PDF Version

June 25, 2019

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

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 Paul Dinn, MHA for Topsail – Paradise, for a portion of the

meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Parsons, MHA for Cape St. Francis,

substitutes for David Brazil, MHA for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Chris Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor -

Buchans, substitutes for Paul Dinn, MHA for Topsail – Paradise, for a portion of

the meeting.

The

Committee met at 6:09 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Bennett):

Okay, we're in business.

We'll

call the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.

We'll

start off by the Committee Members and staff on my right to introduce

themselves. We'll start off with the newest Member, Jordan.

You may

have to put your hand up. Okay, perfect. Is the light on?

MR. BROWN:

No.

CHAIR:

Okay. Here you are, buddy.

MR. BROWN:

Jordan Brown, MHA, Labrador West.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.

MR. J. DINN:

Jim Dinn, St. John's Centre.

MR. LESTER:

Jim Lester, Mount Pearl North.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Kevin Parsons, MHA, the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

MS. BONIA:

Laurie Bonia, Researcher, Official Opposition.

MR. TIBBS:

Chris Tibbs, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. LOVELESS:

Elvis Loveless, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MR. BRAGG:

Derrick Bragg, Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

MS. STOODLEY:

Sara Stoodley, Mount Scio.

MS. HILL:

Angelica Hill, Researcher, Government Members Office.

CHAIR:

Before we ask the minister

to introduce her staff, we're going to ask for a motion, first of all, to adopt

the minutes of the June 25 meeting of the Social Services Committee for the

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. BRAGG:

So moved.

CHAIR:

Moved by Mr. Bragg.

Don't

need a seconder.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

Okay, now, Minister

Dempster, if you wouldn't mind introducing your staff.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Good evening, everyone.

Lisa

Dempster, the MHA for up in God's country, in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, and

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Jamie Chippett, Deputy Minister, Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MS. SQUIRES:

Susan Squires, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Dan Michielsen, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Infrastructure and

Support.

MS. SHEA:

Erin Shea, Communications Director.

MS. KELLY:

Tara Kelly, ADM, Fire, Emergency and Corporate Services.

MS. HAYES:

Robyn Hayes, Departmental Controller.

MS. JANES:

Jackie Janes, Assistant Deputy Minister for Climate Change Branch.

MR. SIMMS:

Randy Simms, Executive Assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Environment, Minister Dempster.

CHAIR:

All we ask now is – we're in

such a big crowd here tonight – when you go to speak, make sure your light is on

and identify your name, please.

CLERK (Barnes):

We're going by subhead,

right?

CHAIR:

Yes.

CLERK:

1.1.01 through 1.2.03.

CHAIR:

We'll give Minister Dempster

15 minutes to have her opening remarks, then the first person responding and the

Official Opposition will also have 15 minutes.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't

think I'll need 15, maybe only four or five, but I'll give a little overview.

I'll start by saying good evening and thanking everyone for being here to

participate in the Estimates of Municipal Affairs and Environment. It is an

absolutely gorgeous evening outside so I'm sure that some of you would prefer to

be elsewhere.

As a

department, we focus on advancing the economic, social and environment success

and sustainability of municipalities, communities, regions and the province

through the delivery of effective programs, services and supports.

I think

most of you in the House know that I am newly appointed to the department. I

just took a look at the calendar. It's been three weeks and a couple of days, I

believe. I'm going to see how much I know in that short time frame. I have a

very good team around me for anything that I fall short on I'm sure.

I want

to say just out of the gate it's been a wonderful learning opportunity to see

how this department engages with residents, governments and stakeholder

organizations to support safe and sustainable communities. My MHA colleagues

would have heard me this afternoon in the House talk a little bit about my

experience and knowledge at the municipal level, locally and provincially before

now, so I do bring some experience to the portfolio.

Their

work is resulting in better services and outcomes for residents. I've certainly

over the last – we've been working through briefings and every day having a

little briefing before we come in the House in the afternoon. It's given me an

opportunity to see first-hand how knowledgeable and dedicated the staff of the

department are in improving the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

their families. I was especially struck by whether they were environment or

climate change or municipal, you could see the passion and the interest that

they all had for their individual areas that they work in. I believe that bodes

well for all people in the province.

I'm

going to break it down in several headings. In our close work with communities

we continue to provide funding and support to encourage strong local governance

and high-quality services. Budget 2019

includes $123.9 million for community funding programs such as Gas Tax, the

Community Employment Enhancement Program – most MHAs would be familiar with –

and the Municipal Operating Grants.

Municipal infrastructure; our department has continued to work on infrastructure

projects that are important to communities right across the province. Through

our municipal infrastructure programs we are investing in stronger

infrastructure, providing better access to clean drinking water, protecting our

environment by investing in waste water infrastructure and working to advance

regional collaboration.

Over

the past year we have improved cost-share ratios so that communities are better

able to initiate projects that improve transportation networks and provide

places for communities to gather and to work together. We have laid out our

long-term plans so that communities can best take advantage of funding, allowing

them to start projects that respond to their individual needs and update their

plan accordingly.

September 2019 Premier Ball announced an agreement for $555.9 million in federal

funding for the next 10 years under the Investing in Canada plan. Once

leveraged, joint funding will result in over $1.3 billion in investments in

public transit, green infrastructure communities, culture and recreation, rural

and northern communities. This is anticipated to amount to more than $1.3

billion in cost-shared projects and over 4,000 person-years of employment.

Through

Budget 2019 , government allocated

more than $129 million for municipal infrastructure. Of this amount, $48.3

million will be used to leverage an additional $30.7 million in federal funds

from federal infrastructure programs. New project applications under the

Investing in Canada plan are in the final processes with the federal government

and we will hold another call for project applications this summer, very soon.

Also from the $129 million, $50.5 million will be used for provincial-municipal

cost-shared projects under the 2017-2020 municipal infrastructure program. In

March, Premier Ball announced 31 projects in 29 communities under this program.

I'll

speak about climate change for a moment. Our government is committed to the

protection of the environment and the quality of life of residents, as well as

facilitating the wise management of our natural resources. We are supporting

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.

March, we launched the provincial five-year Climate Change Action Plan. Through

this plan we are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from across the

economy, stimulate clean innovation and growth and build resilience to the

impacts of climate change.

We are

implementing programs that support our five-year plan and encourage a transition

to a low-carbon global economy. In January, we announced $89.4 million over four

years in federal-provincial funding for the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund.

This

winter, we launched five programs that will be supported by this fund,

including: Home Energy Savings Program, Energy Efficiency in Oil Heated Homes

Program, Climate Change Challenge Fund, Freight Transportation Fuel Efficiency

Program and Energy Efficiency and Fuel Switching in Public Buildings program.

We are

also leveraging federal funds to support initiatives that will help key economic

sectors adapt to climate change and be more resilient. Over $302 million in

federal funds are also being leverage under the green stream of the Investing in

Canada Plan to support businesses and communities in the transition to a green

economy.

Public

safety: the health and safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is our number

one priority. The provincial government is committed to ensuring that

firefighters in Newfoundland and Labrador have the necessary equipment. In 2019,

we are making our fire protection vehicle program work better for communities

and fire departments.

Budget 2019

includes an investment of $2.88 million for the replacement of fire protection

vehicles and firefighting equipment program. It also includes $101,000 for

grants to the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services to support

operations and the Learn Not to Burn program. This is $1 million more than the

usual allocation. This additional $1 million will be used for the expanded fire

protection vehicle program.

January, we updated the program to include more options for communities to

access funding for both used and new vehicles. Through this expansion, not only

will communities have options to improve their fire protection vehicles that

better match their fiscal circumstances, but it will ensure that our budget can

make a bigger difference in a larger number of areas in the province.

The

department also continues to work closely with our emergency management

partners, government and residents to continue ensuring the safety and

well-being of residents and communities. In the wake of emergency events such as

the Thanksgiving rainstorm event, the Mud Lake flooding event and the West Coast

flood, we have continued to support residents and ensure their safety and

well-being. We continue to work with Public Safety Canada to administer disaster

assistance programs.

Through

Budget 2019 , we have allocated over

$1.85 million for the Newfoundland and Labrador Disaster Financial Assistance

Program. This amounts builds on over $12 million provided in

Budget 2018 .

Over

the past year, the provincial government has enhanced water-level monitoring in

the Churchill River area to help better predict and manage future floods and

protect the residents; 11 new water and climate monitoring stations and a local

river watch program are in place, and

Budget 2018 provided $1 million for flood-risk mapping and flood forecasting

of the region.

Throughout 2018 and in 2019, we will continue to work on flood-risk mapping on

the Humber, Exploits and Lower Churchill River. Last year's investments in

flood-risk mapping is assisting government, communities and emergency management

partners in better anticipating and responding to possible flooding events. Our

investments are supporting adaptation to climate change, minimization of damages

to infrastructure and improved emergency response.

conclusion, I'll just say that these are just a few of the many initiatives that

I am proud to highlight for the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

I'd be

remiss, before I finish speaking, if I didn't acknowledge and thank the

officials and staff of the department for all their hard work. Just since I've

been there, we've been sometimes doing briefings on Sunday evenings or at night,

and I'm sure they put in lots of hours that I know nothing about.

As a

government, we remain committed to working closely with our community partners

so we can continue to deliver better services and achieve better outcomes for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

We'll give the Official

Opposition 15 minutes to respond and start questioning. Again, we're talking

about Executive and Support Services, item 1.1.01 to 1.2.03.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

1.1.01,

just a couple of questions for the minister starting out here.

Can we

be provided with a copy of the minister's briefing binder?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Are

there any errors in the published Estimates book?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'll look to my deputy for

that.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There's one item which we

can speak to later. Robyn may know the heading, but the revenue amount between

the federal and provincial governments added together is correct but they should

be proportioned differently between the two headings. I think that's

Infrastructure, 3.4.02, so the overall revenue is correct but it should be

proportioned differently in terms of federal and provincial revenue.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

To the

minister: Are you still applying zero-based budgeting?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. TIBBS:

What are the attrition

savings last year in terms of dollars and positions?

MS. HAYES:

The department's attrition

target for last year would have been $78,200. The department met that target and

the '19-'20 target of $59,400 for a total of $137,600 by eliminating three

positions.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

What is

the attrition targeted savings for this year?

MS. HAYES:

That was the $59,400 that we

met last year.

MR. TIBBS:

How many people are

currently employed in the department?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Two hundred and thirty-five

positions and 32 vacancies, as of today.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

How

many of those are contractual or short-term employees?

MS. HAYES:

Contractual positions for

the department are three positions.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

How

many retirements have occurred in the department this past year?

MS. HAYES:

We had 10 retirements in

2018-19.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

How

many layoffs have occurred in the department in the past year?

OFFICIAL:

Zero.

MR. TIBBS:

Zero.

Thank

you.

How

many new hires have there been in the past year?

