PDF Version

May 5, 2022

RESOURCE COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Lela Evans, MHA for Torngat Mountains,

substitutes for Jordan Brown, MHA for Labrador West.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Tom Osborne, MHA for Waterford Valley,

substitutes for Paul Pike, MHA for Burin - Grand Bank.

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

Buchans, substitutes for Pleaman Forsey, MHA for Exploits, for a portion of the

meeting

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

Clair, substitutes for Lucy Stoyles, MHA for Mount Pearl North.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, John Abbott, MHA for St. John's East - Quidi

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

CHAIR (Warr):

Good Morning.

We will finally get this under way. Anyway, great to have the department here

this morning and to our Committee as well. We are a little short, but they will

be trickling in momentarily.

My name is Brian Warr, MHA for Baie Verte - Green Bay, and I am happy to chair

your meeting this morning. So before we get under way, I just wanted to announce

our substitutions. Sitting in for the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's is the

Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi; substituting for the Member for Mount

Pearl is the MHA for Cartwright - L'Anse Au Clair; substituting for the Member

for Burin - Grand Bank is the Member for Waterford Valley.

MHA Forsey is here to deal with WorkplaceNL and he will be substituted by Chris

Tibbs, MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans once he is finished workplace

health and safety. Substituting for the Member for Labrador West is the Member

for Torngat Mountains.

We will have an unaffiliated Member come in shortly. MHA Trimper is going to

join us this morning. So as we have done in the past, two of the Committee

Members will offer MHA Trimper some time at the end, 10 minutes, if everybody is

in agreement.

With regard to the department, always identify yourself. Just put up your hand.

If the minister decides for someone to speak, just put up your hand, identify

yourself, wait for your tally light

to come on and proceed with

your remarks.

We'll

probably take, if necessary, a washroom break maybe halfway through. Members and

officials are reminded not to make any adjustments to the chairs they're seated

in; they've been all preprogrammed. So anyway, before we start, we're going to

look at the minutes for May 3, and I look for a mover of acceptance for those

minutes.

C. PARDY:

So moved.

CHAIR:

MHA Pardy.

Seconder? MHA Forsey.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Contra-minded?

Motion

passed.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR:

So this morning we're going

to consider the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Climate Change,

and we will be starting off with workplace health and safety. I'm going to ask

the Committee Members to introduce themselves, and we'll go to the department

after.

C. PARDY:

Craig Pardy, MHA, the

historic District of Bonavista.

B. RUSSELL:

Brad Russell, Director of Communications and Digital Strategy with the Office of

the Official Opposition.

P. FORSEY:

Pleaman Forsey, MHA for

Exploits.

L. EVANS:

Lela Evans, MHA for Torngat

Mountains.

S. KENT:

Steven Kent, Sessional Political Support for the Third Party.

J. PUDDISTER:

Jess Puddister, Sessional Support for the Third Party Caucus Office.

S. PRITCHETT:

Sonja Pritchett, Research Coordinator, Government Members' Office.

CHAIR:

And if I could start here,

please.

V. SNOW:

Valerie Snow, Deputy Minister, Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Bernard Davis, Minister of

Environment and Climate Change, and representative of the beautiful and historic

District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. STEELE:

Bonnie Steele, Departmental Controller, Environment and Climate Change.

D. MARNELL:

Debbie Marnell, Director of Communications.

S. SQUIRES:

Susan Squires, Assistant

Deputy Minister of the Climate Change branch.

T. KELLY:

Tara Kelly, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment branch.

H. KHAN:

Haseen Khan, Director of Water Resources.

R. LOCKE:

Robert Locke, I'm the Director for Pollution Prevention.

K. CONNORS:

Kara Connors, Minister Davis's EA.

V. WOODWORTH-LYNAS:

Victoria Woodworth-Lynas, Director of Policy, Planning and Natural Areas.

CHAIR:

Okay. Welcome to you all.

If I

could have the Clerk call the first set of subheads, please.

CLERK (Hammond):

Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Review, 6.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 6.1.01 carry?

