and the response from the

consultations, at the two that I attended, were on two different total ends of a

county or regional governance.

It definitely has challenges but I guess that's the idea now of putting this

working committee in place to define terms of reference and to set priorities on

where we want to go with it.

Bren, I don't know if you'd like to add to that.

MR. HANLON:

The minister is correct, we're looking at all options, best practices across the

country is what we're going to be looking at with our group and coming up with

recommendations for government on moving forward. We're going to look at all

options.

MR. LANE:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. BENNETT:

As a province, we're so vast in geography so a small population does create more

challenges than some of the smaller provinces like Nova Scotia that has been

moved into a county system. Our communities are very proud of their name and

where they come from. I know it doesn't mean, by moving into a system that

you're referring to, that you'd have to lose your identity, but that was one of

the common things that was talked about during these consultations.

MR. LANE:

Yeah. Thank you, Minister, for that.

I agree, it doesn't have to because even right now we have the Eastern Regional

waste management board, so all the communities are a part of that, they're

involved in that. They have their own town councils. They're doing their own

business. It's just that Eastern waste management takes care of their garbage. I

know that Eastern waste management have stepped outside of that, as you say

someone mentioned, and they've done other things with civic numbering and other

things.

That model, in itself, in speaking to the former chair of Eastern waste

management, who was a friend of mine and former colleague, and we had that

discussion. He said there's no reason why all the towns on the Southern Shore,

as an example, couldn't say we need a planner, we need a dog catcher or we need

whatever. He said they can all pay their share, pay it to us and we'll hire

their planner, we'll hire their dog catcher and take care of the whole shore.

They're still their own communities, so there's no reason why these things

cannot be expanded, I guess, is the point.

MR. BENNETT:

No, and I fully agree. I think, like you say, there are various options and I'm

sure that's what the community will be looking at to explore some options,

whether it's a system that you just described. No doubt there are benefits by

shared services and there can be efficiencies found by that and cost savings and

also give the communities, especially the smaller ones that are not able to

sustain their communities quite as well, the ability to enhance their services

to the residents of their community.

MR. LANE:

Absolutely, I agree.

I guess now speaking of working groups or committees, I'm just going to dig one

up from my past. The NEAR Plan, the Northeast Avalon Regional Plan, that was

another working committee that didn't work so well. From what I can gather, it

just got scraped. I could be wrong, but I think it got scraped. I haven't heard

anything about it in years now, but there was supposed to be a Northeast Avalon

Regional Plan.

Is there any plan to revive that or is that sort of still in on the back shelve

somewhere?

CHAIR:

Bren.

MR. HANLON:

Thank you.

The Northeast Avalon Regional Plan, it's still alive. We just have to look at a

new – like, it hasn't been very active in the last, say, two years. But we need

to look at a different approach to try to reactivate it and to see if there's a

better way to develop the plan. It hasn't been totally shelved, but we just need

to find a new way to reactivate it and bring it along. It has been inactive, but

a new plan needs to be developed.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

I guess to make a little analogy, it's kind of on life support and somebody

needs to get out the paddles and revive it a little bit.

Okay. Thank you.

Back to the regional waste management, of course, we know the issue that we had

with the cabin owners and the garbage fees and so on. I'm wondering is that now

kind of gone away. Anyone who has a cabin, certainly in the Northeast Avalon, if

they have a cabin, nobody is paying that fee anymore?

If that is the case, I'm just wondering the math around this. If the cost was

being shared in an area and now all of the sudden you take all of this revenue

out that you were getting from the cabins, then that means the only way that

this can be maintained is that small communities and unincorporated areas and so

on that would be still on the system, they're all going to have to pay more

money to keep it going, or is the government subsidizing it? Who's subsidizing

that or are they paying more?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, a very good question.

The Eastern Regional Service Board as part of their plan – there was a

significant amount of opposition from cabin owners to mandatory fees for waste

management services that they felt they weren't using because they were taking

their waste back home to their primary residence. We worked over a period of

time with Eastern Regional Service Board and we did come up with a plan that we

all felt was a fair compromise. It seemed to, for the most part, have satisfied

the issue at large.

Basically, services that were provided to folks who had a property on service

roads – those are roads that are serviced by a level of government, be it

municipal, Transportation and Infrastructure or a local service district –

maintained mandatory service. So if you had a property, whether it was your

primary or your secondary, and you were on a service road, you maintained that

service and it was mandatory.

For unincorporated areas where roads were maintained, not by a level of

government but privately, i.e., by a group that maybe collected money to

maintain those roads or whatnot, those were the primary areas of concern. The

policy that was developed was that the Eastern Regional Service Board would

offer those services. If they received a 70 per cent vote on the road, requiring

services, then they would offer the services and make it mandatory for everybody

the road. It was sort of an opt-in type service.

There were several areas that ended up opting in but the majority of the areas

were left out or never opted to be in. It was a small amount of – I can't recall

the numbers but of the 25,000, 30,000 customers, I think it reduced it by a

couple of thousand in the region. The board was able to absorb those costs

without increasing fees for the rest of the users.

MR. LANE:

Absorb it through what?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Through, I guess, the fees in terms of there was a reduced cost because they had

less contractors. The contracts came down and then the $180 that all the other

residents were paying, it was enough to cover the cost after the reduced costs.

There was no –

MR. LANE:

So it all worked out.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

It all worked out.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lane, your time has expired.

I'm sensing that there may not be any other questions, I'm just checking to see

on this section. Any further questions from the other Committee Members on this?

Mr. Lane, you still have –

MR. LANE:

Yes just a follow-up to the same question, I guess.

CHAIR:

Please.

MR. LANE:

That applied to cabins and so on that are here on the Northeast Avalon. Correct

me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard from a couple of people that let's say if

you're down on the Burin Peninsula somewhere that you still do have to pay the

mandatory fee. Is that correct? That even though they're a cabin the same as

someone up in Horse Chops or Salmonier Line but they didn't fall under that,

they're still having to pay.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

According to the Burin Peninsula policy, they're still in line. They don't

charge mandatory fees for those who are on unserviced roads. They only charge

their fees to those who are on serviced roads. Their fee, actually they offer a

50 per cent reduction to those folks that have a secondary property, if they can

demonstrate that they're paying primary tax in a municipality elsewhere that

covers their waste management fees.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

That's it for everyone. Thank you.

The Clerk will read in this

section of the Estimates.

CLERK:

2.1.01 to 2.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 through to 2.2.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

section of the Estimates is carried forward.

On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.2.01 carried.

CHAIR:

The next section, please.

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lester.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3.1.01, in reference to the Transportation and Communications, there is a slight

increase over what we consumed in the previous year. What would be the reason

for that?

MR. BENNETT:

That increase of $20,200 for '20-'21 from what was in 2019-2020 reflects

zero-based budgeting.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, thank you.

Salaries: Would they, again, be filling vacant positions? Sorry, that's 3.1.02.

MR. BENNETT:

The increase in Salaries?

MR. LESTER:

Yes.

MR. BENNETT:

Again, that reflects the 27th-week pay period and there is one planned saving

position also with that there.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

The Revenue on 3.1.01 under Regional Support, is that entirely for engineering

services to the Nunatsiavut Government?

MR. BENNETT:

Yeah, that's received from the Nunatsiavut Government. It's billing that we do

for service fees that we do out there.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, all right.

On to the second section, 3.2.01, Industrial Water Services, Professional

Services. What kind of professional services would you be engaging?

MR. BENNETT:

Sorry, I never heard you. Could you repeat that?

MR. LESTER:

3.2.01.

MR. BENNETT:

3.2?

MR. LESTER:

Yes. Professional Services: Can you give an explanation of that, please?

MR. BENNETT:

That represents the operation and maintenance of two industrial water systems,

both in Ramea and New Harbour.

MR. LESTER:

And the Purchased Services?