MS. HAYES:

There have been eight.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

And how

many vacancies have not been filled in the department?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are 32 vacancies as of today. A number of those are positions that we only

fill in the event of certain circumstances. For example, I know six are

temporary staff we hire in the event of an emergency event. So it's probably

more like 20 overall, in terms of vacancies.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Have

any positions been eliminated, and what would they be? What are they?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are three positions, Robyn spoke to, in terms of the attrition plan. That

would be the only three that we've eliminated, and I think one was a financial

analyst.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Sticking with 1.1.01, I ask the minister, in Salaries, $39,500 less was spent in

the revised, and there is an additional $34,600 in this year's budget. Can you

explain the variance?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $39,000 in the 2018-19 was a result of lower salary costs for

the minister. The position also last year – it predates you, I know, but it was

vacant for a portion of the year.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Transportation and Communications, $28,000 less was spent in the revised last

year, but this year's budget includes an additional $28,300. Can you explain

what is included?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That would be directly related – there was no minister there for a period of

time and then the transportation was down as it reflected lower ministerial

travel due to that vacancy.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay, thank you.

Moving

on to

section 1.2.01, Executive Support, in Salaries there is a significant

variance here of $571,500 more was spent last year than budgeted, and this year

it is $385,500 less. Can you explain, and what positions were added or removed?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $571,500 in the 2018-19 revised reflects higher salary costs due

to salary continuance and/or severance/annual leave payouts for six people. That

figure would have been $729,300, and Waste Management Strategy salaries $38,700

offset by savings $196,500 due to vacancies. That would have been MMSB CEO, ADMs

and ADM secretaries.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Transportation and Communications, last year $2,000 less was spent than was

budgeted, and this year there is a $71,200 increase in the budgeted amount. Can

you explain,

and what was included?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We would have had vacancies

in some of our ADM positions last year. That would have contributed to the

reduction. Now we have a full complement of ADMs. The other thing, I think, is

we only had a portion of the department. We had a branch added early in the last

fiscal year.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Professional Services, what is the $50,000 for in this year's budget?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That's the budget for the

Waste Management Strategy.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, an additional $18,100 is budgeted this year over the revised

amount. What is included?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That reflects the budget for

the Waste Management Strategy $13,500, and zero-based budget adjustment of $100.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Revenue - Provincial, I understand this is related to the salary for the CEO of

the MMSB. Can you explain why only $28,100 was spent last year, and has it been

filled?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $149,000

does reflect lower related revenue from MMSB for the CEO salary. As you

indicated, the position was filled by the DM of MAE for the majority of the

year.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Section

1.2.02, Administrative Support, current salaries. In this budget, salaries of

$19,200 less than revised number. Can you explain?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That would be a decrease in

the summer students' salary budget.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Not that we – we have lots

of students in the department, it's just that we didn't spend the full amount.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay, thank you.

Under

Transportation and Communications, $10,000 less was spent last year; in

addition, an additional $10,500 is budgeted for this year. Can the minister

please explain what is included?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease reflects lower departmental postage, freight and communications

costs.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, what is included here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Based on the composition of the department, the minister sits at numerous

federal/provincial/territorial tables. So the $16,800 is our contribution to the

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Revenue, what is included here? What explains the extra $33,000 in the revised?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That reflects higher miscellaneous revenue from repayment of prior years'

community enhancement program grants payout. And my deputy can correct me, but

sometimes when a community gets a certain amount allocated, they may actually

claim some things that they're not eligible for, correct? And that's where that

would've come from.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

1.2.03, Strategic Financial Management, Salaries, $220,600 less was spent last

year, and this year there's an additional $205,700. Can the minister, please,

explain the significant variance in these salaries, and what positions are

included in these amounts?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes, the $220,600 in 2018-19 revised budget reflects vacant positions and

recruitment period. There were a number of positions vacant: two managers,

financial officer, and two organizational budget analysts.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

(Inaudible.)

MR. TIBBS:

Yes, that's good for this section.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Mr.

Brown, would you like to start?

MR. BROWN:

I just want to thank everyone for coming tonight. This is great. This is my

first Estimates, so wish me luck.

I think

for the most part everything is covered here. I just have a quick question about

the overview, that way. For Salaries and stuff, there seems to be a bit of an

increase throughout there. Are some of those positions that were mentioned of

the 32, are they being filled or going to be filled soon, or are they still in

the process of looking for those people?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Well, I was going to say in a large department you always have a number of

moving parts with staff. Generally, there are always some positions that are

vacant, as the deputy alluded to. Some positions are filled only in the event of

different things that happen around the province, but there's always ongoing

recruitment. There are always lots of positions that move around as well.

Someone might be in one and they move to another.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. You have 32 positions, you said, that need to be filled. It seems it's

quite a high number for a department.

(Inaudible) Strategic Financial Management, so this is handling multiple

departments? Because it says here it provides services for Municipal Affairs,

TCII, Service NL and that. That's one department handling the things of other

departments?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We physically house the staff but they provide financial services to the three

departments that are referenced in that heading.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, yes.

For

this section, I think that's good for me there.

CHAIR:

Good?

MR. BROWN:

Thank you.

MS. DEMPSTER:

He can go on, if he wants, right? He's new, so …

CHAIR:

No, that's all that section.

CLERK:

1.1.01 through 1.2.03

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.03

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.2.03 carried.

CLERK:

Fire, Emergency and

Corporate Services, 2.1.01 through 2.3.03 inclusive.

CHAIR:

We'll start off with Mr.

Brown.

MR. BROWN:

For this one here, Local Governance, is the department looking at modernizing

the Municipalities Act to bring it more in line with modern municipalities?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes, and we've actually held consultations and reached out to groups like MNL

and PMA and we're now collecting what we heard. I believe some of it's posted

online already. You can go to engageNL.ca. We've heard some very clear messaging

around the need to modernize that piece of legislation to make it more enabling

and less prescriptive for communities. There will be something coming on that

this fall.

MR. BROWN:

What's the largest topic with this outreach that you're finding?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Sorry, can you repeat that?

MR. BROWN:

Sorry. What is the topic that's most amongst the municipalities on this?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Okay, I talked a little bit about it in the House this afternoon, about conflict

of interest, and you would appreciate this coming from a relatively small area.

A lot of our small communities end up with maybe business people running to sit

on the council, for example. Then maybe there's a snow clearing contract that

goes out and someone who sits on council is actually the successfully bidder.

People ask for clarity around that, so that would be one of the things.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you.

Under

regionalization, I know that there was an outreach and I know that there was a

discussion around the province on that. With regionalization, are you guys

moving forward more with that, or has there been any more development in that?

MS. DEMPSTER:

We're very interested with aging demographics and shrinking municipalities,

shrinking communities. We're looking at a couple of pilots in the near future,

but we have not yet selected the areas.

MR. BROWN:

Excellent.

Eliminating Limit of Service Agreements. The department eliminated Limit of

Service Agreements with the aim of achieving greater efficiency in response of

the needed communities. Do you have any background on that?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Communities over the years have often called for to have their Limit of Service

Agreement lifted going back quite a long time. You may have homes or a street

outside the Limit of Service Agreement, so those streets could never apply for

funding programs under 90-10 or 80-20, or whatever. That was lifted and it's my

understanding everything is working fine. Municipalities now have the option to

apply for funding in areas that they would not have had otherwise.

MR. BROWN:

When it comes to resettlement, Little Bay Islands – how is that going?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The people have voted and 100 per cent, I believe, of Little Bay Islands voted

to relocate. The department is currently working through the next steps.

MR. BROWN:

Okay and everything's all good with it?

MS. DEMPSTER:

It is progressing, yes.

MR. BROWN:

Williams Harbour, that was good, was it? Everything went well with Williams

Harbour?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

All

right, well, I'll start with 2.1.01. I notice in Professional Services last year

it was up about $19,000. What was that for?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Do you want to answer that, Jamie? I don't see that.

MR. CHIPPETT:

You said Purchased or Professional Services?

MR. BROWN:

Under Professional Services.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The increase there was actually due to legal fees. One was related to, actually,

the relocation file that you just referenced in terms of Williams Harbour.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Then there were some lower required planning consultants, in terms of appeal

boards and so on.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The difference is what you highlighted.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Revenue; I notice that in line 02 there it's down $20,000. What would that be

for?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I don't see where he's referenced. Okay, yes, the decrease of $20,000 reflects

lower revenues from cost recovery on land use planning amendments.

MR. BROWN:

On to 2.2.01, Policy and Strategic Planning. I notice that Salaries are lower in

the estimated budget. Is there attrition there?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The $96,000 reflects adjustment to the director of legislative renewal position

to contractual.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Then there's also a decrease of $23,800 and that reflects lower salary cost due

to recruitment periods for vacant positions.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Under

Transportation and Communications, that was up by about $10,000 there. Is there

any particular reason for that?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The $10,000 increase was the higher travel cost for legislative renewal. I just

talked about the consultation sessions that we were holding –

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so that was (inaudible) to that.

MS. DEMPSTER:

– for the Municipalities Act.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MS. DEMPSTER:

That would've been directly tied to that.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Grants

and Subsidies for this section, what are the Grants and Subsidies for this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The Grants and Subsidies are – we talked about the environment table that we

contribute to earlier. There's $9,900 that is for the local government

minister's table. That's our contribution on a national basis.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There's a $147,000 grant for the Conservation Corps, and there's a $12,200 grant

to the Eastern Canadian Premier's Secretariat.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Moving

on 2.3.01, Fire Services, there's an increase in Salaries for the coming budget

there. A new position?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes. The increase reflects the addition of a new fire protection officer

position.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. That is a regional position, or is it an overall position?

MS. DEMPSTER:

It's provincial. Again, my deputy can correct me but I believe, historically,

the RCMP would show up and do some of these investigations. And they no longer

do that. So the department has founded a new position, and that's the new fire

protection officer. So we now have someone that will do that.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. So that's for investigation purposes.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

So he'll be the province-wide.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Or the person in terms of that. All right, perfect.

Thank

you.

Allowances and Assistance, what are they used for in this particular sense?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Are you wondering why the decrease?

MR. BROWN:

Actually, an overall of what is it used for in particular.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible.)

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes. That's right, yes.

That's

the compensation for volunteer firefighters through WorkplaceNL.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

All right. And then, yes, there was a decrease in budgeted.

MS. DEMPSTER:

That's right, yes.

MR. BROWN:

So, I guess, there were less volunteer firefighters applying?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The budget just reflects lower assessments –

MR. BROWN:

Okay, yes. So I guess the –

MS. DEMPSTER:

– over the last year.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. Yes, no problem.

The

Grants and Subsidies, is that for local fire departments?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are three different pots, we'll say, in the Grants and Subsidies: $40,000

is an operating grant for Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire

Services; $61,000, actually, the minister referenced in her earlier remarks,

it's for the Learn not to Burn campaign.

MR. BROWN:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

And $140,000 are for different things involving community fire departments. For

example, if a fire department responds outside their municipal boundary that

would be what some of this funding is used for.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. But that doesn't cover the fire truck subsidies?

M R . CHIPPETT:

There's a separate heading for vehicles and equipment.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

2.3.02,

Emergency Services, Salaries are down. Was there a loss of position there?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $65,800 reflects salary attrition reduction. That would've been

an Administrative Officer I, $42,000, traded off for a temporary manager of

community co-operation; and lower travel time of $10,000 and lower salary steps,

$13,800 for new staff. So new staff coming in would've been paid lower than the

ones that went out.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, there was an increase there, but that was

with the change of staff?

MS. DEMPSTER:

No. Right here on 2.3.02, right?