Some

opening remarks from the minister.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, I'll

take about an hour and half just to answer all your questions. In advance of

them, we went through Hansard and

answered every question that you could possibly answer, we hope.

But I

do want to say a big thank you for the third opportunity to host our Estimates

here in this hallowed hall. But the big thanks go to the people behind me and

the many people that are over in the department that did all this work three

times now to try to be prepared for this. So thank you to the staff. I'm lucky

enough to have the best staff in all of government supporting what we are able

to do in this department.

thank you and good morning to everybody for being here today. I'm excited to do

the Estimates for Environment and Climate Change. I'm also the minister

responsible for labour and the Labour Relations Board, as well as the Labour

Standards Division. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division as

well, we're going to do that to kick off the Estimates today.

But I'm

also responsible for some entities like the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board,

WorkplaceNL, and the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council.

I'll

begin by highlighting some of the activities of the Department of Environment

and Climate Change. As a department, we've focused on supporting environmental

protection and enhancement through implementing water resource and pollution

prevention regulations and policies and coordination of environmental impact

assessments.

Our

Climate Change Division focuses on developing strategies, policies, research,

analysis and initiatives related to climate change adaptation and mitigation, as

well as efficiency.

It has

been a wonderful learning opportunity to see how the department engages with

stakeholders, organizations in support of environmental protection. Their work

results in better outcomes from an environmental protection perspective in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and I've seen first-hand as a minister how the

knowledgeable and dedicated staff in the department are advancing environmental

and climate change actions within the province.

The

Climate Change Action Plan and green economy is one of our pillars. Protecting

the environment for future generations is a priority of our government. We

continue to support Canada's goals for environmental protection and reducing

carbon emissions, including achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. We all have a

part to play when it comes to climate change. Every action we take today makes a

difference tomorrow. Urgent effort is needed to meet our 2030 and 2050

greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and we're making progress, but we know

much more needs to be done.

2019, the Climate Change Action Plan set out a course for immediate steps for

green energy and the economy. This five-year plan is working toward net-zero

emissions by 2050 and we know additional actions will be needed, as I've

mentioned earlier. Of the 45 action items committed in the Climate Change Action

Plan, 67 per cent of those have been completed; 33 per cent we've made

significant progress on.

It's

not just an effort of our department but it involves 11 other departments and

agencies within government. We continue to work to advance the actions of the

Climate Change Action Plan and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by

2050, implementing programs that support transition to low-carbon global

economy.

The

federal government has also played a role in moving us towards the green

economy. We are continuing to pursue opportunities to partner with our federal

colleagues on opportunities that benefit Newfoundland and Labrador. The Low

Carbon Economy Leadership Fund is one of those partnerships. Through this

federal program fund, with partnership with the provincial government, we've

invested some $89.4 million over the past five-year period to tackle climate

change and lower energy bills to support clean, economic growth in the province.

Under this fund, we have some great projects that receive

funding in the province. By 2030, these programs and funds, organizations that

we've funded, will deliver over 830,000 tons of cumulative greenhouse gas

reductions and over 650 person-years of employment.

To date, we've invested $78 million to support greenhouse

gas reduction projects. There's more to come from a residential standpoint,

commercial, transportation and industrial sectors and public buildings as well.

For example, we made a recent announcement for fuel switching at Memorial

University to change out the oil-fired burners to electrifying those. This will

be a significant part of our electrification and will help stimulate clean

growth.

We've also put talk into action with respect to the

electric vehicle programs and oil to electric, and I'll talk about those for a

quick second. We provided support to residents, both reducing greenhouse

emissions and, as I mentioned before, to reduce their energy consumption as well

as their energy bills and costs.

We announced an addition $1.9 million in this budget for

electric vehicle charging infrastructure and incentives, including $2,500 for

consumers to purchase or lease an electric vehicle and $1,500 towards those

plug-in hybrid vehicles. These initiatives is an expansion of the successful

program that we had last year.