MR. BENNETT:

Purchased Services, are you referring to the increase or the decrease?

MR. LESTER:

The increase.

MR. BENNETT:

Again, the increase in Purchased Services reflects the zero-based budgeting.

MR. LESTER:

Zero-based budgeting, but we actually only spent $158,000, so why would we

increase it by $50,000?

MS. STEELE:

When the budget was determined in the fall we did an analysis on the costs for

last year and did an evaluation as to what we would project for this year. At

the time we were not aware of the actuals to the end of the year, so we did a

best guess, best estimate for the amount that was required based on historical

spend from previous years.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Do you forecast what we actually spent last year or do we expect that we will

have that extra $50,000 in expenses?

MS. STEELE:

When we look at the actuals for this year and prepare our future budget for the

next fiscal, we will do another evaluation on what the costs were over the last

few years and do another determination. The cost for this line item will be a

little bit fluent from year to year and we do our best to evaluate based on

historical spend.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, thank you.

The Revenue: If municipalities are paying for the individual water service, why

is there such a variance in the Revenue line? There was over $85,000 less

revenue last year, yet an increase of almost $40,000 is expected this year. Why

is there a variance?

MS. STEELE:

Each year the water supplies are invoiced out, but the actual revenue here is

reflective of what's collected. There's an amount in accounts receivable that is

owing back to the government for the services that we provide.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

MS. STEELE:

The amount, again, for the actual revenue will fluctuate depending on what is

billed per year. Again, we do an estimate of how much the revenue should be and

put that amount into the budget, and collections and that will reflect the same

items.

MR. LESTER:

In reference to the revenue: How current are all of your accounts receivable?

Are they all current or do we have some aged accounts?

MS. STEELE:

Currently we do have some aged accounts. I don't have the actual number of days

or months outstanding, but we do have four amounts that are owing back to

government that we are collecting and that are in process.

MR. LESTER:

What is the probability of us being able to collect those amounts?

MS. STEELE:

We anticipate collecting the funding that's owed back to government and we will

do every effort to do the collections. We are confident that some of the

processes that we have in place will be fruitful for the collections and will

increase the revenue streams.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Do we have any recourse for collections, as such?

MS. STEELE:

Currently the department works on the collections themselves and then at any

point that it is identified that there may be an item that might be taking a

little bit longer to collect, we will consult with the main collections division

in the Department of Finance and/or Justice, if necessary, to investigate any

avenues that we have to collect the revenue.

MR. LESTER:

Does an outstanding arrears with a municipality or a community preclude them

from any other government funding until that is paid?

MS. STEELE:

There are currently some avenues that we have in place at the department where

if a municipality or another entity owes us back funding, we will put some

collection efforts in place. If there is funding owed from another department

back to that entity, then we will put some regulations in place that we will

collect that funding before it goes back to them.

Also, there are other avenues, Municipal Operating Grants and SA grants and

that, that we can have some recourse. Depending on which municipality it is and

the determination of the necessary actions and, again, in consultation with the

main collections division in Finance and Justice, we will put a plan in place to

attempt to collect this funding and do so with every effort possible.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, thank you.

On to

section 3.3.01, Financial Assistance, Municipal Debt Servicing.

Grants and Subsidies, there is quite a deviation in the amount there. Would that

be as a result of the change of departments? Is that what's happening there?

MR. BENNETT:

The decrease of $252,000 –

CHAIR:

Wait a second. Your light, Minister.

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, the decrease is a reflection of the forecasted budget due to lower debt

servicing expenses, due to the declining debt balance and that. We've basically

did a better projection on the debt reduction on that particular line item

there. The increase is reflective of additional interest amounts that go onto

that budget from the loan.

MR. LESTER:

All right.

Municipal Debt Servicing,

section 3.3.02, Grants and Subsidies: Can you provide

some explanation to the variance of last year versus this year, please?

MR. BENNETT:

Again, the difference, the $3,337,000 in budget 2020 and 2021 from the 2019-20

reflects lower forecasted budget due to the lower debt servicing expenses, due

largely to the declining debt balance. As they pay them off, obviously, the

amount goes down, which brings the debt servicing amount also down.

MR. LESTER:

Is there any anticipated time that we'll actually not need to budget for that?

How does that work?

MR. BENNETT:

(Inaudible) hopefully paid off right now by 2026.

MR. LESTER:

On to Financial Assistance, 3.3.04, Special Assistance. Versus what we actually

spent and what we project, what is the reason on Grants and Subsidies?

MR. BENNETT:

3.3 …?

MR. LESTER:

3.3.04, Special Assistance. 3.3.04, I apologize.

MR. BENNETT:

The Special Assistance grant: Basically, the amount of $11 million versus the

previously budgeted $2 million and change was largely because of relocation

costs for Little Bay Islands. From that, there was a payout of $8.47 million for

residential payout, $293,000 for commercial payout, $225,000 for a settlement

and $49,000 for a bank loan payout. Then an additional $31,000 for legal fees.

CHAIR:

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brown, you're next, Sir.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Back to 3.3.04. What was budgeted? Was it originally budgeted for Little Bay

Islands or did the Little Bay Islands thing kind of creep into that already done

budget that we did last year?

MS. STEELE:

The relocation fee was not budgeted until the agreement was signed and it was

the determination that the relocation would go ahead. At this time for Special

Assistance, we only budget for the regular amount that we provide out to

municipalities and other groups. If the relocation comes to fruition, then the

money will be placed in that account to be paid out. That's easily identified.

MR. BROWN:

We weren't anticipating it happening.

MS. STEELE:

No.

MR. BROWN:

We were waiting on the agreements, the votes and all that stuff. Then, when it

came to fruition it just gets –

MS. STEELE:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Then the budget gets realigned then. Okay.

3.3.05, Community Enhancement: We budgeted $4.9 million, but why was only $3.9

million spent in that? Was it less uptake in the program?

MR. BENNETT:

Annually we budgeted – as we budgeted $4.9 million, then as we do the

allocations throughout the province sometimes it does happen that some projects

do not have such great take-up; therefore, there are funds that don't get

utilized.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Are you expecting – well, we're halfway through. Is the uptake better this year

than last year for this program?

MR. BENNETT:

Well, it's difficult to say right now because, actually, the letters are just

going out now to municipalities and that –

MR. BROWN:

Oh, okay.

MR. BENNETT:

– or to the districts which programs will be starting within the next few weeks

to a month. So we'll get a better indication. It's a difficult year to predict

with COVID –

MR. BROWN:

Oh, I understand.

MR. BENNETT:

– and all the different programs the federal government has implemented. We have

made some changes with the program this year. Typically, in order to qualify, a

recipient would have to have a minimum of 20 hours to qualify, but because of

the federal government changes in their program for EI – which basically they

credited everybody with 300 employable hours – therefore now people will need

less hours. We're going to consider their 300 hours as a part of the income to

qualify for the program.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Just a curiosity. Before I say anything else, I did go and visit my wife's

hometown – speaking of the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

I have a question: Why is brush cutting not a part of these programs anymore?

MR. BENNETT:

I can only speak as being a sponsor of the program years ago when I was with a

municipality, but I think it came largely down to health and safety, plus

sanitary. A lot of these brush-cutting projects were in remote areas, roadsides

and things like that, so there weren't proper washroom facilities, for example.

Plus, there was always the concern of safety with regard to proper signage being

out, fires and things like that.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, it's just a curiosity. I noticed that it just seems to have gotten a

little out of control in some smaller remote communities and out of sheer

curiosity I was just wondering why we didn't do that anymore. Anyway, good

point. Thank you.

3.3.06, Provincial Gas Tax Revenue Sharing: That's a pretty stable thing that's

year after year, same thing. Is this between the federal government and us?