MR. BROWN:

Yes.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $30,000 reflects higher search and rescue costs for the year.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, the higher search and rescue.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Under

the Disaster Assistance, 2.3.03, there was a sharp decrease in Salaries there

from budgeted to actual to next year.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $259,000 in the budget of 2019-20 from 2018-19 reflects reduced

temporary salary funding required for disaster assistance staff. So you will

recall the Thanksgiving 2016 rain event. Then there was the Mud Lake flooding

event, the West Coast flooding event. So there was temporary salary that was

attached with that for the staff that was hired to process the claims for those

events.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. So this is the tapering off of all this.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes, that's right. Yes.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, yes.

CHAIR:

Your time is expired.

You

just have a quick one more or two more questions? If you do, I'll ask for leave.

MR. BROWN:

No, I'll let my colleague go on now.

CHAIR:

If not, we can go back to

you.

MR. BROWN:

Yes, thank you.

CHAIR:

We'll go back?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Okay.

Thank

you.

MR. TIBBS:

If we could just take a moment and go back to the start. I have a few questions

there for 2.1.01.

Under

Salaries, $102,500 was spent than budgeted last year, and this year there's an

increase of $98,800. Can the minister explain the variance and how many land

planners there are?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'm slowing down.

MR. TIBBS:

2.1.01.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes, thank you.

Sorry,

can you ask the question again?

MR. TIBBS:

I apologize; $102,500 less was –

MS. DEMPSTER:

Okay, yes.

That is

lower salary costs due to recruitment periods for vacant positions, the

$102,500.

MR. TIBBS:

Yes.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. TIBBS:

And how many land planners are there?

MS. DEMPSTER:

How many do we have? Six?

MS. KELLY:

There are four.

MR. TIBBS:

Four.

Thank

you.

Under

Transportation and Communications, $8,000 less was spent last year and $12,000

more is budgeted for this year. What is included, and why the variance?

MS. DEMPSTER:

There was lower travel and communications cost last year due to staff vacancies.

So we have to plan and look ahead, and hopefully we won't have those staff

vacancies this year, so we budgeted accordingly.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Supplies, there has been a decrease in the amount for Supplies. What is

included?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Are you looking at the $6,000, or both of it? The $5,500 budget reflects

zero-based budget adjustment, and the $6,000 reflects lower office and meeting

supply costs. There were regional consultations, boards, appeals, things like

that would be covered off there, and there were less of those that happened.

Correct? Feel free to jump in anywhere you like.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Just generally, if I could speak to the activity. As the minister said, there

are things here like appeal board hearings, protective road zoning amendments.

So we don't control, necessarily, how many communities come forward looking for

planning amendments. As a result, the budget and the spending fluctuates from

year to year.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

While

on the topic of appeal boards, can you give us an update on the status of the

boards and appeals in the region across the province, and is there a backlog?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes. The Eastern Regional Appeal Board has 16 outstanding; Central has five

outstanding; Western, nine; and Labrador, none.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, $11,700 less was spent in the revised last year; yet, this

year's budget is back to $35,800. What is included?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $11,000 – I believe the deputy alluded to it in the beginning –

reflects legal fees. That was $35,900 for relocation files, Williams Harbour,

offset by lower required planning consultants and lower planning board member

costs.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Grants and Subsidies – I understand this is generally for feasibility studies –

why was only $5,000 spent last year? What is included this year?

MS. DEMPSTER:

You're right; the budget does reflect fewer applications for those feasibility

studies and other regional co-operation initiatives. So the funding is there,

it's in place. If two or three communities living in a close proximity to each

other want to explore the idea of amalgamation, then this funding is available

for them. They may do so but it's up to them, and we do fund some.

Sometimes we fund them and communities don't actually end up amalgamating. But

as I said to the deputy earlier today, maybe in a couple of years they might

actually come back and decide to for shared services or whatever.

MR. TIBBS:

Right, thank you.

I ask

the minister, can you provide an update on community relocation requests?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The only one that is actively in the process is the one we spoke to earlier,

Little Bay Islands. There is one community that has expressed an interest in

addition to that, I don't recall the name of the community.

MS. KELLY:

Tilt Cove is the name of the community.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Regional Appeal Boards, can you give us an update on what is happening with the

Regional Appeal Boards?

MR. CHIPPETT:

All appeal boards have their full complement of members. In fact, the Labrador

Regional Appeal Board, it's the first time that's actually functioned as its own

board for a number of years.

I think

the minister went through the appeals that are outstanding. On those, I'd just

point out that some of those have been mutually deferred by solicitors and so on

for some of the clients, but the numbers have improved a lot over the last year.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Moving

on to Fire Services, 2.3.01, under Grants and Subsidies, these budgets for the

grants are consistent. What is included and has anything changed?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There's been no change. It's the $40,000 operating grant for the Association of

Fire Services; $61,000 for the Association of Fire Services to run the Learn Not

to Burn campaign; and there's $140,000 for training and for municipalities who

provide fire services outside of their community boundary.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

The

Town of Grand Falls-Windsor has been promised a new fire truck. When is the

proposed delivery date?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I'm not sure what the exact delivery date would be. I think the process that's

happening right now is they're working through tender specifications with the

fire commissioner's office. It's for a new truck, not a used truck so it would

need to be manufactured and so on. So, usually, it's a year or more after the

approval.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Municipal Legislation Review, can you give us an update on the Municipal

Legislation Review?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I was just sharing some of that information with the Member for Labrador West.

We have

gone through the consultation sessions. We have heard from groups like the

Municipal Assessment Agency, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and other

groups that have fit in some very clear messaging around we need more clarity on

conflict of interest.

Right

now, most of the information, all of the information that has been gathered is

posted on the EngageNL website. We hope to bring new, more modernized

legislation into the House of Assembly this fall.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Fire and Emergency Services as well, I just have a quick question about bunker

suits in certain municipalities. I'm hearing from several municipalities that

some of the bunker suits are becoming worn and not fire retardant like they

should be.

With

the security of our firefighters in the province, what determines if the bunker

gear is not fire retardant and when they can get new ones, or the process?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I'm unaware of the specific

specifications that you speak to, but there is an annual call for applications

through fire services, and the fire commissioner does all the evaluation on

those, but it is a priority. The normal priority ranking is for communications

equipment first and then secondary to that is the bunker suits and SCBA.

MR. TIBBS:

Under regional government,

what is the plan regarding regional governance and/or sharing of service pilots?

Can we have an update on that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

As the minister said

earlier, there were a number of consultation sessions on this and specific

sessions with MNL and PMA and gathered a lot of good data on what people

consider to be regions in the province and what kind of services people were

interested in sharing, but we haven't had a decision yet on where we would do

the two pilots. That would be the next step.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Chris, your time is also

expired.

Do you

have any more questions, Jordan?

MR. BROWN:

Just a couple questions

there.

The

municipal infrastructure gap, I know that it was in the mandate letter of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment to develop a plan with

Municipalities NL to address this problem. How is the addressing going?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I guess as a precursor to

defining the infrastructure gap, the work in the department has primarily

focused on developing a toolkit that municipalities can use to assess their

assets from an asset management perspective, so we're involved in that work

right now. Obviously, one of the key challenges is different municipalities are

at very different levels of progress in terms of their asset management plans.

So,

when we've arrived at something that could be adapted to all municipalities

we've rolled that out and that would be a significant factor in how you make

decisions on closing the gap.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, absolutely

Also

there I noticed that starting with 2.3.03, Disaster Assistance, revenue from the

feds. It was budgeted at $17,502,700 but it was down quite significantly, almost

$16 million. What was the reason why the feds didn't live up to the expectation

here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Section 2.3.03?

MR. BROWN:

Yes, under Disaster

Assistance, Revenue - Federal.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $16 million

reflects federal revenue for the West Coast flooding event and the decrease of

$12 million reflects lower federal revenue for the Thanksgiving rain event and

West Coast flooding. So, they would have had the money in place for that and

then once expenses and claims were processed and clued up, there was no longer a

need for that.

MR. BROWN:

Okay. I guess the money

wasn't needed as expected?

MR. CHIPPETT:

With this heading and some

of the heading we'll talk about a little bit later, the federal infrastructure

and so on, there's a claims process involved so it really results in cash flows

that we can't always control.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So there's no question we'll

get the federal revenue, it's just maybe which fiscal year it's actually booked

in.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Just

another question or two, under civic addressing, especially in rural areas, I

know there has been some work around trying to get people to put civic addresses

on their houses and identify civic addresses. How is that process going with the

Emergency Services?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Primarily, external agencies

do that work. Obviously, from a NL911 perspective, which is an agency that

reports through our minister, they would be involved in work from that

perspective. Other entities like the waste management boards, for example – so

Eastern Regional Waste Management would be another entity that would have a lot

of data around that. It's at different stages, depending on the region that

you're in, but NL911, in particular, is able to effectively obviously locate

where people are. When they move to Next Generation 911 they'll actually be able

to tell where you're calling from.

MR. BROWN:

Moving on to Enhanced 911, where are we with that right now?

MS. KELLY:

We're actually going to be skipping over Enhanced and moving on to Next Gen.

That's the next step in it. It was originally Basic, Enhanced and then Next

Generation. The Next Gen is coming in as a result of, I believe, the CRTC

direction. NL911 is working towards that right now. I think maybe in a year or

two – I'm not exactly sure of the timeline but it's coming soon. We just

recently had a meeting on it, actually.

MR. BROWN:

Perfect, thank you. I'm good with this

section there now if anyone wants to …?

CHAIR:

Okay, Chris.

MR. TIBBS:

Please.

CHAIR:

Yes, sure.

MR. TIBBS:

Under regional governance, what type of systems are being considered?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are numerous models across the country; you'll hear about county systems

and so on. There are also models around sharing of services, some of which,

obviously, already exists in the province when you look at regional service

boards. At this stage there's not been a decision made on what the model would

look like or where exactly the pilots would be carried out.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

the Disaster Assistance we have a pretty good handle on it now, we know it's

winding down, but I just have a couple of questions about that. Under

Professional Services there's been a $600,000 decrease since last year's budget.

Can the minister explain what was included?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That's basically exactly the same thing we've been talking about. It reflects

funding required for the Mud Lake flooding event and West Coast funding event

expenditures. That was insurance claim adjusters.

MR. TIBBS:

Perfect.

Under

Purchased Services, what explains the revised number?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $138,000 is revised. It reflects a higher funding requirement

for the Mud Lake flooding event expenditures connected to Red Cross and housing.

I'll let Jamie elaborate.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Minister, you're exactly right, it's the payments to the Canadian Red Cross for

rent and security deposits.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Just

two more questions. Under Allowances and Assistance can you explain what is

included? Is this for private insurance claims? What claims are still

outstanding?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Primarily, I guess if you

have insurance you're not eligible for disaster financial assistance. This is

primarily payouts directly to residents who were impacted by the various storms.

MR. TIBBS:

Perfect.

CHAIR:

Any further questions?

MR. K. PARSONS:

The first question I want to

ask: Are we going to get your briefing book tonight because last year we didn't

get it all.

MS. DEMPSTER:

You didn't get it at all?

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, we asked for it a few

times.