In the end of 2021, there was 284 battery electric vehicles

operated in the province, up from 195 in 2020 and 113 in 2019. The demand for

electric vehicles continues to grow and it's anticipated there will be hundreds

more involved in the province by the end of 2022.

In addition, we've also announced an addition $2 million to

transition homes whose sole source of heat was oil to electric. This program

will provide an additional $2,500 to the last year's $2,500 program to $5,000 in

this year's budget. This initiative is expanding on our program from last year

and last year we had 100 applicants. So far this year we've received somewhere

around 140 in the first four weeks of the program. So that's an impressive

increase and we're very happy with that.

We've also increased the eligibility for the Home Energy

Savings Program, which is the oil program, to increase the threshold from

$32,500 to $52,500, which is going to finish out that program and help alleviate

some concerns for some more people in this province. The eligible homes are

single-family homes, row, or semi-detached houses. That's a non-repayable grant

for up to $5,000 to help energy efficiency. So all of those things are working

in concert together.

In December of 2021, we announced the membership for the

new Net-Zero Advisory Council.

This is

only the second one of its kind in the country. This council will identify and

review near-term and foundational actions that the government can make to help

Newfoundland and Labrador on a stronger path to achieve greenhouse gas emission

reduction targets. The council will also advise on global trends to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and the important use of carbon sinks, which is

important for our province, for sure.

Each member of the council brings their own perspective on

net-zero challenges and I'm thankful for their contributions and we're looking

forward to hearing their advice. The opinions expressed by these individuals are

their own and does not reflect the advice or conclusions of the council.

We continue to work and advance our Climate Change Action

Plan implementing programs and supports the transition for low-carbon global

economy. We continue to support improvements and access to drinking water and

waste water systems in the province and have regulatory programs dedicated to

ensuring we continue to have some of the cleanest water and air in our country.

I'm pleased to say that the work is progressing very well

towards the final public release of the Drinking Water Safety Action Plan.

Public consultations have been completed and the department is the final stage

of drafting that plan. The safety of public drinking water supplies and reducing

the number of long-term boil water advisories is a top priority for us.

Just recently the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs and I announced almost $250,000 to continue the regional Water and

Wastewater Operator program here in our province. This program is focused on

building local capacity and knowledge for the delivery of water services. Under

this program, regional operators work with communities to address the challenges

associated with operating and monitoring modern drinking water and waste water

systems.

With

waste water in mind, I'd like to mention that we are continuing the COVID-19

waste water surveillance program. Samples will continue to be sent to the

National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, which they undertake the analysis

and the provincial government is committed to making waste water data available

to the public through the dashboard that we have on our website. That same

information will also be provided to Health and Community Services for decision

making. And anything we can do that's going to try to be critical indicators and

potential early warning signs, we want to maintain.

With

respect to early warning signs, the Department Environment and Climate Change

also has a mandate to undertake flood risk mapping under the

Water Resources Act in order to

minimize flood damage in flood prone areas and communities. Flood risk mapping

is an important tool for governments and communities in terms of land

development, infrastructure investment and sustainability. Through provincial

and federal funding for climate change adaptation, flood risk mapping studies

are being updated and new ones undertaken using climate change forecasts.

It is

critical to update flood risk mapping on a regular basis in order to protect

public safety and effectively adapt to impacts with respect to climate change.

This will allow municipalities to both plan for current and future climate

conditions and minimize the damage to property, infrastructure and as a result

cost savings over time.

With

our Labour Relations and Labour Standards Divisions we provide conciliation

services, assist employees and employers to promote stable and constructive

labour relations, a climate to foster productive workplace relationships and

partnerships.

January 24, the provincial government announced the membership of the

five-member Minimum Wage Review Committee. The purpose of this committee is to

review inputs solicited from targeted stakeholders on minimum wage in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This committee announced their

consultation process on February 21. Interested parties, employers and employees

had the opportunity to participate online through engageNL.