MR. BENNETT:

No, this is the provincial one.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. BENNETT:

Obviously, we are able to sustain the same level of funding this year. That was

very well received by MNL, particularly. As you heard in the recent budget,

there were concerns that there may be some changes within our gas tax and our

MOGs and that, but we were able to maintain the same level of funding for that.

MR. BROWN:

Perfect. Thank you.

3.4.01, Canada/Newfoundland and Labrador Gas Tax Program: I notice under

Professional Services there was a large uptick in the actuals. What was the

reasoning behind that?

MR. BENNETT:

For the Professional Services, the $61,000?

MR. BROWN:

That's correct, Sir.

MR. BENNETT:

There was an increase of $41,390, which reflects required consultant costs for

the development of a municipal assessment management framework.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

I notice under Grants and Subsidies $87 million was budgeted, but we only sent

out $37 million. What was the reasoning behind that?

MR. BENNETT:

The revenue decrease of $32,851,000 from budget reflects the forecasted removal

of one-time funding from the federal government. This year, because of COVID,

they did actually give double the amount of gas tax funding to the province.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so we were suspecting a cut, it never happened and now –

MR. BENNETT:

Bonnie will take this.

MS. STEELE:

In reference to the federal gas tax program, the $87 million that was budgeted

in '19-'20 included a one-time top-up of the amount. Normally the amount per

fiscal is approximately $31 million or $32 million, but through Infrastructure

Canada last year we did receive a top-up of a one-time amount of $32 million.

That is included in the budget.

As for the spending, the funding covers a span of five years for the agreement

that is allotted for the municipalities. The municipalities, to avail of the

program, have to submit a capital investment program application, which is

approved. The funding is accumulated for them. If they don't draw down on the

funding this year, they can certainly drawn down on it next year, as long as the

funding is used by the end of the agreement. They can carry forward any

requirements that they have.

The money that came in is still there for the municipalities but it's just

(inaudible).

MR. BROWN:

Okay so if they drawn down on it, it is reflected on next year's actuals.

MS. STEELE:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so far we've only drawn $37 million out of that set account.

MS. STEELE:

That is correct.

MR. BROWN:

And then if they draw down more next year it will be reflected in next year's

actuals?

MS. STEELE:

You are correct.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, thank you.

Does that explain why we are budgeting less in the program next year? We're only

budgeting for $79 million.

MS. STEELE:

Yes because there would have been some draw down on the funding at the time that

we knew what applications were approved so we wouldn't need that funding.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

That would explain why we lost revenue from the federal government in next

year's budget. It's because the one-time top up is gone.

MS. STEELE:

Yes, that's right and we're back to the regular amount. You'll notice that the

revenue for the federal government is back down to the normal amount for $31

million.

MR. BROWN:

All right. Thank you so much.

That's all my questions for this

section there. Thank you.

CHAIR:

Do you have any more Mr. Lester?

Go ahead.

MR. LESTER:

With reference 3.3.04 to 3.3.06 (inaudible).

MS. STEELE:

That is the Provincial Gas Tax sharing and the Municipal Operating Grants?

MR. LESTER:

Yes. I'm sorry, 3.3.04 inclusive to 3.3.06 and also 05 as well.

MS. STEELE:

Yes, we will provide that.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

That's all for now, thank you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr. Brown, anything further?

MR. BROWN:

I'm good. Thank you, Sir.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lane.

MR. LANE:

Thank you.

First of all, in terms of the binder, any lists whatever, times three okay,

please.

Just on the gas tax, just for my memory, just to make sure I got it right.

Obviously, if you're a large municipality and so on you're entitled to a certain

share of the gas tax. For the most part, they take it; they spend it, as would

be the case in Mount Pearl, St. John's and so on.

For the smaller municipalities, they may only get a small amount of gas tax and

it's not enough to do anything substantial with, so they say: I want to save it

for two or three years or whatever the case might so I have enough money to do

something substantial with it. That's how it works?

It is? You're nodding yes. Okay.

MS. STEELE:

Yes, you are correct.

They have a number of years that they can use it. They're not required to use it

in any particular year. As long as they meet the requirement to use it within

the span of years that their agreement covers, they can keep their funding year

over year until they have enough to complete a project that they would have in

their budget, yes.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

Did I hear a change, as well, that was made maybe a couple of years – it might

not be a change anymore, but they can use that money as their 10 per cent under

the other program. So if there was a 90-10 for a small community and they don't

have the 10 per cent, they could use the gas tax as their 10 per cent. Is that

allowed to happen?

MR. BENNETT:

I guess it would be dependent on the type of project it is. As a cost-share

ratio, within the federal government regulations, they can't stack; so if a

program is funded over 50 per cent by the federal government, they would not be

able to use the gas tax. For other projects they can go up to a maximum of 50

per cent of their allotment to use gas tax money.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

All right, that's just more of a curiosity than anything else.

MR. BENNETT:

Over the last few years, the federal government have expanded what the gas tax

can be used in. Recently – the last two years, I think – they've included

recreation facilities and that to give more communities better options to be

able to use their gas tax funding for it.

MR. LANE:

Sure.

Whatever flexibility that can be built in to allow them to avail of it, I think

that's what we need to do, obviously. That's good.

Looking for an update on the cities act and I guess also wondering is the cities

act now going to be – right now, the City

of St. John's Act and then I guess Mount Pearl and Corner Brook fall under

the cities act. It's very prescriptive. What, certainly, those municipalities

have been calling for, for many years now, is to make it more enabling in

legislation so they have more flexibility to run their own affairs. They

certainly have the infrastructure, the staff and professional people to do it. A

lot of times there are a lot of time wasted on waiting on approval on

Municipalities for a lot of things that are unnecessary.

When are we going to see the cities act and is it going to be one act for St.

John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, or will there be one for St. John's on its

own and then Corner Brook and Mount Pearl under a different act?

MR. BENNETT:

Actually, like I said, I've only been in the position now for about eight weeks,

but we've had a couple of meetings now already on the different acts and we're

working through the process. We're hoping to be able to move forward legislation

in the next sitting in the spring.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. BENNETT:

I don't know if you want to give an update, Bren, in regard to the cities act.

MR. HANLON:

We're doing a line-by-line review on all the municipal legislation right now.

We're reviewing everything, we have all the stakeholder input and we're

reviewing it now with the minister and other executives. I guess decisions still

have to be made by government on how it's all going to be structured in the end.

But we're looking at all of the feedback that came in and we're looking at best

practices. We are, as the minister said, looking to have something rolled out

next year, but the final decisions are still to be made on the structure and

whatnot.

MR. LANE:

Sure. But next year, okay.

MR. HANLON:

Yeah.

MR. LANE:

Well, we've been calling for that for an awful long time and it's been next year

for an awful long time, so I'm going to hold you to it. I hope it happens.

MR. HANLON:

It's really next year now.

MR. BENNETT:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. BENNETT:

Like I said, it has been a priority of mine and it's also in my mandate letter

to move this forward and we are going to do everything possible to have it

completed for the spring sitting.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

Will we also be looking at an updated or revised Municipalities Act as well or

is it just the three cities?

MR. BENNETT:

No, we are looking at both. We are working on the Municipalities Act (inaudible)

MR. LANE:

So that would be hopefully in the spring as well?

MR. BENNETT:

Again, we are working closely with our partners at MNL and PMA to move that

forward. We are consulting with them as we look at changes within the act; we're

consulting with those partners, too.

MR. LANE:

Okay, good stuff, good stuff. We live in hope.

Waste-water regulations, I'm just looking for some sort of an update as to where

that stands. I know there are an awful lot of municipalities that have major

concerns over the federal waste-water regulations and their ability to be able

to meet those requirements and the money that it's going to cost to do it. I've

heard from a number of smaller towns and so on that have talked to me and they

said: We don't even have clean water to drink but we're going to put a priority

on waste water and we don't have money for drinking water. I know it's a big

concern in the municipal world for the smaller towns for sure.