MS. DEMPSTER:

If you're really nice and on

good behaviour, I'll consider it, yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

We are on good behaviour. We

will?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

When it

comes to the money spent on Little Bay Islands, has all that been paid out yet?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It hasn't been paid out yet.

One of the steps in the process – so we talked about the 90 per cent vote

earlier, that's kind of a gate if you will, through the decision process. The

second one is people actually signing conditional offers to accept the funding

to relocate. That's the process we're in now is actually talking to folks about

whether or not they're going to sign the property offers.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

there a time frame on how long that's supposed to take?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I don't know that there's a

minimum time frame, but I mean it usually happens within a number of months.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

question I have: Have there been any other people requiring amalgamation, any

towns looking to be amalgamated in the province?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We've had some that I think

have been out in the media. For example, we did the feasibility study for Wabush

and Labrador City; we did one for Northern Arm and Botwood as well. In both

those instances, at least right now, communities haven't moved forward with

amalgamation, but those have been two of the ones we've done recently. There's

one request from a group of LSDs on the West Coast that we're looking at now but

I think that's all we have in the hopper right now.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Just going to the disaster

relief program, before the fed's money comes, there's a certain amount of money

that has to be – the disaster has (inaudible) financial. Can you explain that,

how it works and then what the feds pay for once they kick in?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The new threshold, I think,

is about $1.6 million. A few years ago the federal government actually made a

change to that amount, so it's about $1.6 million. They will cover your

essentials from the perspective of your primary property and, again, in the

event you can't get insurance for it. That's the first parameter for what

they'll cover, is something that you can't reasonably get insurance for.

Then

they normally focus on your primary residence. I think you're able to have one

out building that is covered. They don't cover vehicles normally because

insurance would normally apply and then recreational vehicles and so on are not

normally covered.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That's all I have. Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Any other questions for –?

MR. BROWN:

(Inaudible.)

When it

comes to the ratio for voting on a community to resettlement, right now it's

90-10. Are there any talks or any consideration of reducing that down,

especially in smaller communities where one or two people could really upset the

whole apple cart kind of thing on that? Are there any talks about changing that

ratio?

MS. DEMPSTER:

As an MHA you would know I

went through that. The interest to relocate from Williams Harbour did happen

before I knocked on their doors in 2013 I'm always happy to share. It wasn't

something – the first line of the relocation policy says it must be community

initiated and community driven.

From

time to time, the question comes up should we lower that, but as you can see

from our Estimates books here tonight there are a number of times we've alluded

to legal fees. We have it at 90 per cent and then there's a 10 per cent window,

even in that, that comes back and challenges the department on whether people

maybe would have liked to have stayed or that were not deemed a resident.

I don't

think there's any government, no matter what your political stripe, that would

want to be seen as forcing resettlement. Everybody was left with a bad taste in

their mouths from decades ago that predates all of us. There is a school of

thought that if you reduce that 90 per cent down, then you're just opening

yourself up to more of the legal fees and things like that.

MR. BROWN:

Absolutely.

MS. DEMPSTER:

It's a very emotionally

charged and difficult topic for sure.

MR. BROWN:

Absolutely.

Have

any more communities come forward wanting a plebiscite on the idea of

relocation?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Tilt Cove is the only other

one.

MR. BROWN:

Perfect, thanks.

That's

it for this

section there.

CHAIR:

Any other questions on Fire,

Emergency and Corporate Services, 2.1.01 to 2.3.03?

MR. TIBBS:

I have one quick question, just a quick one.

When it

comes to communities outside of municipalities, is there any legislation,

exactly, what fire department in a nearby municipality has to do to cover any

residents that aren't living in the municipality? Is there a strategy across the

province that covers those people that don't pay taxes to a municipality, but

live on the cusp, if you will?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There's no requirement. Usually we look to the communities to establish some

kind of an MOU with neighbouring communities or areas. That's often how it's

done, and we're always quite eager to have those discussions. So the fire

commissioner's office would be quite willing to work with any communities on a

situation like that.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

CLERK:

2.1.01 through 2.3.03

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.03

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.3.03 carried.

CLERK:

Municipal Infrastructure and

Support, 3.1.01 through 3.4.04 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Chris,

do you want to start this one?

MR. TIBBS:

Yes, please.

Under

Regional Support, 3.1.01, Salaries, $105,400 more was spent in the revised, and

$136,100 less is budgeted this year. Can the minister explain the variance in

salaries, and were positions added or removed?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There was a continuance payout for one person in that division, but also some

savings due to recruitment periods for vacancies. So that's where we get the

$105,400 increase in 2018-19, and, basically, we're back to full complement in

2019-20. But the staff that were hired, as often happened in the recruitment

process, have lower salaries as they're just starting.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Revenue, what is included here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We have an MOU with the

Nunatsiavut Government to provide engineering services for their capital works

projects. So that's why you see the $160,000 every year.

MR. TIBBS:

Could we get a list of who

received the grants? Sorry, my apologies.

The

next question is under Salaries; $109,900 more was spent last year and $113,100

less is budgeted this year. Can you explain the variance in the salaries, and

were positions added or removed?

MS. DEMPSTER:

You're gone to 3.1.02?

MR. TIBBS:

Sorry, 3.1.02. Yes, my

apologies.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $109,000

reflects continuance payout for one person and it was offset by savings due to

recruitment periods for vacant positions.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

3.1.02, can we have a list of who received these grants?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Subhead 3.1.02?

MR. TIBBS:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are no grants in that

particular –

MR. TIBBS:

“Appropriations provide for

the administration of programs such as municipal operating grants.”

MR. CHIPPETT:

Municipal Finance, this is

the staff that assess all the applications and so on. The actual grant payouts

are in headings after this one. So I can see why you asked the question.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

I'd

like to move on to 3.2.01, Industrial Water Services. In 2018, this

section also

included municipal infrastructure and water management. Why was it removed?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There are separate – I don't

know if you're referring to the heading. I think there was always a stand-alone

industrial water services heading.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

But, basically, the

decreases you've seen throughout relate to the province turning over these

industrial water systems to municipalities.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Professional Services, $10,000 less was spent last year and another $12,000 less

is budgeted this year. What is included here?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $10,000

reflects lower cost from water system operators and engineering consultants.

MR. TIBBS:

The same thing for the $12,000?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $12,000 reflects zero-based budget adjustment.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Purchased Services, $10,000 less was spent last year; yet, an additional $22,000

is included in this year's budget. What is included here?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Under Purchased Services, the decrease of $10,000 reflects lower repairs and

maintenance costs.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Did I miss something there?

MR. CHIPPETT:

So just to give a little bit more context on this one, in terms of the numbers

throughout the item. There used to be 54 of these industrial water systems in

the province. They were often associated with fish plants, in particular, but

over the years, either there's been no need for them if the plant no longer

exists, or municipalities may have taken on the system.

So we

are now down to two systems; one in Ramea, and I think the other one is in New

Harbour. The New Harbour one is actually on the verge of being divested as well,

to, I think, the school board in that case, because it's near a school. So,

essentially, we're gradually getting out of this activity.

Ramea,

because of the saltwater content, the community would never be able to afford to

take that over. So we will have that as an expense in perpetuity, probably.

That's why you see the lower numbers in the 2019-20 Estimates.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Revenue; again, what is included here? There was $100,000 less last year; yet,

increase of $76,700 is expected this year. Why the variance here?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Really, it's the same issue. We didn't collect all of the revenue in 2018-19, so

some of it will be collected in 2019-20. The overall trend downward in the

revenue is because we're maintaining less municipalities. So less municipalities

are paying us for that service.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

3.3.03, we've been hearing it from some municipalities – towns and mayors and

whatnot – that the change in the template for the forms that some municipalities

are having trouble with. Why was the change made in the applications?

MR. CHIPPETT:

So this is 3.3.04, correct?

CHAIR:

3.3.03, Municipal Operating

Grants, isn't it?

MR. TIBBS:

Sorry, the Municipal

Operating Grants, the applications have been changed, the templates, from last

year and some municipalities are having trouble with them. I'm just wondering

why the change was made?

This

could be under gas tax as well.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There is no application

process for Municipal Operating Grants. We pay this out twice a year to

municipalities, based on a formula. They don't apply for this, so there is no

application.

MR. TIBBS:

Okay. I may have been

mistaken. This was supposed to be under Gas Tax. So when we get to it, I'm sure

we can ask that question again.

Under

3.3.04, Allowances and Assistance, can the minister explain the $35,000 under

the revised?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That was a legal system pay

out.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, what was included in the almost $2.4 million revised, and

can you give us a breakdown, please?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The increase of $375,000

reflects funding provided for the William's Harbour relocation. There were a

couple of legal files there that were settled.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Under

Grants and Subsidies, why was $480,000 less than the budgeted amount spent last

year? Can we have a list of who received those grants, please?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes, we can provide that.

MR. TIBBS:

And the $480,000?

CHAIR:

Are you referring to

Community Enhancement, now?

MR. TIBBS:

Yes, sorry, Community

Enhancement.

CHAIR:

3.3.05.

MR. TIBBS:

3.3.05, my apologies.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $480,000

reflects lower grant expenditures due to anticipated savings and delays in

processing final reports.

I don't

know if Jamie wants to elaborate on that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The Community Enhancement

program goes through a regular cycle of application calls, and we would expect

an application call to happen, actually, fairly soon, but as you get towards the

end of the year, we're assessing reports that come back from the sponsors of

projects. So, if those final reports come back too close to the end of the

fiscal year, then we don't get to pay out whatever is owed that sponsor until

we're into the new fiscal year. So whatever we kind of lose in '18-'19, we

normally pick up in '19-'20.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

We'll go back to you again

after.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Mr. Brown.

MR. BROWN:

In 3.2.01, Engineering

Services, Industrial Water Services, you referenced that there's $100,000 less

because of collection of revenue. What is the collection of revenue? Where are

you not being able collect it from?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It depends on who was

ultimately receiving the service. In some instances, it's a municipality and it

might just be kind of like the last question, we deal with it at the end of the

fiscal year and we don't collect the revenue. In some instances, for instance,

some of the numbers you're seeing here it was actually still connected to a fish

plant. So, it depends on who ultimately receives the service.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, so they're just

getting late paying their bill kind of thing.

3.3.01, Municipal Debt Servicing, I noticed that the budgeting for Grants and

Subsidies is down quite a bit. What's the reason for this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

A few years ago, maybe many

years ago, government, rather than providing grants to municipalities for

infrastructure, provided loans. So the two headings here, one for the principal

and one for the interest, is basically government continuing to pay off those

loans. If we're all here next year or the year after, those numbers will

continually get lower until I think the year 2027-28 is when the last loan comes

due.

MR. BROWN:

So would this tie in with

the principal as well, this is a fixed thing that both of these things will

continue, because I noticed in 3.3.02 it's the same thing, it's a constant

decline. So they're both the same reason, is it?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Same reason, one is the

interest and one is the principal.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, absolutely.

3.3.03,

Municipal Operating Grants, it's pretty consistent here on this. Is there a

reason why it's very consistent or is it like – because I know you have your

budgeted, your revised and next year is exactly the same thing? So that's always

the same money, there's no – the feds – according to what comes in basis, it

doesn't really change.