I thank

everyone that contributed their opinions to this public consultation process. By

establishing an independent review committee which includes individuals who have

first-hand lived experience with minimum wage from both an employer and an

employee perspective, we are providing another outlet to examine and address the

minimum wage rate in this province.

expect that report very soon. Later this month in particular. We remain

committed to monitoring and reviewing labour standards legislation to ensure it

remains relevant and responsive and comparable to other jurisdictions across the

country. On April 1, the minimum wage was increased to $13.20 an hour and the

minimum overtime wage increased to $19.80.

Newfoundland and Labrador

has joined several other provinces and territories by recognizing the National

Day of Truth and Reconciliation with a paid holiday for provincial public

servants and entities. The federal government passed legislation to create this

statutory holiday to commemorate the legacy of the residential schools in

Canada.

Bill C-5 creates a statutory

holiday for employees in the federal government and federally regulated

workplaces. To date, no provincial or territorial jurisdictions have introduced

similar legislation for a paid holiday. We are monitoring the implementation of

the federal amendments and potential discussions across the province and other

territorial jurisdictions.

To honour survivors and

raise awareness about the terrible legacy of residential schools in Canada, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reserved National Day of Truth and

Reconciliation on September 30, 2021, as a paid holiday for public servants.

Non-essential government agencies, public schools and entities were closed for

the day.

The provincial government is

committed to undertaking a review of how the National Day of Truth and

Reconciliation will be adapted by the public service and province-wide this

year. As part of the review, government is seeking targeted input and

submissions from Indigenous governments, employee groups, employer groups and

other key stakeholders regarding the implementation of a statutory paid public

holiday to recognize National Day of Truth and Reconciliation.

Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Review Division reviews final decisions of WorkplaceNL for errors

in the application of policy or legislation under the authority of

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Act .

The final report of the

Statutory Review for Workers' Compensation System was released on June 18, 2021,

and it contained a total of 48 recommendations. As minister, I receive regular

updates from WorkplaceNL and Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review

Division on the status of 29 of the 48 recommendations that are considered

operational.

WorkplaceNL and the Review

Division noted that the operational recommendations are complete at addressing

record keeping and monitoring systems for phone calls, maintaining the current

structure of occupational health and safety committees and standardizing

training of occupational health and safety committee members. In addition,

substantial progress has been made to modify the language of decision letters to

improve clarity and the use of plain language, including the removal of

references to final decisions from decision letters.

Preliminary work has begun

on the establishment of the two joint committees between WorkplaceNL and the

Review Division that was recommended from the review. The remaining operational

requirements are at various stages of review analysis and the implementation.

The 19

non-operational recommendations require additional financial, legal and policy

consideration. Some may even require legislative amendments. Further updates on

the status of these recommendations will be made in the department and

WorkplaceNL's annual report. I appreciate the due diligence being exercised by

WorkplaceNL and the Review Division, as well as the department officials as they

work through the next steps of the process, and we thank all those involved in

the process.

Waste

reduction programs – we announced a new initiative led by the Multi-Materials

Stewardship Board to help clean up litter across Newfoundland and Labrador in

preparation for Come Home Year 2022. The MMSB Come Home Year Community Cleanup

Project was a funding initiative to support cleanup of litter and properly

dispose of bulk items in areas such as roadsides, trails, beaches, parks,

outdoor recreational spaces. Grants of up to $5,000 were available to

municipalities, Local Service Districts, Indigenous community groups,

organizations, non-profit and community organizations. The program was an

overwhelming success, with 256 projects receiving funding of about $520,000.

December of 2020, we launched the Recycle at School Program in western region of

the province. This is another initiative led by the MMSB and the Newfoundland

colour-coded recycling bins, as well as educational resources to help students

and staff properly sort paper, mixed containers and refundable beverage

containers. Recycle at School will support schools participating in Western

regional waste management's mandatory recycling program.

The

Recycle at School Program was first piloted in 2014 in selected schools at

Eastern waste management service region. Key findings from the pilot identified

potential for schools across Newfoundland and Labrador at diverting about 50 per

cent of their daily waste from landfills through recycling efforts. In 2016, the

program was implemented in 43 schools in Central regional waste management

service region, and as of today we are pleased to see that 89 schools in the

province are now using the program.