I'm just wondering: Do you have any kind of an update as to where those

regulations stand? Are the feds going to give any kind of an extension? What is

the province doing to help municipalities if there is no extension to get them

there? Anyway, you get the idea.

MR. BENNETT:

No doubt that is a concern among many municipalities throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, meeting up with the federal regulations and that. We have been working

closely with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, who have been working in

conjunction with their federal counterparts with municipalities. They have

written the federal minister requesting that they revisit it and look at the

time frames which were enacted before. To my knowledge, the federal government

has responded back saying that they are willing to revisit it and to look at the

time frames and things.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. BENNETT:

It's definitely an issue of importance, coming from a small community myself. I

know in order to meet the standards, the Town of Lewisporte, my home community,

is looking at an investment of $35 million to $40 million for a population of

3,000 people. So it does have challenges, but it's good to see that a lot of our

municipalities are moving in the direction of dealing with their waste water. My

colleague with Transportation and Infrastructure, they have also made it a

priority to deal with this, with regard to funding, both for waste water and for

clean drinking water.

MR. LANE:

Yeah. I'm glad to hear that the feds seem to be receptive on loosening up the

timelines a little bit.

The other reality is that this is not really a surprise. I mean, I know it was

positioned at the time when there was a bit of a protest and so on by a number

of municipalities that this is coming and we're not able – and I understand

that. There's also a reality that they did know that it was coming, but now

we're here and a lot of them, for whatever reason, whether they chose not to or

didn't have the ability to move forward with it, they weren't ready. So the time

has to be lengthened. But if they say: We'll give you another couple of years,

another three years, another five years. Unless someone is going to take the

bull by the horns and make sure that this gets done we will be in the same boat

then.

What role, if any, do you see your department having through conditions on some

of the funding or whatever the case might be, or additional funding or whatever,

to help these municipalities get where they need to be so that we don't run into

this again?

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, in some areas it's because the municipalities are probably not doing the

work they need to be doing or don't have the expertise that they need. But I

think for a lot of other municipalities it has come down to a funding issue,

both from a municipal ability to offset the cost, plus, I guess, at a provincial

level, how much funding we're willing and able to put into it. We'll certainly

work with municipalities now to help advance any concerns or issues they have,

but as for the funding portion of it now, that will fall under the Department of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. LANE:

Okay.

MR. BENNETT:

We'll work with them and lobby on their behalf and work closely with our

minister in that department to advance some of those concerns they have.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Minister.

I'm done with that section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lester, any further questions here?

Mr. Brown, you're done with this section. Perfect, okay.

I'll ask the Clerk then and we'll enter this into the record.

CLERK:

3.1.01 to 3.4.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 through to 3.4.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.4.01 carried.

CHAIR:

I would propose, why don't we take a break here right now for 10 minutes at this

time. So be back here at 1917 hours.

Recess

CHAIR:

Stand by, everyone.

In the interest of this being live television here now, we're going to recall

this

section of the Estimates.

CLERK:

4.1.01 to 4.3.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lester had a question about –

MR. LESTER:

I can restate the question.

CHAIR:

Yes, thank you.

MR. LESTER:

In reference to 4.1.01, Pollution Prevention, Professional Services, could you

provide an explanation of these anticipated Professional Services?

CHAIR:

Dan Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, Professional Services here are associated with hiring of consultants to

evaluate and do site assessments on impacted sites, contaminated properties.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

In reference to the Purchased Services, what would the expenditures of last year

entail?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

The biggest expenditure under the Purchased Services was the cleanup of the

Marystown Shipyard property. It's a property with an indemnity agreement that is

owned by the now Department of Industry, Energy and Technology, but our

department carried out the remediation on their behalf.

MR. LESTER:

Okay. Is this remediation complete at this point?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, the remediation is complete. It came in on budget. The only outstanding

part of the project now is receiving the formal reports from the consultants and

the formal closure documents.

MR. LESTER:

From the department's perspective, this is now complete when it comes to cost.

We don't anticipate having to put any more money into this site?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Not at this time. The only potential concerns that could arise, like on any site

that's a former industrial site, are things that weren't discovered during the

assessment stage down the road. Those unknowns are always there, or the

potential is there, but that's why you do a thorough environmental site

assessment upfront, to make sure that you have these things covered.

MR. LESTER:

The department will be responsible for any unforeseen liability in the future,

or do we get a clearance at this point?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, the department would be, by virtue – this really goes back to the 1960s,

when government owned the property and operated the property right up until

1997. All the liabilities that were existing on the site prior to 1997 are the

responsibility of government. If something arises and it's been identified and

demonstrated that it was in existence prior to 1997, it would be government's

responsibility.

MR. LESTER:

All right. Thank you.

In reference to Pollution Prevention, I know my colleague from Mount Pearl -

Southlands raised the issue of the garbage collection in the Eastern and, say,

Burin Peninsula areas. What's the status of the garbage collection from cabin

owners on the West Coast?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

The Western Regional Waste Management board is further behind in the progression

because they were later established themselves. Right now, they operate transfer

stations and a construction demolition landfill. The transfer stations transfer

waste to the Central region.

The actual pickup, they don't provide that service. Municipalities are left to

provide their own collection service to bring it to the transfer stations. They

do not go into unincorporated areas to pick up waste.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

In light of the federal government's announcement regarding single-use plastics,

is this government also exploring a similar implementation?

MR. BENNETT:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LESTER:

Yes.

CHAIR:

Minister.

MR. BENNETT:

Sorry.

Obviously, we did implement the ban on the plastic retail bags this week and we

are exploring other options for the future. With regard to the announcement from

the federal government today, the initiatives that they're looking into,

obviously we would fall in line with those announcements should they come

forward.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Also, further to the Pollution Prevention, has there been any reduction in

demand for our collected recyclable materials such as glass, plastic, cardboard

and car tires?

MR. BENNETT:

There has been no reduction, actually, in the recycling program through MMSB.

They have been seeing increases in the return rate, particularly with beverages

and also our tire program.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Has there been any exploration for use of those products here on our Island or

in the Labrador portion, versus having to ship them out?

MR. BENNETT:

With regard to the tire program through MMSB, they're currently in Norris Arm on

the Central Newfoundland Waste Management site there. They are shredding the

tires as we speak now. Part of the process is with the chipping that they're

doing, we're looking at various pilot programs to use some of that material.

The actual rim, the sides of the tires right now, they're being separated.

They're going to be actually shipped to parts of Nova Scotia for agriculture

purposes. We are looking at different pilot programs for the actual chips that

come from the tires. That may look at some of the options that are being

considered, whether it be for road aggregates or the possibility of trail use.

Right now we're just pursuing different options.

MR. LESTER:

Would the consumption of that tire aggregate be considered for fuel?

MR. BENNETT:

Right now we are not looking for it in that option.

Dan, you might want to add to it.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

There was a point in time where we were considering – or Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper were considering using tire-derived aggregate to offset the use of bunker

C. They didn't proceed in that direction.

From our perspective, we'd be open to proposals to industry if they wanted to

use it as fuel but, of course, they would have to go through the process of

effectively demonstrating that it could meet our air pollution control

regulations, and that there wouldn't be any additional environmental concerns

from those operations.

MR. LESTER:

Has our own agricultural community been approached for the use of the tires as

well?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

I don't think there have been any specific discussions. Again, the tires are

really a program run by the MMSB. They're responsible for the tires and the

recycling program, collecting the fees and finding the final solution. I know

that they've been focusing on tire-derived aggregate and even using some of the

material as structural fill in the landfill expansion itself in Central, but I'm

not aware of any current discussions they may have had with the agriculture.

MR. LESTER:

All right.