MR. CHIPPETT:

This one is only a

provincial program and government has chosen, in the last number of years, to

set the overall allocation at $22 million and then there's formula that

determines what each municipality in the province gets, based on remoteness and

the number of people in the municipality.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, because I noticed,

like I said, you budgeted for $22 million and you spent exactly $22 million.

There was no savings or nothing there. It was pretty consistent right on

through. Great.

Subhead

3.4.01, Municipal Infrastructure, I notice that in your Salaries there, it was

down a bit. Was that attrition or a position not filled or …?

CHAIR:

3.4.01.

MS. DEMPSTER:

The decrease of $62,600

reflects rightsizing of the salary budget with the inclusion of positions from

municipal infrastructure and waste management. So, some of the positions were

reprofiled.

I'll

let Jamie put some meat on that answer.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Could you repeat the

question, if you don't mind?

MR. BROWN:

No problem.

noticed that from budgeted '18-'19 to revised there was a bit of a decrease in

Salaries and then the decrease kind of carries over into '19-'20. I'm just

wondering if that was attrition or was that a vacant position. As the minister

alluded, there was some rightsizing as well.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The decrease from '18-'19 to

the '18-'19 revised was around recruitment periods for vacant positions.

I guess

what I'd like to point out in this particular activity is there is a lot of

turnover, so this is where a lot of our engineering staff and our design

approval technicians are. There's a fair amount of turnover in that branch. Then

the other thing is one of our attrition positions was done through here as well.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Under

Transportation and Communications, there was a lot of money not spent there. I

guess a lot of people not travelling or was it because of lack of – vacancies or

just you didn't need to go anywhere.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes, well, it was directly

related to the vacancies.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

Under

Purchased Services, there was quite an increase there. What was purchased?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The $66,400 reflects the

waste management financial study; Goose Bay, Forteau landfill site survey. It

was partially offset by lower Xerox and other general Purchased Services costs.

MR. BROWN:

3.4.02, Federal/Provincial

Infrastructure Programs, the Grants and Subsidies – I noticed budgeted was quite

a lot more than what was actually in the revised. Were there not as many

projects that came in that way?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In the infrastructure

headings and some of our other big grant programs, it all depends on how

projects actually move forward. It is very difficult to predict, for example,

exactly when if it's a federal-provincial program, the federal government will

approve projects. It's also difficult to predict – and you'll see it a bit later

in gas tax and so on – what kinds of applications you will get, or if

municipalities are meeting certain compliance criteria to make them eligible for

funding.

The

majority of what you're seeing in this heading is really what I'll call the ebb

and flow in infrastructure spending. For example, under this particular heading

we have 269 projects that are currently ongoing and we have a pretty large list

in Ottawa that we're waiting for approval on. You can imagine with all those

projects moving at different stages, having been approved in different years,

your cash flows can really vary from year to year.

MR. BROWN:

So this is like sewer plans

and things like that, probably larger projects. Okay, absolutely.

noticed in the revenue, too, I guess it's the same process. You really don't

know what's going to come down the pipe kind of thing.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We know the amount because

there are fixed cost-shared ratios in terms of the federal-provincial programs.

Really, it's a combination of what I just spoke to in terms of variability and

infrastructure projects and then the claim process that we have to go through to

get the revenue in from the federal government.

MR. BROWN:

Okay, perfect.

Under

3.4.03, I noticed that you're pretty consistent with the department there. Under

Grants and Subsidies here it's the same thing, there seems to be a lot more

budgeted but a lot less spent. Is there a similar thing here where you're just

waiting on the feds and stuff like that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In the federal Gas Tax

Program we administer the federal gas tax agreement on behalf of the federal

government, so we have staff. In this case, municipalities have to submit a

capital investment plan. Sometimes they just don't and they wait to allocate

money after they're eligible for more. In other instances, they're non-compliant

with certain parameters and they need to become compliant before we can issue

the funding.

It all

generally is the same explanation as the heading we just talked about, but in

this instance there's more of a focus on the compliance end of things.

MR. BROWN:

Okay.

noticed in budget '19-'20 – are you expected a large jump in people applying for

this program?

MR. CHIPPETT:

You might recall in the federal budget the federal government doubled the gas

tax allocation for communities across the country. That's why it's double the

revenue coming in.

MR. BROWN:

Yeah, okay, so this is from the federal budget. Perfect, thank you.

Last

but not least, 3.4.04, Fire Protection Vehicles and Equipment. I guess this is

what you were saying where you added an addition of $1 million – was that you

alluded to earlier.

MS. DEMPSTER:

That's right.

MR. BROWN:

How many fire trucks have been applied for this year?

MS. DEMPSTER:

In applications there's been 74 applications received with a total of $17

million in ask.

MR. BROWN:

Seventeen million in ask, so obviously –

CHAIR:

Okay, your time has expired.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, if I could just …

CHAIR:

Yes.

MS. DEMPSTER:

We have a provincial fire commissioner. When applications come in, the fire

commissioner actually does a ranking of low, medium or high needs and then that

folds into the department after they've done their assessment.

CHAIR:

We'll get back to you again

after if you have any further questions.

MR. BROWN:

Perfect, thank you.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Fifteen trucks were allocated. I didn't have that in front of me.

CHAIR:

Mr. Tibbs, do you …?

MR. TIBBS:

Kevin, do you want to go ahead?

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask, if you don't mind.

I want

to go to the Special Assistance grants. Can we get a list of those grants that

were put out last year for Special Assistance?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

We'll get them this year? Thank you.

I asked

for them last year and never did receive them.

MS. DEMPSTER:

You didn't have a good year last year.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Shocking, I'm telling you. I know, Minister.

MS. DEMPSTER:

New minister, new day.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It's just not right. I've very pleased with the new minister. The minister is

doing a good job so far.

On the

gas tax – and it's a question that's asked a lot – can you give me a breakdown

on how it's done for the municipalities? I know that some projects, like

municipal buildings, recreation and stuff like that, I don't know what the cost

breakdown is.

there a breakdown on how towns can apply for that? Is it 70-30? What's the

cost-shared ratio to the communities when it comes to using gas tax towards a

project, say, paving?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In terms of the gas tax, the allocation is for the municipality. I think the

question is about stacking, right, and how much they can use towards federal

projects.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

That's stipulated in different federal-provincial agreements and it actually is

different over different agreements. It depends on the specific agreement you're

talking about.

Dan, do

you want to chime in on it?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Basically, in the programs – for example, the new Investing in Canada

Infrastructure Program – depending on the category, the federal government has

assigned a maximum amount of federal money they would put into that project. In

certain categories, towns are able to stack and use their gas tax towards their

share, but in other categories they can't because they've already maximized the

amount of federal money allowed to be spent in that category.

We try

to adjust things around to allow the towns to use their gas tax when possible.

Of course, in our provincial programs, they can use a gas tax to account for

their full municipal share, provided it's an eligible expense through the Gas

Tax Program.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under

the Gas Tax Program, first when it was initialized, it was for environmental

stuff; we got roads into it because of dust and stuff like that. What's the

criteria now for using gas tax funding in your municipalities?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

There are a number of criteria. They can use it for roads, they can use it for

water and sewer works, they can use it for a number of different categories

under the federal gas tax agreement. One of the things that they can't use it

for is projects that have already started and that's where we run into some

issue sometimes. The town has already started the project and has the invoices

and the federal government won't allow us to approve a project once it's already

started.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Are you having any issues now – and it might fall under the gas tax. I'm just

trying to figure out where it falls under. I had some municipalities tell me

that the template has changed when they applied for different grants, say, for

municipal buildings; I'll give you an example, just like a recreation chalet.

The procedure has changed and there's some kind of a new template that has to go

back to the department for engineering purposes and stuff like that. Have there

been many changes in the department on that?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes. We've rolled all of our programs, our federal and provincial. I think this

is mainly for our Municipal Capital Works and our ICIP programs. There are a

number of significant amount of requirements the federal government requires in

terms of – for example, there's the climate change lens that has to be done

where the towns need to identify how the project will help reduce climate change

effects, and also to help the town mitigate against other climate change issues.

So there's the climate change lens.

There

are also a number of criteria the feds have in terms of outcomes that we have to

go through, and all these sort of applications are evolving to allow us to more

efficiently process in terms of submitting it to the federal government. There

were a number of times we had to go back to towns to get more information, as

the federal government requires it. So that's where a lot of that is coming

from, in terms of federal requirements.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Just a question again on this also.

The

added cost to this is huge. On small projects, you're talking a project, say,

$600,000 and there's a $200,000 cost of – I call it engineering cost, but it's

what you just explained that time. Is there a grant available to offset some of

this cost to the original application?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Under the Municipal Capital Works program, towns are eligible to apply for what

we call engineering feasibility studies and those types of things. So if they're

looking at a major project that, for example, to put in some infrastructure,

whether it be a drinking water system or whatnot, they can apply first through

our Municipal Capital Works program, get the funding to do the engineering. Then

once the engineering is done, then they can come back again and apply for the

money to actually do the construction. If they apply for both at the same time,

any of the engineering they do in order to put in that application wouldn't be

eligible, because the money is spent before.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Because the money is spent before. That's where the cost is to.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes. So, basically, they need to do it in two stages in order to.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yeah. So you're talking a project needs to be done over a number of periods of

time, actually, because you'd have to apply for both.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yes.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, all right.

I just

want to go back to

section 3.3.04, Special Assistance; Allowances and

Assistance, $35,000. I know you said something about – could you explain that to

me?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I think everybody would recall the landslides in the mid-2000s in Daniel's

Harbour.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So the province at the time was involved in delineating an area, kind of called

the safety zone, where people shouldn't go back into their properties. In one

instance there was a property that was not identified at the time; it came up

later. So this was a settlement related to that property.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

talked a little bit about the federal/provincial infrastructure programs, are

there any issues in getting these programs out the door? Are they getting out on

a timely basis money wise?

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's difficult to answer the

question because every program seems to have a different start date and so on.

So, as the minister said earlier, our plan this summer is to do a call for

applications in the summer. That's unusual. I don't think there has ever been a

call in the summer before with the idea of trying to have projects selected,

advanced to Ottawa and then have project approvals before the new budget kicks

in.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

I have

another question on fire vehicles, and it's a question that was posed to me. If

we recently put in that there's $100,000 available to buy a used vehicle, can

you take that $100,000, and as long as the municipality is willing to pay the

rest, towards a new vehicle?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There is a specific stream.

The minister spoke about this in her opening remarks.

Obviously, traditionally, you've only been able to apply with a particular

cost-shared ratio for a new vehicle. This year government added two additional

streams to that application process. One was the used one you referenced up to

$100,000, and then there's another one whereby if you say you're willing to do

what you just described in your question, government would provide a grant of

$100,000 towards a new vehicle.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Towards a new vehicle.

MR. CHIPPETT:

So there are three different

streams now.

MR. K. PARSONS:

All right. That's good.

Seventy-four applications you said were put in for last year. I had another call

from a municipality that their vehicle is 20 years old and under the regulations

it has to be replaced after 20 years. I guess that's done through Fire and

Emergency Services through an inspection or whatnot.

What

happens to the municipality once that vehicle is gone past its life and they are

required to replace it; yet, they're part of this 74 and didn't get accepted?

What does the municipality do, or volunteer fire department in that area?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'll start in the response

to that and then let Jamie build upon it.