These

programs have a positive impact in protecting the environment and supporting our

schools and school communities. It also supports the changes in students as they

go home, as well. Every piece of litter begins in someone's hand, and these

projects will help divert waste from our trails, parks, school grounds and

roads, and keep our communities clean.

conclusion, there are just so many initiatives to be proud of in the Department

of Environment and Climate Change, and I look forward to going through some of

them in the line-by-line review with my colleagues in the House of Assembly here

today. I would be remiss if I didn't say a big thank you in preparation of all

this stuff to the staff that are going to help answer some of your questions

here today and I look forward to that. So off to the races we go.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

I've

been doing Estimates since 2015, and it's probably the first time that I had an

opportunity to sit a minister down for going over his time, or her time, in

opening remarks. So good on you, Minister.

B. DAVIS:

I made sure I didn't look

up, by the way.

CHAIR:

6.1.01.

MHA

Forsey.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you.

First

of all, Minister, thank you for your time. I really appreciate the time to be

here to answer some questions this morning. Other than the long-winded info

there, everything is okay, everything is good.

Especially though, I'd like to thank your staff; I really would. All staff

within the government departments have been good to us. I know when you spoke

your names there, I did remember sending emails or even conversations with a

couple of you that you don't see from day to day, so it's nice to actually put a

face to the name. Again, thanks for all your help during the year.

We'll

go with the line-by-line questions first. I do have some extra questions, but

we'll just go for the line-by-line ones first. In Salaries, there is $155,600

more budgeted this year compared to what was spent last year.

B. DAVIS:

The increase over what was

spent last year?

P. FORSEY:

Yes.

B. DAVIS:

That's forecasted salary

increases that would be based on the contract.

P. FORSEY:

In Transportation and

Communications, there was $36,300 less spent compared to what was budgeted last

year. What was the reason for that?

B. DAVIS:

There was less travel.

Travel to the regions did not occur in the first part of the fiscal year due to

COVID-19. In-person hearings then resumed after that. You're going to hear

throughout there where there are differences in that area, right across the

board, it's probably going to be based on COVID, or as I say, because COVID.

P. FORSEY:

Professional Services:

$65,000 less spent compared to what was budgeted last year.

B. DAVIS:

Yes, so that is lower costs

due to the review commissioner vacancies.

P. FORSEY:

Purchased Services: $20,000

more budgeted for this year compared to what was spent last year.

B. DAVIS:

That was again due to lack

of out-of-town hearings, and lower meeting costs during COVID restrictions and

in-person hearings have now since resumed. So that's why it's gone back up in

this budget verses what was at the end of last year.

Revenue

- Provincial, there is basically $270,000 more budgeted this year compared to

what was taken in last year.

B. DAVIS:

So I think the revenue is

down, recovery cost from WorkplaceNL; that is an in and out sort of thing. We

pay the bill but WorkplaceNL funds the review division through the – what's the

body?

OFFICIAL:

Injury fund.

B. DAVIS:

Injury fund. So it is funded

directly from that. So it's an in and out fund for us so there was less money

required last year because of those vacancies, is my understand.

P. FORSEY:

Good.

B. DAVIS:

And it's expected to be

normal again this year.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

We have

a few general questions. How many review commissioners are there at this point?

B. DAVIS:

Susan, do you –?

S. SQUIRES:

There are currently four review commissioners; one is a chief review

commissioner and the other three are review commissioners and they are all full

time.

P. FORSEY:

Okay, thank you.

B. DAVIS:

That has changed from back

in 2017 I think it was. They were usually part-time review commissioners. But we

had seen a backlog and based on some of the concerns that were raised in

Estimates in the past and in the House of Assembly, we looked at that and made

them full time. So that has allowed them to clear some of the backlog; there is

still some but it is moving a lot faster.

P. FORSEY:

How many are full time and

how many are part time?

B. DAVIS:

They are all full time right

now.

P. FORSEY:

All full time.