How does the department come up with the funds for an extraneous cost? Like last

year in reference to the Purchased Services, where do those funds come from? We

went from a budget of $34,000 to spending $1.1 million, and I do realize that it

had to done, but where do those funds come from?

MS. STEELE:

Anytime one of the divisions identifies the need for additional funding,

normally the first recourse for the department would be to look within itself to

identify any potential savings that could be utilized to fund the initiative or

the expenditure that is identified. We'd then go to Treasury Board to get

approval to use that funding and repurpose the money for the expenditures that

we need. Some of the savings, depending on – I don't have it at hand, but most

likely we would look down through any other savings for initiatives that were

not done. We could look at savings – and that could be from any line item from

Supplies to travel that's saved due to travel that wasn't happening or any

meetings that were cancelled.

We would first do that before we would approach the Department of Finance to

look for additional funding. Any department, their first recourse is to look

within their own budget lines to identify if they can fund their own

initiatives.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you for that answer.

In reference to Revenue, could you provide a breakdown of the provincial revenue

stream, please?

MS. STEELE:

Under Pollution Prevention?

MR. LESTER:

Yes.

MS. STEELE:

Currently, this revenue stream is – I don't have an actual breakdown of the

numbers but the general line item covers any approvals, permits, licenses, file

searches and audit fees that are recouped from those with the applicants. It's

very much a demand-driven line item and fluctuates throughout year to year.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

Just wondering, 4.1.01, just a general questions first. As I understand it, the

protected areas are now under your department, would that be correct? Where

would that be? I'm thinking of WERAC. Would that be accounted for anywhere in

these sections?

MR. DUTTON:

The Salaries and operating funds for the Natural Areas group are reflected in

the budget of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. They are reporting through

this minister, but they are a part of a larger division. It was a little

complicated to separate that during the process of completing the budget, so it

was left there for the time being. We have to work through the budget for next

year and our intent would be for April 1 that next year's budget will reflect

where they will fit within this organizational structure.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you. That's excellent to hear.

The budget for Salaries we noticed it was underspent over 2019 in the actuals

and you can sort of see there it dropped. It was $2 million, down by $196,000.

Are these vacancies and, if so, what services were to be provided by these

roles? What vacancies were they?

MR. BENNETT:

The decrease of $196,000 was as a result of positions that were filled; they're

going through recruitment process.

Can you identify which positions they were?

MR. STEELE:

I don't have the exact positions, but there are four other positions within the

division that were vacant for a number of months and therefore did not require

all of the budget expenditure.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

I take it then, Minister – sorry, through the Chair – that they have since been

filled for this year.

MR. BENNETT:

(Inaudible.)

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, thank you.

Just with regard to the cleanup, the Purchased Services and the cleanup of

Marystown, I'm just wondering, you cleaned it up and it's been remediated. If

there is future need for a cleanup, let's say as a result of going forward, who

is responsible for that here on in?

MR. BENNETT:

Do you mean if a spill happens post or pre –

MR. J. DINN:

Right now.

MR. BENNETT:

– or identified?

MR. J. DINN:

Actually, I'll give you the context I'm asking you this in.

In the Estimates meeting last night, the cleanup for the fish kill was borne by

the government; they contributed a significant amount of money for that fish

kill last year. I'm just wondering: Is it the intention from here on in that we

would be responsible for any cleanup or remediation going forward, or would it

be the operator?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

We are – and when I say we, it's government – responsible for any impacts that

happen pre-1997. The impacts from 1997 to the time when Marbase purchased the

property from Kiewit are the responsibility of Kiewit. Moving forward, impacts

would be the responsibility of the current owner, which is Marbase.

Within the indemnity agreement, there is a process and dispute clause within

that agreement that outlines the process of how do we identify and determine

where the impacts are from and what era they're from. That involves hiring

consultants and going through that process.

No, government would still only be responsible for pre-1997 impacts on the site.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

Would that just apply in this case to the Marystown shipyard or would that apply

to other sites as well? Would it be on a case-by-case basis?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

It would be on a case by case, but environmental indemnity agreements by nature

are really designed to cover off existing contamination when a new owner takes

over the property. Usually an environmental site assessment is carried out to

show what the baseline is, then the new owner would take over. If there are any

future concerns or if somebody dug and found some contamination or whatever, the

actual location, the type of contaminant would be compared to the baseline study

to determine whether or not it's a historic contamination or a new contamination

since the agreement and baseline study was done.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. Thank you very much.

With regard to Purchased Services – sorry, I might have jumped ahead. No, on to

Revenue - Provincial. In the actuals there was a rise or an increase in the

actual revenue under this section. Where did this revenue come from? I'm not

sure if Mr. Lester had asked that or not.

MR. BENNETT:

I think it was answered. The increase of $70,926 is basically a reflection on

higher revenues for approvals, permits, licenses and audit fees, things like

that. That's a number that basically fluctuates annually based on the demand.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

Do we have any update on site assessments? What cleanup plans does your

government have for the coming year?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

From our department perspective, there is nothing currently in the process. We

are working with the federal government on a long-term agreement for the

remediation of the Mid-Canada Line sites in Labrador. We're in the process; they

are going through federally Treasury Board. That would be a cost-shared

arrangement but until we formally sign the agreement, we won't be ready to move

forward on those projects.

MR. J. DINN:

Just a question, too, related to what Mr. Lester brought up here in relation to

this. I'm just looking at the use of tires. Last year, when I was at this, I

think tires were being shipped up to Quebec for fuel. One of the ideas that were

brought up was use, actually, in aggregate.

Is there a pilot project anywhere? Are they currently being used in road

aggregate or in making pavement even, for that matter, in the province? Are

there any pilot projects or anything like that?

MR. BENNETT:

No, there are no pilot projects right now.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Just as the minister noted earlier, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is

responsible for the tire recycling program. That's one of the areas they would

be looking at.

MR. J. DINN:

Would that also apply then to the use of glass? A lot of glass bottles and that

can't be returned but they could be used in aggregate as well. I was trying to

get further information where they're used in the construction of sidewalks and

that. Has there been any talk of the use of glass as well, or would that be

still under the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board?

MR. BENNETT:

That would be under the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

One final question there. I put it under – I want Pollution Prevention in some

way, but the whole notion of porous pavement to prevent runoff. I know in a lot

of areas we have large catchment basins, but I'm just wondering: Has there been

any look at using porous pavement in certain conditions so that the water would

seep down through the pavement as opposed to running off, creating the flash

floods and so on and so forth?

I know it has been used in other jurisdictions but there was some talk about

whether the climate here would be an issue with it.

MR. BENNETT:

It's nothing that I'm aware of.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Dan Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

We're not aware of it but if you do, we're always looking for suggestions,

especially when it comes to flood risks. We do a lot of work around flood-risk

mapping, flood prevention. If there's any further information that you can

provide, we'd be happy to receive it.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

I'll dig that out for you for sure. I have a few people that can get that

information.

On 4.2.01, Chair, number five, the budget for Salaries had increased by

$100,000. That was in the actuals. I'm assuming that had to do with the pay

periods and maybe benefits. Would that be correct?

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, the increase of the $75,000 is a result of the increase in pay periods to

the 27th week.

MR. J. DINN:

It's increased and that would be the budgeted for this year, as well, then? I

noticed it's jumped by about $100,000 for this year as well.

MR. BENNETT:

Yes, that's correct. The increase of $25,000 reflects some of the co-op students

that we hired this year, too.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. Thank you very much.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lester.

MR. LESTER:

I have some questions in reference to the Marystown site cleanup: What was the

actual cost of the cleanup?

CHAIR:

Dan Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

The total cost – just bear with me; I do have the number here. We had budgeted

$1.5 million and I believe the total cost was around $1.4 million.