There's

no doubt, just like many other headings in various departments where we have a

budget, no different in Capital Works where we have a budget in place, and the

number of requests that come in, often, or most always, I would say, exceeds the

budget that is in place. I know communities – I'll refer to my district – that

would come up to me and say we've just applied seven consecutive years. We do

our best to follow the rankings of the fire commissioner of low, medium and

high, but there's no question that we could put a lot more money in this budget

and we still wouldn't meet the need.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Just to speak to the ranking process.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. CHIPPETT:

There's not a particular – and you're right in terms of 20 years being a

benchmark that you'd like to see across the board, but the rankings from the

fire commissioner are really done based on the applications in comparison to one

another.

For

example, a certain municipality, a larger one, may apply, they may have multiple

fire protection vehicles, one is getting old and at or past the 20-year mark.

That would get a different ranking based on the fact that municipality has

other, newer fire protection vehicles versus a municipality that has one vehicle

and is up around that particular point in time when end of useful life becomes a

consideration.

really depends on what the applications are and then what the kind of unique

circumstances are of that particular municipality, what municipalities are

around it to provide support and so on. So there are a list of things that are a

lot longer than I can remember. I've seen the list, in terms of what the fire

commissioner –

MR. K. PARSONS:

I just got one more question and then I'm finished, if that's okay.

CHAIR:

Yes, go ahead.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Just getting back to this. I had a municipality call me and say: Listen, Kevin,

where are we to on that list? Is there a ranking list that will come out to

municipalities and say you were here, here, so they'll know where they're to?

Because what'll happen in my case is the town is willing to go and basically

finance their own fire truck, but if they knew there were 15 out and they were

number 16, then there's a good chance that next year they'd get a vehicle and

they'd hold off that year. It's important to them to know where their ranking

is. Is there a possibility to know that?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The fire commissioner will inform any municipality. There's not a specific

letter that says you were ranked low or medium or high, but the fire

commissioner or the executive will share that ranking with any given community.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. CHIPPETT:

In terms of holding off for a year or what have you, the rankings can change

just based –

MR. K. PARSONS:

Oh, yeah.

MR. CHIPPETT:

– on the other new applications that might come in. The ranking may not carry

over to be the same. If you have fewer in a given year, just as an example, you

could see a number of communities that would go from low up to higher based on

others dropping out of the mix so to speak.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

Do you have any other

questions?

MR. TIBBS:

I have just a couple.

CHAIR:

Sure. Then we'll take a

short break after.

MR. TIBBS:

Waste Management

section

3.4.01; I'm just wondering, can you provide an update on the situation with the

cabin owners and the garbage fees?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Our former minister had

provided a directive to Eastern Regional Service Board to implement a change in

policy in terms of the fees and the services provided in areas where there were

cottages or cabins or what have you. Initially, there was going to be an

implementation plan provided by the end of April, but given Eastern Regional

Service Board has existing contracts and contractual obligations, they asked the

former minister for an extension. That implementation plan is now due at the end

of June.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

The

same section, can you provide an update of where you are with the Waste

Management Strategy review?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I think the consultations

through EngageNL, and directly with municipalities, will occur very shortly. The

date for review of the strategy is December of this calendar year.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you.

I'm

hearing of a situation at Norris Arm waste management. They had a shredder out

there for some wood, old furniture and whatnot. Some of the metal pieces were

clunking up the shredder they have out there and they can't do any more with it.

What they have now is a pile of wood that they can't burn or anything. It's

toxic. It's just a continuous pile that's growing and growing and growing and

they don't know what to do with it.

MR. CHIPPETT:

I know in terms of the pile

of waste wood, the fire commissioner has provided some advice to Central

Regional Service Board on how they could deal with that if the situation doesn't

become – if there's not a new initiative on moving forward with dealing with the

waste wood. I do know the various regional service boards have met and they're

discussing a potential RFP to look for a service provider to deal with that,

shred or grind that waste wood – not only for Central, but for other regional

service boards as well.

In the

event that doesn't move forward and, particularly, moving into the summer season

if there are issues, the fire commissioner has provided some advice, for

example, on how piles could be separated and so on. Which is a common practice

in terms of management at a landfill.

MR. TIBBS:

Perfect, thank you.

Just

one more section, 3.4.03, back to the Gas Tax Program. Under Professional

Services, what is included here? Why was nothing spent last year? What is the

$20,000 for in the budget?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There's always a small amount of Professional Services in here. Again, this is

the federal program that we administer on behalf of the federal government for

the federal gas tax, so a very small amount, as you can see, of the overall

budget. There were no consulting services required last year. These are

frequently around financial matters and so on.

There

were none required last year. In terms of this year, we just – I jumped to the

wrong line. I apologize for that. In terms of this year, the $20,000 is just a

requirement for lower consulting services.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Minister and Deputy Minister. That's all I have.

CLERK:

3.1.01 through 3.4.04

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 3.1.01 to 3.4.04

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

Carried.

motion, subheads 3.1.01 through 3.4.04 carried.

CHAIR:

We're going to take a short

break. We'll return at 8 p.m. sharp.

Recess

CLERK:

Environmental Management and

Control, 4.1.01 through 4.3.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Okay, we'll start off with

you, Jordan.

MR. BROWN:

This will be going to Jim

there now.

CHAIR:

Okay, Jim.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much, I

appreciate that.

CHAIR:

4.1.01 to 4.3.01.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, 4.1.01 and I'm just

going to start off with regard to Salaries, the decrease in the 2018-19 budget

and then the increase in the budget this year. Were there job vacancies

accounting for the reduced spending?

MS. DEMPSTER:

The $118,200 reflects salary

costs due to a recruitment period for vacant positions and then the increase of

$8,600 reflects salary step increases.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much,

Minister.

Before

I go on, I do want to say thank you very much to you and your staff for coming

here tonight. I don't know if it was any indication when I came in the weekend,

all the cars that were outside, I'm assuming there were people here preparing

for budget briefings this week, so thank you very much. The unsung heroes who

make the officials like us look good.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yeah, that's right.

MR. J. DINN:

I'm looking now under

Transportation and Communications actually, could you give me a breakdown of

what's involved with that? 4.1.01.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Are you looking at the

decreased (inaudible)?

MR. J. DINN:

No, actually I'm just

looking at the – not the decrease, I'm just trying to get an idea of what's

involved with Transportation and Communications.

MS. DEMPSTER:

What's involved? Okay. I'll

let the controller of the department answer that.

MS. HAYES:

We have an allocation of

$17,800 for our office phones with Bell Aliant. We also have another $3,200 for

our Bell Mobility cell phones. We have an allocation of $3,600 for couriers and

freight and then we have travel for our 20 staff of $44,400.

MR. J. DINN:

Of $4,400?

MS. HAYES:

$44,400.

MR. J. DINN:

What would that travel be

involved with?

MS. HAYES:

It would be various travel

for industrial air monitoring audits; monitoring maintenance; industrial and

waste management inspections; federal pesticide inspections; federal,

provincial, territorial meetings; different agreements including the Canadian

Council of Ministers of Environment and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency;

stakeholder meetings; et cetera.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, thank you very much.

You

said monitoring, maintenance, and that would be maintenance of provincial sites?

MS. HAYES:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

With

regard to Supplies, I noticed that there was a decrease in the 2018-2019 budget

down to $6,900; it's actually brought back up now, the budget for this year is

$12,900 for Supplies. What would that be?

MS. HAYES:

The decrease was revised for

(inaudible) office and NAP station supplies.

MR. J. DINN:

Sorry, office and what?

MS. HAYES:

Nap, N-A-P.

MR. J. DINN:

NAP and that stands for? I

know I enjoy naps but I'm just curious as to what this means.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

It's National Air Pollution

monitoring stations located throughout the province.

MR. J. DINN:

Where would they be located?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

There are six or seven

located in the province. There's one in downtown St. John's, one in Mount Pearl,

Port au Choix, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Marystown.

MR. J. DINN:

Would that be some of the

funding that's used in the monitoring and maintenance for the travel fund,

monitoring and maintaining those sites?

MR. MICHIELSEN:

Yeah, there's an employee

who goes around and calibrates and monitors and changes out equipment. It's part

of the federal-provincial agreement. They pay for the equipment. We pay for the

operator and maintenance.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, that would be

reflected in the Transportation and Communications line then, right? Okay.

Professional Services, I was looking at a few questions there with regard to

what it's used for, but in terms of Professional Services there's been a notable

decline. In 2018-2019, it jumped from $518,000 to $736,000 just about, and now

it's budgeted this year at $18,000. That's a significant variance.

MS. DEMPSTER:

A couple of things there. A

decrease of $500,000 reflects forecasted funding adjustment for cleanup of

former mid-Canada line military sites, and that's under a pending

federal-provincial agreement and there's an increase of $217,000 that reflects

cost for environmental assessment. The amount is higher than what had been

projected. The same thing in the next one, the increase of $213,000 revised

reflects higher costs for environmental assessment.

MR. J. DINN:

That would be environmental

assessment, Minister, of those military sites or just …?

MS. DEMPSTER:

No, those two would be

directly – Jamie can correct me – related to the Marystown Shipyard? Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, so just to make sure,

the $213,000 for the assessment of the Marystown Shipyard, for what needs to be

cleaned up there, in other words?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

If you could, the Marystown

Shipyard, was that provincially owned, privately owned?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'll let Jamie speak to the

details.

MR. CHIPPETT:

It's privately owned but the

province operated it through a Crown corporation years ago. So, any

environmental liability on the site, up to 1997, is the government's

responsibility. So the purpose of the site assessments that we're talking about

were to try to quantify the provincial liability with respect to the Marystown

Shipyard.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, before it was sold

more or less?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

So is there any interest in

recouping part of that from the new owner?

MR. CHIPPETT:

There is no new owner that

we're aware of yet. Discussions, I think, continue along that front. So we

haven't been apprised of that reaching a conclusion at this point.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay, I'm just wondering,

eventually when there is a new owner, and if it's a private owner, would there

be some attempt to recoup the assessments since there's a benefit to them?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I would just say from the

perspective of the polluter-pay principle, it would be difficult to recoup

things that related to the government's liability from 1997 and before.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

I'm

looking here under the description of Pollution Prevention, it talks about

dealing with environmental emergencies, pesticides and contaminated sites. I'm

just wondering, with regard to standards, does this include standards around the

use of therapeutic chemicals in aquaculture for treating ISA and sea lice,

things like that? Would you be responsible for that as well in this department?

MS. SQUIRES:

Any pesticides used in

industry have to be a regulated and approved pesticide. What the Pollution

Prevention division does is do the applicator's licensing for pesticides.

Fisheries and Land Resources also does some approvals and they would be required

to adhere to both provincial and federal legislation for aquaculture sites.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. So your department

would have a limited amount of input into that?

MS. SQUIRES:

We would have, yeah, input in the sense of training applicators – for licensing

applicators.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. You would be training

the applicators, and who would these –

MS. SQUIRES:

And licensing, in some

cases.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay. Who would be doing the

applications and the training? Not the training, but who would be – when you say

the applicators, would they be employed by the government or by the company?