Is the

current complement of review commissioners adequate to handle the workload in a

timely manner?

B. DAVIS:

Well, we just put in place

the chief review commissioner and, obviously, there was a backlog there with a

position that was vacant. We're going to wait and see. I know we're still in the

process of recruiting another person, I think, is it?

OFFICIAL:

No.

B. DAVIS:

No, okay. So we've got the

complement that we have right now and we're going to assess it over time and see

if that clears the backlog. We haven't had a full complement, without vacancy,

in the last fiscal for sure.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

How

many applications are currently on file requesting hearings?

B. DAVIS:

We can get that. Susan has

that.

S. SQUIRES:

They completed, last year, 173 applications; another additional 29 of them were

withdrawn last year. So that is comparable to what they did the previous year.

They currently have 109 cases to be scheduled and that was as of April 5.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

How

many applications have been withdrawn?

S. SQUIRES:

Last year, 29 were withdrawn. It's early in the year to have cases withdrawn

this year but that is comparable to the year before in 2021-22, where 30 were

withdrawn.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

Are you

aware of the reasons why: unable to get representations, delays?

B. DAVIS:

We can look into that but I think most of that would be decisions of the party

themselves to withdraw them. It could be based on, I guess, changes in their

life themselves, maybe not wanting to proceed with it or maybe having it worked

out from that standpoint.

We can look at seeing what information we have from a privacy perspective, but I

don't think it is readily available to us here today. But we can get that for

you. If it's available, you can have it.

P. FORSEY:

Thank you. I appreciate that.

So how many hearings are currently scheduled?

B. DAVIS:

There are, I think, 109 to be scheduled.

P. FORSEY:

One hundred and nine?

B. DAVIS:

One hundred and nine. And that's usually typical because there's usually waiting

for representation or trying to coordinate meetings with people. It takes time

to get that done and generally it is at the whim of – that is why we went with

the full-time ones because it gives a little bit more clarity for us.

P. FORSEY:

So how many of those hearings would be held each month, we'll say?

B. DAVIS:

Susan?

S. SQUIRES:

So they did 173 cases as an example last year. The number of cases were, on

average, 14½ a month. So in the lowest month it was about eight cases and the

highest month it was 24 cases. So it is variable, I am sure, depending on the

cases gets and the longevity of those cases' complexity. The average is about

14½ a month.

B. DAVIS:

(Inaudible) some of these cases are very complex in nature so some cases could

be dealt with quickly and some cases take a lot more time. Obviously, that

dictates how many you get done in the run of a month.

P. FORSEY:

Great. Okay.

During COVID, have restrictions from COVID impacted the scheduling resulting in

any further backlogs?

B. DAVIS:

I think I am going to say – I can't say no – but I didn't think it impacted it

quite heavily. What they transitioned to very quickly was digital or virtual.

And I think that's going to help in some cases and some clients really tended to

like that approach because it was a bit quicker for them, less travel

requirements and things like that.

So they have advised me that it didn't impact it other than regular impacts when

it was at the height of COVID, but it has progressed fairly well here.

P. FORSEY:

How long after the hearing date is a written decision given?

B. DAVIS:

It depends on the complexity of the decision. I think there is a – is there a

time frame? We can check into that if there are any thresholds for that, but my

understanding is it takes some time to get some of those, depending on how

complex it is and how much evidence is provided.

P. FORSEY:

Okay.

B. DAVIS:

But we can get that for you if you would like us to.

P. FORSEY:

Yeah. That would be good, too.

How has

the injured workers' fund at WorkplaceNL been impacted by this year's markets?

B. DAVIS:

I don't have the numbers

right off the top of my head, but I don't think it's been impacted by the

markets at all. But that can change, that could've happened this morning, a

drop, but it seems to be positively impacted currently right now.

P. FORSEY:

All right.

You did

mention the statutory review and the 48 recommendations. Can we get a list of

the recommendations that were there and –

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely, you can get a

copy of the recommendations, for sure.

P. FORSEY:

– when they be implemented

and that sort of thing? Can we get a copy?