Notwithstanding that, that was the residual cleanup. Since, really, 2002,

government has spent an additional $7.5 million on the site. $9 million is the

total. The estimated liability, again, is at a zero now because, based on our

assessments, we have all of the concerns addressed.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Was that a tendered process to clean that up or was that supplier specific? Was

there a tender called for the cleanup of that property?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

There was, yes. It was called through our consultant. We engaged a consultant

through an RFP process; they engaged a contractor through Tendering and

Contracts. The tenders were awarded for two projects: one was hazardous waste

abatement; another one was soil remediation. Two separate contracts.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

They were the primary focus, those two activities: hazardous material abatement

and soil remediation?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes.

MR. LESTER:

Okay. Thank you.

Water Resources Management,

section 4.2.01, Supplies: A considerable variation

between what's budgeted and what was spent. What would be included in that?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

These are supplies. We operate numerous water-quality stations around the

province and these are supplies for instruments and things of that nature.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

The Purchased Services under the same category, what would they entail?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Purchased Services are primarily, in this category, flood-risk mapping. We had a

significant project that is coming to an end for the Mud Lake flood-risk mapping

and flood forecasting system. That work has been completed and has now been

rolled out, so that won't carry forward to next year.

We do have a new program which is federally funded through revenue. Basically,

it's a new program that will visualize this flood forecasting, so that folks and

emergency services people will be able to go on an Internet base and actually

see what the flooding may look like at any given time during a flood period.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

In reference to the flood-risk mapping, you mentioned that is now completed. So

that is a functional program now, or report?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, the flood-risk mapping is complete for the Mud Lake area, as well as the

flood-forecast model that we have done. It's a state-of-the-art recognized

program now where we are able to – in real time – predict floods based on

satellite imagery, ice movement and precipitation. All these variables go into a

modelling program which can tell us and allow early warning for the residents of

the area in case there's another significant flood to allow people to evacuate

and take precautions and things of that nature.

MR. LESTER:

Has there been a flood-risk level associated with the new Core Science Facility?

Has that been determined yet?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

There is flood-risk mapping associated with that area. My understanding is that

Transportation and Infrastructure are working with those flood-risk maps to

design their mitigation to protect the existing infrastructure in that area, as

well as the proposed expansion of that infrastructure.

MR. LESTER:

In reference to the revenue lines, what would be included in both federal and

provincial lines?

MS. STEELE:

The revenue line for Water Resource Management includes a number of – there are

a number of industry partners, and most of it is permits and fees for drilling

licences, water investigations, rights programs, community water and waste water

program permits, non-municipal registration fees, a drinking water program and a

number of items combined here.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

In reference to boil-water advisories, how many do we have currently in place

throughout the province?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

We currently have 189 – what we call – long-term boil-water advisories in the

province. That's down from 194 last year. It currently affects 146 communities,

52,000 people. Sorry, that's 189 current; of those, 125 are long term.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Of those on the long-term boil-water advisories, is there a plan to reduce that

number? Will some of them be perpetual boil water?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

We do have a boil-water advisory action plan. We've developed standing operating

procedures that we provide to municipalities. We've been working with individual

towns across the province to help overcome their boil-water advisories. We've

hired regional water quality operators in three regions that support the

municipalities to get them off a boil-water advisory. I guess Transportation and

Infrastructure now has had a specific call for applications for any town that's

on a boil-water advisory for funding to specifically get themselves off a

boil-water advisory. We also employ new types of technology, such as portable

water drinking units and whatnot.

We are ready, willing and able to work with any town that's on a boil-water

advisory to get them off. We suspect that there will be more progress made. A

lot of the towns are off boil-water advisories, but there are towns that are on

boil-water advisories not necessarily because they don't have the resources to

get off, but they chose to be on boil-water advisories. We're working from an

educational proponent to incentivize them to get off boil-water advisories

through working with TI with infrastructure programs and things like that. So

there are a number of different initiatives ongoing. I know the minister can

speak to it, but it's a high priority on his list.

MR. BENNETT:

We'll continue, like I say, working closely with the Department of

Transportation and Infrastructure, with municipalities and Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador to work with communities and try to get them off these

water boil orders. We've offered a number of training programs to help the

communities to be able to better assess their water systems themselves and to

put the appropriate measures in to help get them off water boil orders.

MR. LESTER:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is it the case that there are communities in our

province that are on boil-water advisories by their own choice, not by the lack

of infrastructure?

MR. BENNETT:

There are cases where a lack of training and a lack of staffing and resources

have resulted in long-term water boil orders, yes.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, thank you.

MR. BENNETT:

But, again, we encourage them, and as the previous minister with Infrastructure,

that when they look for funding programs now, we definitely push them towards to

make sure they have their water qualities up to standard before we put funding

into other non-essentials.

MR. LESTER:

Yes. Okay.

My colleague from St. John's Centre was speaking of waste water management and

the federal requirements by 2020. I remember being at a municipalities meeting

and they said there's over a billion dollars worth of infrastructure deficit in

our province, largely in rural communities.

I wonder: Has there ever been a study done to evaluate, I guess, the investment

of infrastructure versus the viability of the community? Have we ever looked at,

is the infrastructure going to outlive the community?

CHAIR:

Mr. Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

I think if I circle back to the gas tax and one of the items that you asked

about earlier in gas tax. It was an asset management toolkit for the

municipalities. That toolkit, it was basically a task that we undertook to

develop this asset management toolkit. We provided it free of charge to the

municipalities. There is also support from the Canadian Federation of

Municipalities in grants and whatnot to populate that. That allows towns to

basically categorize and inventory all of their assets, the age of their assets,

the condition of their assets so that they can make sound decisions moving

forward in terms of what infrastructure needs to be replaced, what the life

expectancy is and they can make more strategic investments in infrastructure.

Those studies, we've supported several of these and they're done on a

municipality-by-municipality basis.

As for a broader study of all municipalities, it would probably be something

best addressed to the new Transportation and Infrastructure department around

infrastructure and sustainability on a long term.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

With regard to 4.2.01, the actual spending in Supplies dropped by two-thirds,

but the budget for this item has barely changed. Why is that? In the actuals

there in Supplies. It dropped from $96,000 down to about a little over $33,000,

but it's still back up to around $95,000 for this year.

MR. BENNETT:

The decrease of $62,526 reflects lower office and fuel supplies. That's

basically for the drinking water program and equipment and supplies for that,

and the hydrometer and climate program equipment.

MR. J. DINN:

Would that be, then, to do with the drinking – go back to the question about

boil-water orders. That wouldn't be related to that, to the fact that there were

more people who were availing of it, or couldn't or whatever else? It wouldn't

be related to that then, would it? That aspect of the boil-water orders.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

No, that would be more related to the overall COVID situation, less travel, less

supplies for maintenance on equipment and things of that nature. I would suspect

that once we return to the new normal, we're going to have to spend a bit more

time in terms of calibrating our equipment and updating things. That's why we

kept the original $95,000.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

With that in mind, then, would it have been more appropriate maybe to add more

to that? You used the word catching up. So I'm thinking if COVID-19 impacted or

reduced the need, I'm sure that those needs still exist, only now you're going

to have those needs plus other needs. Would it probably have been better to put

more money into it for that reason?

MR. DUTTON:

If I may, I think we have to keep in mind with these variances that the actuals

are for last fiscal year, and the COVID would have only affected the last few

weeks of March.

MR. J. DINN:

Right.

MR. DUTTON:

Again, the budget submission would have been completed in November and so they

wouldn't have known about the impacts of COVID on the level of activity that

would be anticipated this year. So there would be a lot of line items that

maintain about the same level of funding as the year before, assuming a normal

year, and we've run into a very abnormal year.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. I'm just wondering if it would be more prudent to carry it over, that's

where I was looking at it from that point of view.

Okay, on to Professional Services: Spending on Professional Services in 2019-20

is over budget, as you can see there, yet the money slated over '20-'21 has

dropped. So it went over budget in actuals but it's dropped significantly in the

Estimates for this year.