MS. SQUIRES:

Not by the government. The

Pollution Prevention division assists with training industry. So there is a

requirement to apply for a licence and get one; if you're a lawn company, for

example, wanting to apply a pesticide.

MR. J. DINN:

So that's the service we

provide to these industries. Do we get that money back from them for the

services we provide?

MS. SQUIRES:

There are fees for

applications.

MR. J. DINN:

Excellent, that's even

better again.

I do

have another question but I'm going to leave it there and come back. It's going

to take a little bit longer than eight seconds.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Jim.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you once again for

coming and willing to answer our questions.

Just

while it's fresh in my mind; in reference to the pesticide jurisdictional, I

guess, oversight, would that not be under the federal department? Because it is

in an offshore water, it's not in an inland water. I'm very familiar with the

agricultural component of pesticide regulation and applicator's training and

licensing but I wasn't aware that the aquaculture industry was governed by the

same.

MS. SQUIRES:

There's an MOU with the

provincial government from the federal government to manage the oversight of

pesticides and do the licence applications, but the federal government does play

a significant role, of course, in aquaculture and pesticide use, as does the

Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. LESTER:

It seems to be a very – is

there like an exact definition as to who is responsible for what? It seems from

my understanding that the department is responsible for training the applicators

but the enforcement would fall under the federal jurisdiction. Is that correct?

MS. SQUIRES:

I think maybe a little bit

more broad than that. There are multiple roles. So, for example, veterinarians

with the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources would also govern the amount

of pesticides applied in aquaculture projects.

certainly, would be my understanding, is a conversation between what the

veterinarians feel is required and what, of course, the pesticide application

allows for.

MR. MICHIELSEN:

I'm just speaking because I

was in a previous role there as well.

The MOU

with the federal government is for inspections under the federal regulations.

The pesticide, the approval of the products, which products can be used is

federal jurisdiction. So there's actually revenue – you would notice some

revenue under the Pollution Prevention. They actually pay the Pollution

Prevention division pesticide inspectors to do inspections at the aquaculture

facilities on behalf of Health Canada.

MR. LESTER:

Does the department actually

do any monitoring of residual build up in non-targeted species or native species

or products within the environment around these sites?

MS. SQUIRES:

We would expect that

pesticide applicators would apply the pesticide as required by the instructions

on the pesticide, but I'm not aware that we do any sort of testing as you've

described.

MR. LESTER:

Pesticides never disappear,

they just get smaller and smaller in quantities. Once we continue to apply them

over and over again at higher doses we will get that kind of a build up in our

environment. I think that would be a very important action to start to undertake

to prevent this build up and possible resistance by the pests that we are

applying it to.

reference to the outdated or antiquated pesticide collection, is that

administered through this department?

MS. SQUIRES:

The collection of outdated

pesticides is a hazardous material or a waste product you mean?

MR. LESTER:

Yeah, I can remember myself,

actually, dropping off products that the label had come off it and was an

outlawed chemical at the time because of different legislative changes. Is that

still administered by the department, or is that a federal responsibility as

well?

MS. SQUIRES:

Work is completed in part

through the MMSB, and waste would have to be managed in a manner that adheres to

the hazardous waste or particular waste stream associated with that product.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Pollution Prevention, okay,

section 4.1.01. In regard to Pollution Prevention,

I've asked questions on the plastic bag ban in the House. Do we have a defined

implementation date and goals set out within the department to accomplish this?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We don't have a specific implementation date. We do know that the next step in

the process – of course, you're aware, we amended the legislation. The next step

is to bring in a regulation. So we hope to have the regulation in place before

the end of the summer.

One of

the things that will be covered in that will be the implementation date, and

primary consideration around that is really giving retailers, in particular,

time enough to use up some of their existing stock.

MR. LESTER:

So the regulations that are in development, will the public, or we, as

Opposition, be privy to those before they come into force or will it be just

brought forward in legislation that we vote on in the House?

MS. DEMPSTER:

We actually went out with consultations, and I think I mentioned in the House

that day, we had over 3,000 responses, which was higher than anything we've gone

out with before, even in areas of health and like that. The questions in the

consultation process were pretty direct and detailed, giving opportunity to the

general public to come back to us with recommendations on how they wanted that

to proceed.

Now as

we work through the regulations – as I mentioned, there's no reason why people

can't stop or reduce their use of plastic already; but, to implement it

overnight, potentially that could have an impact on small businesses and rural

communities. So it's important that we have this little transition period, I

believe.

MR. LESTER:

In light of the federal government's recent announcement regarding the

single-use plastics, is this government considering it as well, or will we wait

and see what happens federally?

MS. DEMPSTER:

We're certainly sitting at a FPT table for ministers working toward a zero

plastic strategy. So, no doubt, as we become more aware of the implications of

climate change and the adaptation and mitigation piece, then we will be – it's a

global problem, but everybody has a role to play, and we'll certainly be

encouraging the reduction of plastics. That's the direction we're moving in.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

reference to the assessment and actual physical clean up of the Marystown

Shipyard, what is the total, either spent or projected, for the completion of

this project?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Under Professional Services

here in 4.1.01, the $217,000 and the $213,000 would be what has been spent to

date.

MR. LESTER:

Do we have a budgetary

figure as to what it would cost to complete?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The environmental site

assessments that we've referenced throughout point to a cost of about $1.4

million.

MR. LESTER:

Will there be any efforts to

recoup this cost through the private sale? Will this appear as a lien to recoup

in sale?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Well, I guess the deputy has

explained to the Member for St. John's Centre earlier if somebody is looking for

a sale, they're not really going to have an appetite to pay for an expenditure

that they don't feel is theirs, right, if you go by the builder pays. That was a

government responsibility up to 1997.

MR. LESTER:

I guess I'll probably call

it there for right now.

CHAIR:

Okay, the other Jim.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much, Chair.

I just

want to carry on with 4.1.01. I want to pick up on an observation by my

colleague with regard to pesticides and chemical treatments in aquaculture. I'm

asking this because I understand when it comes to Municipal Affairs EIS

regulations it's usually your department that administers that, that appeals of

any decision go. I know with regard to Grieg aquaculture and Marine Harvest,

primarily that's where the appeals went for this.

I see

there pesticides and contaminated sites. I know there have been some documents

and some articles lately that demonstrate the negative effects on shellfish and

that of salmon aquaculture, open sea-pen aquaculture sites, especially related

to the use of chemical treatments for sea lice and ISA. I'm just trying to

think, what would the role of your department be in monitoring and preventing

that, in monitoring the use of chemicals? Or would that, again, more fall under

the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Land Resources?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'm going to defer to staff

in a moment but you did mention Grieg at the opening. I will say that I believe

they have gone through an extremely stringent environmental assessment process.

When that project was released from EIS, it was released with quite a number of

conditions that they have to meet and will have to, at the release, meet, but

also meet at various stages throughout the project.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Our involvement, primarily, would be through the Environmental Assessment

Division, and depending on, what I'll call the level of assessment that is

happening for a given project, we would be responsible, for example, if there's

an environmental impact statement for setting the guidelines for how that

assessment would be conducted and what information the proponent would provide.

Obviously, different projects require different levels of assessment. Generally,

an aquaculture project going through an environmental assessment process would

be treated exactly the same as any other project in terms of the amount of time

for public consultation, the amount of time, for example, the department would

have to prepare guidelines and the amount of time the minister would have in

making a decision after public review periods have closed. All of those things

would be the same.

Obviously, depending on any particular project, whether it be aquaculture or

otherwise, the issues assessed would be different. If you're at those higher

stages of assessment, we would have the role of coordinating feedback from all

government departments and agencies to inform guidelines for those assessments.

MR. J. DINN:

Before I go on I do have to clarify something, Minister, though you weren't

minister at the time. Grieg aquaculture – measures were only in effect after a

judicial challenge was launched and then subsequently upheld. Grieg did not do

it on its own. I might say the department, at that time, fell down on its job as

well in monitoring that.

With

regard to the stringent measures, there's been some question as to whether

they're stringent or not by a number of environmental groups. My concern is with

the health of the wild Atlantic salmon population, which also provides a lot of

money to the economy. I think the fact is that the 7-million-or-so fish that are

proposed by Grieg will produce as much waste as the entire population of

Newfoundland and Labrador in a year.

I'm

just trying to get an idea with regard to the cleanup around those sites, on the

seabed. Would your department be responsible for the monitoring of that or would

you depend again on the good stewardship of Grieg to do that?

MS. SQUIRES:

You're referring to the

marine pens themselves?

MR. J. DINN:

I am indeed, yes.

MS. SQUIRES:

The process of selecting a

site for the marine pens, and the amount of time the marine pens are allowed in

a particular location, is governed under the

Aquaculture Activity Regulations by

the Department of Fisheries and Land Resources. There's a requirement to study

the (inaudible) habitat prior to the cage being put in place and ongoing

throughout. My understanding is there's a limit to how much waste can be on the

sea floor at a given time, but that's certainly advice we would receive from the

Department of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. J. DINN:

Those reports would be

available I take it. Well, you wouldn't be able to tell me that but I guess they

would be for public knowledge.

MS. SQUIRES:

There's certainly a

requirement to provide that in an environmental impact statement.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

I would

like to move to the Tata mine that's outside Schefferville. Recently – actually,

as of today – there have been reddish waters around these facilities. Tata mines

has been targeted for poor environmental practices at one of its mine dump

sites.

If I am

to understand correctly, the residents of the Innu community of Matimekush-Lac

John have raised concerns. The community actually launched a complaint with

Environment Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on May 18,

but have heard nothing about it since. That's around the time of the election we

just finished up. I'm curious as to what is the status of the investigation into

this spill or this reddish water. If the investigation is ongoing, what will be

the expected completion date?

MS. SQUIRES:

Yes, there is some concern

of what is commonly referred to as red water at the Tata site, which we

understand to be water that has a high iron content or level of iron content. We

have an agreement with Service NL, an MOU with Service NL, and they respond to

spills. They can be anything from a litter problem to a diesel spill. Through

the national emergency response line we were notified of the red water issue.

Staff

from Service NL and staff from Municipal Affairs and Environment, as well as

from Natural Resources in the Mines Branch there have visited the site. They've

identified concerns with the settling pond there and some snowbanks that cause

overfill of the settling ponds that normally prevent red water from leaking out.

They've identified some remediation work that has to be conducted this summer.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

The

services that we provide from the personnel, would that be recouped from the

mine, the cost of those services that we're providing for examining the settling

ponds?

MS. SQUIRES:

We have a fee as it relates

to approvals, but not necessarily every site visit.

MR. J. DINN:

I like to think there has

been a lot of talk about P3s. I like to look at this as P3s in reverse and

charge the private polluters for the costs instead of the taxpayer paying for

it, and that's where I'm going with that bit. I think if we're visiting a

company that's not exercising due diligence or environmental sound practices,

rather than the taxpayers pay for the visit, the airfare, whatever, then it

should be collected from the offender. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Thank

you very much for that. I'm going to go on – a few quick questions, just

generally. Has the Hopedale radar site remediation been completed?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I know we had moved forward

with a considerable amount of remediation. The minister referenced earlier that

the Professional Services budget had decreased because we were working on a

federal-provincial agreement. The hope is that not only some of the remaining

work to be done in Hopedale but also, on a number of other military radar sites

that the province took responsibility for some years ago, would be covered under

this new federal-provincial agreement.

MR. J. DINN:

Is it possible to have an

update on those sites, on the other site assessments and their cleanup then? I

guess I'd tie this into the next one as to what cleanup plans do you have for

2019? I guess that sort of dovetails nicely from what you just said.

MR. CHIPPETT:

We can certainly provide a

list of those sites and the site assessments that have been completed. This

summer past, because we still hadn't finished the federal-provincial agreement,

we did proceed, as did the federal government, in doing some additional site

assessments. We can certainly provide an update on the list of sites that we're

responsible for and any assessments that have been done.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you very much.

Quick

question – actually, no, I'm going to turn it back to my colleague and I'll come

back to this.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Mr. Lester.

MR. LESTER:

Section 4.2.01, Water Resources Management, would you be able to provide an

update as to how many communities are currently under a boil water advisory?

MS. DEMPSTER:

It's around 200.

MR. LESTER:

Around 200. And of the 200, what portion of our population does that represent?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I don't think we have that. You'd have to look at the communities and the

population of each community.

MR. LESTER:

All right.

Of the

200, is there a long-term plan to reduce this number, or is this a perpetual

number?

MS. DEMPSTER:

We certainly have a trend down. The numbers of boil orders are being reduced.

I'll let Jamie speak to it in more detail. I, myself, have been asking a lot of

question about this since I've been in the department, and there are all kinds

of reasons why communities could be on boil orders. We have some communities out

there that are on a boil water advisory because they don't want to chlorinate.

They don't want to spend the money on chlorination, for example, like a small

local service district or something. So then that would be the choice of that

community.

MR. CHIPPETT:

The province, in 2001, instituted a multi-barrier strategic action plan around

drinking water. And there was a lot of action across the country at the time,

because, of course, that would've been the year that the tragedy occurred in

Walkerton. At that time we had about 300 boil water advisories. So that's the

trend the minister speaks to.

Of that

200, there's approximately half – give or take on any given day, because the

number changes fairly regularly – where there are boil water advisories in place

because of issues that the municipality could control. So it might be the amount

of chlorine they put in the water; it might be if they chlorinate or not.

trying to work with municipalities in terms of getting them to institute certain

practices to reduce the boil water advisories is one of the things we do. And we

also have staff who travel to the different regions of the province in a mobile

training unit to actually provide training on site with the municipalities. In

some instances, the other boil water advisories, for example, are perhaps

infrastructure fixes or so on.

There

is a whole list of initiatives that we pursue, along with the training. Another

one, for example, with the regional service board is a pilot for the regional

service board to hire a water operator that works in a series of small

communities to provide that capacity where there was no capacity before. Like a

lot of the things we've talked about today, the capacity is very different

across the municipal spectrum but, obviously, we'd like to have that number

lower and that's some of the things we're …

MR. LESTER:

So is there a difference

between a boil water order versus advisory, or is it all encompassed between

advisory?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I mean there's a boil water

advisory that normally pertains to you need to do something different with your

water, boil it or what have you, but then I think there are non-consumption

advisories. You tend to see those when a municipal water supply has elevated

levels, for example, of certain metals like arsenic or lead.

MR. LESTER:

So boiling the water would

remove those?

MR. CHIPPETT:

No, not in those instances.

In terms of bacteriological issues, obviously boiling water would deal with

those issues. In terms of whether they're naturally occurring elements, like the

metals we talked about or by-products of chlorination, boiling won't do it. You

normally need some kind of infrastructure fix on the community level or in terms

of the individual households or what have you.

MR. LESTER:

Can you provide an update on

the progress made with flood risk mapping in the past year? Do you do flood risk

mapping for municipalities or is it just provincial lands?

MR. CHIPPETT:

We do them based on

watersheds usually. For example, in recent years we've done the Waterford area,

so that would take in multiple municipalities. Normally, it's a large scale than

just one community, but it often covers communities. There was a whole risk of

flood risk maps done I think it was in the '80s and early '90s. A lot of those

are now being updated. We're specifically in the middle of flood risk mapping

projects for Lower Churchill and that came out of the independent report that

was done on the flood there in 2017, and we're doing flood risk mapping on the

Exploits and in Humber Valley.

MR. LESTER:

Okay.

Would

you have done flood risk mapping for the Long Pond basin here along Prince

Philip Parkway?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Not in the recent set that I

talked about in terms of being upgraded, but I know the city is doing flood-risk

mapping to inform certain projects that they're undertaking. For example,

there's a proposal to build a weir at the end of Long Pond, as an example. As a

part of that, through an environmental assessment process, the city is doing

flood-risk mapping for that area.

MR. LESTER:

In reference to the waste water treatment requirements imposed by the federal

government, how many of our communities will not meet those requirements by

2020?

MR. CHIPPETT:

I don't have a specific number because there are, as you know, three tiers of

risk; 2020 is the lowest tier of risk.

A large

number of our municipalities are still engaged or starting to engage in

monitoring. There's a threshold at which you're exempt or you don't have to go

through that process. So there are a large number of communities who are engaged

in that process. There are some communities who have temporary authorizations.

That's a step in the federal regulation until you get to meeting compliance.

We know

there are a large number – the biggest risk is associated with fresh water.

We've largely funded projects through infrastructure to deal with most of the

waste water treatment plants that would be discharging in freshwater.

MR. LESTER:

Will our department be speaking on behalf of those communities that do not meet

these requirements by 2020 and ask for extra time from the feds? I understand

their clerks are under the gun.

MS. DEMPSTER:

We'll certainly do what we can to support the communities that we're working

with in the province, absolutely.

MR. LESTER:

But as far as additional funding from the province, that is not on the table as

of right now. Is that correct?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Are you speaking to the ability to meet the infrastructure requirement?

MR. LESTER:

Yes, I am.

MR. CHIPPETT:

Okay.

The

Investing in Canada Plan that the minister had spoke to earlier, which is the

$550 million federal investment that would leverage, I think, a total project

value of $1.3 billion, the green stream of that agreement is about $309 million.

So, there's a significant budgetary investment in that over the next 10 years,

and with the cost-shared ratios being 90-10, there's certainly good opportunity

there for municipalities to apply and pursue infrastructure so they can be

compliant with the regulations.

MR. LESTER:

Just a couple of quick

questions, line by line.

Section

4.2.01, Professional Services, there was $620,000 less in this budget versus

last year. What did this $620,000 include?

MS. DEMPSTER:

That decrease reflects

partial completion, the $1 million flood-risk mapping and flood forecasting for

Mud Lake, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the Lower Churchill River. It was offset by

budget reprofile of funding for hydrometric climate program stations in

Churchill Falls and Mud Lake. There's a purchased service to reflect consulting

requirements there.

I don't

know if Jamie wants to add anything to that.

MR. CHIPPETT:

With the change in the new

procurement legislation, some of the services that we normally paid for under

Professional or Purchased Services changed where they should be accounted for.

That was the reprofiling the minister spoke of; moved from one heading to the

other, just based on that change. That again was another recommendation of the

independent report on the Mud Lake flood to have more monitoring stations on the

Lower Churchill.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Mr. Dinn.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Chair.

I might

be asking you a question or two that might seem repetitive but I do want to

clarify. I do want to start though, Mr. Chippett, you talked about the

flood-risk mapping and you said in the Waterford area.

Are you

talking about the Waterford River or the site of the new Waterford Hospital?

MR. CHIPPETT:

The Waterford River.

MR. J. DINN:

Okay.

Has

there been flood mapping done for the site outside the new Waterford Hospital or

the new mental health facility, sorry?

MR. CHIPPETT:

Similar to the response I

provided on the Long Pond area, that project – because flood management

infrastructure is a trigger under the environmental assessment process, the

proposal for the berm is going through the environmental assessment process. As

a part of that, the proponent, the Department of Transportation and Works, was

required to do flood-risk mapping around that area.

MR. J. DINN:

So with the proposed site

and the extension of the berm, I'm assuming that the flood-risk mapping would

include the extended berm. Would that have been done?

MR. CHIPPETT:

In fact, yes, in the middle

of the assessment the berm was registered, and I think that's actually the

reason we went for further assessment on it. It had initially been a

registration, which is the initial level of environmental assessment, but with

the changes, the minister at the time required an environmental preview report

and that includes the extended berm.

MR. J. DINN:

And that report is

available?

MS. SQUIRES:

Yes, the report is

available. Each project that goes through environmental assessment has a

dedicated page and that's there. As well, as Jamie alluded to, we went as far as

revising the guidelines for this project so it encompassed the change for the

new mental health facility.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

I'm

looking in terms of mitigation here with this next question, and I know that

when I attended a public consultation meeting when the original berm was being

constructed, and I forget the engineering firm that was doing the presentation

at the time, it will come to me, but at that time there was considerable concern

by, I think it was Ann Browne with the university, that the new core science

facility was now at risk of flooding, flood damage with the berm that was being

considered at the time. That's a multi-million dollar facility.

I'm

just curious now, as to flood mapping and considering that we've now extended

the berm and we had seen the possibility of where the flooding might go, have

those concerns been allayed or what mitigation measures are going to be in place

to protect a brand new facility?

MS. SQUIRES:

Part of the reason this

project has been in assessment for a number of years is to try to get at some of

the questions that you've raised. The proponent originally submitted just the

berm on the hospital side of that wetland area. We required them to complete and

show the impacts of the displacement of the water that would result from that

berm, both under one in 20 and one in 100 storm scenarios, but also adding

climate change and a 30 per cent sensitivity ratio. So we have four sets of

flood-risk maps for that berm.

Because

of the identified impact of the berm and where that water is displaced, their

most recent submission looks at that and actually proposes a berm on the Prince

Philip Parkway side of that wetland area. So, not the side closest to the

hospital, the side closer to the CBC building, for example, and wrapping around

Clinch Crescent to be on the opposite side of the road as the science building

to contain the water from going on to the Parkway and the area of the science

building.

MR. J. DINN:

If I may, I guess what we're doing is, to counteract the effects of the berm on

one side, we're building a berm on the other side, instead of maybe moving the

hospital to up north of the current site. If you look at any natural river, as

I've been doing, the way the flooding in a natural river takes place is far from

what takes place inside of a city because we constrict.

I just

can't help but think, looking at the amount of money that's going to be going

into this, if we – the whole purpose of wetlands would be sort of a natural

mitigation, all that, but it looks like we're now adding a third berm to take

care of the extended berm.

MS. SQUIRES:

If I could clarify that.

MR. J. DINN:

Sure.

MS. SQUIRES:

The area that was flooded – if we think of, for example, Igor in 2008, there was

water on a significant portion of the Prince Philip Parkway, as well as up to

the Health Sciences Centre. Pre-any conversation of berm, there certainly was

flooding and there would be flooding in the area of the Core Science building,

the Prince Philip Parkway and the Health Sciences Centre.

The

berm, in and of itself, does not cause that level of flooding. The proposed two

berms work together to actually lower, even under a low storm scenario of 1 in

20, less flooding on the Parkway and near the Science building.

MR. J. DINN:

No and I understand that. My point is that in the development of the river, the

straightening of the river that used to go there and the increasing development

around that river, what we've actually done is we've eliminated the methods by

which water is absorb