I'm just wondering: What accounts for this fluctuation? Why such a steep drop

this year?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

That refers to the flood-risk mapping that was completed and that we talked

about earlier.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Again, the steep decline in federal revenue, what's the reason for that? Is that

just the flood-risk mapping as well?

MR. BENNETT:

The decrease?

MR. J. DINN:

Yeah.

MR. BENNETT:

Well, $490,000 is the result of flood-risk mapping, yes, in Mud Lake.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, Mud Lake, perfect.

Thank you.

MS. STEELE:

Just to add to that, during the revenue stream there was $292,000 in federal

revenue that was received to the province, federal revenue, and that was

actually keyed into the system through the Department of Finance as provincial

revenue. So it's no impact to the bottom line of government, just that it is

reflected as provincial revenue instead of federal revenue.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, thank you very much.

In his mandate letter, the minister was tasked with implementing a Regional

Water and Wastewater Operations Pilot Program and developing a drinking water

quality action program.

Is this a part of the budget that accounts for spending on these initiatives? If

so, the total investment under waste water management has dropped by some

$375,000. Can the minister explain how these will be delivered effectively given

that decrease in investment?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

The regional waste water pilot program was originally funded back in 2019 and we

paid two years in advance. Basically, the way that works is that we provide a

grant to the regional services board, the regional services board hires a

regional operator and then that operator services a number of communities

around. Those things were paid in advance for last year and this year which is

really next year.

If that is to continue, then there would be a change in next year's budget to

reflect that program.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

Any further work regarding flood-risk mapping and actions being done or planned

with the federal government? Are there any future flood-risk mapping projects

with that or …? What about the Waterford River area as well?

CHAIR:

Dan Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes. There are still a number of initiatives ongoing. As I described, there's

the next stage of the Mud Lake or the – that flood-risk mapping up that way

where that visualization piece, working with Defence Canada on a contract.

That's 100 per cent federal funded. That will be completed this year.

We do have a priority list that we will be moving to over the next several years

to look to secure funding to complete flood-risk mapping. There is a priority

list. I believe Placentia was the next one on the priority list. The priority

list is developed based on flood frequency and age of existing flood-risk

mapping and things of that nature.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, thank you.

I guess that's where the whole notion I was bringing up in terms of porous

pavement or asphalt would be in metro or large urban areas as well.

What's the role of the department in monitoring aquaculture sites, water use,

waste water handling and so on and so forth? How often do these sites get

monitored or do they by your department?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Our primary role from an aquaculture perspective is pesticides application. We

do the pesticides inspection and the storage of the applicators and the training

of the applicators associated with these projects.

When we get to the next

section under Environmental Assessment there is a

discussion – I don't know if you want to jump to there – on there is money in

this budget to hire a new monitor specific for the Grieg aquaculture project.

That is 100 per cent funded by the company. It was a requirement under the

environmental assessment release that the company fund this position for 10

years. That position will be recruited this year and will be involved in

monitoring all aspects and all commitments within the environmental assessment.

MR. J. DINN:

When I come there I wouldn't mind asking you a question on that.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Okay, yeah, sure.

MR. J. DINN:

No, no, at that time, but I do have one quick question before the time runs out.

Waste water treatment plants, and I'm thinking of the one in Gander. I think

they're up just past – in Glenwood. It's sort up (inaudible) or past it. I

believe there was another one that was being piloted elsewhere. Are there any

thoughts about expanding those? They seem to be pretty effective. I know in the

mouth in Salmon Brook that drains into the Gander River, it's remarkable the

downstream from the Gander River, the change that's occurred as a result of that

water treatment plant itself.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Most definitely. There are several of those systems around now. The latest one

is probably built in Stephenville, and that's probably the largest municipality

that has one. These type of natural wetland or designed, engineered wetland

systems require a significant amount of real estate. So they tend to become

non-feasible for larger municipalities. But certainly for the smaller

municipalities they are an option that is available to the municipality.

MR. J. DINN:

Very effective.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lane, would you like to jump in, Sir?

MR. LANE:

Thank you, I would indeed. I don't have any lines questions. Leave that to the

b'ys.

Minister, this is something I mentioned to you before, I guess, off to the side

one day in the House, but I do want to just ask you about it just to put it on

the record. I have a concern about people that are dumping in the woods and up

on pole lines and dirt roads and so on. Quite despicable, actually. But anyway,

it's happening. I've contacted your department on a couple of those sites, spoke

to an environmental officer or whatever the position is called, who went up and

identified it. By the way, nothing against that person, did a good job and so

on. Went up, visited the site, said: Yeah, Mr. Lane, garbage is definitely

there. Ridiculous. I stuck up a sign that said no dumping and we walk away.

I understand that if somebody dumped a few drums of oil or something there and

it was at risk of causing more harm to the environment in terms of leaking and

getting into the water tables, in those cases the department would take action.

In terms of an absolute eyesore and plight on the environment: Too bad. We will

stick up a sign and walk away.

I'm wondering if that's something that could be looked at. I understand there

are costs associated with all this stuff and I'm not saying that we're going to

have crews scouring the woods looking for stuff. Maybe there could be some sort

of a program where periodically we do an inventory of areas where we have this.

Then, periodically, the department would initiate something, possibly with

volunteers. There are volunteer groups out there.

Actually, the site that I talked to you about, just up by Thomas Pond, a

volunteer group went up. We didn't need the department because it was only a

pickup load full. They did it themselves just to be good citizens, which was

wonderful. I know there's another one up by Southern Harbour where there's an

old trailer or something that was caught on fire in this pit. It's just left

there. You guys are aware of it but it will stay there now forever, I suppose.

I'm just wondering: Is that something that can be looked at, to see about a

periodic cleanup of these sites?

MR. BENNETT:

Obviously, first of all, illegal dumping is something that we don't take too

lightly. Unfortunately, we do see too much of it happen, both on our roadsides

and throughout our country in different areas.

As we had our conversation, we basically, as a department, put the regulations

in place and we rely on Service NL to go and do the inspections on it. There are

programs that could fall within the parameters right now – depending on the

location but through the Community Enhancement Employment Program or JCP

programs – that you can utilize to do community cleanups or cleanups of

protected areas and things.

We did have a conversation within our department after you and I spoke. I do

agree. To go out and try and enjoy the outdoors, whether it be fishing or

hiking, and promoting our province as a tourist destination, we definitely don't

need these dump sites and eyesores within our communities. It's something we

will definitely take a closer look at.

I do agree. If there are opportunities to either work with the community or

volunteer organizations, that could definitely be an option, but as a department

and as a province I think we just can't leave the mess and the eyesores there

within our communities.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Minister.

I would certainly encourage you, if there is some sort of, as you say, program

that can be developed, and working with the community, whatever, there are

people out there – good people out there – that are willing to roll up their

sleeves and get involved. We've seen that even along the Outer Ring Road from

the airport, say, to Paradise.

There was a big community cleanup a couple of years ago. That was coordinated

with Transportation and works blocking off the roads and so on. They did it on a

Saturday or Sunday. I'm not talking about cans on the side of the road, I'm

talking about somebody going in with a truck or something and dumping off

refrigerators, washers, chesterfields, construction material and everything

else.

MR. BENNETT:

There have been programs. The Green Team and the Conservation Corps have done

similar types of cleanups and things like that but, yeah, I do agree fully that,

like I say, we can't be having dump sites on the side of our roads.

MR. LANE:

Thank you for that.

Speaking of the Community Enhancement because you had raised it – and I was

going to ask this in the last section; I forgot. Just with your indulgence, Mr.

Chair, one question on that. When we do the Community Enhancement programs – and

when we're talking Community Enhancement, we're talking about these programs

that people generally use. They do a project in a community to get their hours

to qualify for EI, right?

MR. BENNETT:

Correct.

MR. LANE:

That's what we're talking about. I'm just wondering, when those projects are

approved – this is something that I've noticed a lot over the years. You'll see

projects get approved and seemingly there is no plan for those projects – that's

how it would appear – for the ongoing maintenance of them.

There's been a number of places where a Community Enhancement project – I know,

for example, if you take St. Vincent's, where people go to see the whales,

there's a beautiful gazebo and everything there that was done there. Eventually,

they just tore it down because it was an eyesore. It was built under one of

those projects but there was never anything to say, okay, now that it's built,

and if we're going to do more community enhancement, part of that money is we

have to maintain what's been done, not forget that it exists and let's do

something new.

I've seen that in other parts of the province where you see a sign that says to

go to some little lookout area. You go there and there were a couple of picnic

tables, they were all rotted and on the ground and a swing set that was tipped

over and rotten and so on. Again, I asked somebody around there and they said:

Oh, yeah, that was the project that was done a few years back and that was it;

you build it. How many baseball fields do you see in certain places that the

grass now is up to your knees? It was built and, I don't know, it might have

been used a year or two and then it's gone.

If we're going to be handing out this money for these projects, I understand the

purpose of them, I get that, but there should be something there to say,

especially if it's a repeat, that before we go looking for something new, do we

have – keeping track of the inventory we have.

MR. BENNETT:

Yeah, I guess those programs are geared directly towards municipalities and

local service districts. Typically, when they apply there's not much of a

follow-up after to make sure they're maintaining it. But from my personal

experience of administering the programs over the past, a lot of the sponsors

that put projects in place, whether it be trail upgrades or community

enhancement and that, it is an ongoing process.

To be honest with you, I don't know of a lot of projects that are put there

through Community Enhancement programs that are becoming dilapidated, causing

safety issues or are eyesores. Typically, unless the community is – whether it

be a local service district or community, it's not functioning properly anymore.

But, for the most part, under these programs I think good continuance

maintenance is done.

Obviously, we don't have the resources as a department to go out and monitor the

projects to make sure they're being maintained after that. That's the

responsibly of the sponsor and they are ultimately responsible for the projects

after. Whether it be a gazebo or trail, they're responsible for the upkeep and

maintenance of these facilities and the liabilities that go with it.

MR. LANE:

No, I appreciate that, Minister and I understand they're responsible. The point

I'm trying to make is that somebody applies for it; they put in a project. It

gets approved. They get public money, albeit it serves a good purpose. They

build something nice and then it's forgotten about and it just deteriorates. I

don't know how you would do it, to be honest with you, but I'm just saying that

if I put in for it and I have money this year and I applied next year for

something else, the first thing I would be asking is: Well, the thing that you

did last year, is there any maintenance to be done on that before we forget and

move on to something else? I don't know how you do it; I'm just telling you it's

an issue. I've seen it in a lot of places where there is stuff falling apart

because it doesn't get maintained.

MR. BENNETT:

That's something we can discuss within the department to see (inaudible) –

MR. LANE:

Okay.

I guess my time is done. All right.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Mr. Lester.

MR. LESTER:

Yes, (inaudible) continue on, please.

Just a couple of more questions to

section 4.1.01, no specific line questions,

but Pollution Prevention.

I've been contacted by several constituents – my constituents and others

throughout the province – who have expressed a disappointment with the amount of

illegal campers being set up along our T'Railway and in cabin areas, woods

roads, gravel pits. I do know that in the past there was a specific force to

regulate and to control this type of activity. Is that funded within this

department or would that be elsewhere?

MR. BENNETT:

No, that's not in our department. Most of that is regulated under Crown Lands,

depending on where the location is, from my knowledge of Crown Lands. I have a

particular area in my district that the same thing has happened over this year.

The camping, gravel pit campers and that, they're permitted to go in to use the

site for, like, one day or two days, or, for example, if they're going up one of

the woods roads to go moose hunting. As long as they are at the camper,

utilizing it, not putting any permanent structures in place, then they can stay

there for a minimum stay. But any longer than that then obviously they would be

illegally occupying and that would fall under Crown Lands jurisdiction.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Another individual from Central has pointed out that there is still some of the

Abitibi property, logging camps on remote woods roads and such like that, that

have fallen into quite a disrepair and a bit of an environmental issue, I'm

sure. Are there are any funds available for the remediation and removal of that

kind of trash in the woods? I guess it is our responsibility as government, is

it not? It's our property.

MR. BENNETT:

Not that I'm aware of. I don't know if Dan has anything to enlighten us with.

CHAIR:

Dan Michielsen.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

There is no specific pot of funding to deal with – what we call – abandoned and

orphaned sites. Our department does maintain a list and each department reports

to the Comptroller General, in terms of sites that they would be responsible for

in the department. I believe those would be the responsibility of Forestry,

which would be under the Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture department. But

there is no specific pot of money within government to draw upon for

remediation, other than what you would normally use for contingencies within

government.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Would the department be responsible for, I guess, highlighting the deviation of

regulations and then pass it on to Forestry to fix it up, to clean it up?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

We would be responsible for maintaining an inventory of all known impacted sites

that are owned by core government. We maintain that list and we send that out to

departments each year to report to the Comptroller. Then they're responsible for

determining what or if actions are necessary.

It's a little different if a government department, for example, operated a site

and had a spill and is required to clean it up versus a site that may have been

inherited by government by the mere fact that the company has gone bankrupt or

if it defaults to government. Those sites are vested in various departments and

they have an inventory of these sites and determine, I guess, at what point they

need to do remediation or what's a priority for their department.

MR. LESTER:

Would you be able to provide me with a list of those sites?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes, certainly.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

Section 4.3.01, Environmental Assessment and Sustainable Development.

The big issue, I guess, that jumps off the page is the increase of almost 50 per

cent in Salaries. What would that be associated with, please?

MR. BENNETT:

Can you repeat what line item it was?

MR. LESTER:

Sorry,

section 4.3.01, Salaries, 01. There's an increase of over 50 per cent in

Salaries.

MR. BENNETT:

The increase of $161,900 reflects the pay period for the 27th-week pay period,

plus funding for two environmental scientists for the EA program. One of those,

as has been referenced earlier, is being funded through Grieg NL.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

In reference to the Supplies line, I know my accountant absolutely hates that

line because it's almost as bad as miscellaneous. What do you project to use

there for $5,800 versus $478 the year before?

MR. BENNETT:

An increase of $5,200 in the budget reflects new funding for the environmental

assessment program, and also from zero-based budgeting. Again, that's for the

Grieg project.

MR. LESTER:

The Revenue, there's a substantial increase in the Revenue over what we actually

received last year. What would that be associated with?

MR. BENNETT:

Again, that goes back to the Grieg project, an increase for the environmental

assessment program.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, all right.

MR. BENNETT:

As Dan mentioned, that part of that environmental assessment agreement, they're

responsible to pay one assessment for the program for a 10-year period.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

In reference to the methylmercury concerns, can you provide an update on that

file?

MR. BENNETT:

The monitoring of methylmercury has been continuing. Throughout COVID-19 we

continued to do our methylmercury monitoring. As of right now, there has been

approximately 1,800 site samples taken to date. Right now, the levels have not

presented any risk to public health.

MR. LESTER:

Okay, thank you.

The environmental process review, can we have an update on the environmental

assessment process review?

MR. BENNETT:

We're basically working through the process of our environmental assessment, the

review. We are hoping to have the updates to the legislation prepared for the

spring of this year.

MR. LESTER:

The environmental permitting process was reviewed as well. Can you provide some

more detail on that?

MR. BENNETT:

Sorry, could you repeat that?

MR. LESTER:

The environmental permitting process was to be reviewed as well. Can you provide

some detail on that?

MS. SQUIRES:

That was a general category across the Environment Branch. Permitting processes

were reviewed,