B. DAVIS:

We can give you a status

report on what's been done so far of those recommendations. That's no problem.

We can give you the 48 recommendations. And there are sub-recommendations

underneath each of those. So I can't remember how many it is. It is 72 or

something when you take out the ones that are underneath, maybe?

S. SQUIRES:

There are 17 and there are sub-categories under them. So we totalled them up as

48 total recommendations.

P. FORSEY:

Okay, but like I said, we

can get a copy of those?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, absolutely.

P. FORSEY:

All right. Other than that,

I'm good with this one.

CHAIR:

Thank you, MHA Forsey.

MHA

Evans, 6.1.01.

L. EVANS:

Yes, thank you.

Just

some general questions first. How many hearings have been conducted in the last

year and what was the nature of the cases that came up for review?

B. DAVIS:

We can give you a full list

of the details of how many hearings happened, what was withdrawn. I think there

were 130-ish that have come out. We can give you a full list, a spreadsheet of

that.

L. EVANS:

Yes.

B. DAVIS:

What's been withdrawn,

what's been taken, what's been pushed, what hasn't been scheduled yet, we can

give you a full copy of that.

L. EVANS:

Yeah. And I do apologize if

I do repeat some of the questions.

Also,

we'll get a copy of the binder?

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

L. EVANS:

Yeah. I'm just trying to

remember, because we started and we stopped. For example, questions that you

answer now, saying of the total recommendations, 48, you'll be getting the

information to the –

B. DAVIS:

We'll get the information

that we provide to one party or one group, we'll provide to two.

L. EVANS:

To two.

B. DAVIS:

Or to everyone.

L. EVANS:

To everybody. Yes, exactly.

And that'll cut down on some time.

B. DAVIS:

Yeah.

L. EVANS:

Now, you did talk about the

backlog of the cases and I wasn't sure exactly what the number of backlog cases

are. You did refer to 109 to be scheduled.

B. DAVIS:

Yeah, so what we consider a

backlog would be the 109 that need to be scheduled. And it's sort of a misnomer

to say they're backlogged because they may not be backlogged because of

scheduling from the review division's side. It could be because the client is

not ready to go at this point to be scheduled.

So it's

sometimes contingent upon them as well, or actually it's with them and the

Review Division scheduling times. So we can get you a list of those – not the

list of the 109, but we can let you know that in the spreadsheet how many here

are from time to time if you'd like.

L. EVANS:

Right.

The

positions of the review commissioners, you're basically taking a look at that to

see if you're going to be putting in additional ones, right?

B. DAVIS:

Well, right now we've had a

vacancy this year of one of the review commissioners anyway. Now that's been

filled with the chief review commissioner. We're going to see how that works out

to try to reduce that time frame with respect to those 109 scheduled cases.

L. EVANS:

Would we be able to get a

breakdown of the number of people receiving workers' compensation by industry?

B. DAVIS:

I think we can do that. We

probably don't have that here, but we can get that for you.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

B. DAVIS:

Good question.

L. EVANS:

Would it be possible to

either get the total number of people working in those industries in the

province as well?

B. DAVIS:

You can have any bit of

information like that, that we have available to us, like the number of people

that are on it from industry breakdown, how many people are in those industries

that workplace would have. That's not a problem.

L. EVANS:

Okay. You used finished

answering the other questions there that I had.

there a review planned to update how medical reporting is done on occupational

disease claims? How does the list of occupational diseases recognized by

government get amended, like adding and changing?

B. DAVIS:

That's part of the statutory

review process. In those 48 recommendations, there is a recommendation in there

to expand some of the cancers with respect to firefighters, as an example. Those

things are working through the process now from a fiscal responsibility

perspective, from their end, what the cost would be from an actuarial

perspective and then we'll determine what needs to be changed with respect to if

it's a legislative change or a policy change at WorkplaceNL.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

there any review planned on how medical reporting is done on the disease claims?

B. DAVIS:

I would think there's always

a review at WorkplaceNL but we can take that question, MHA Evans, and go

directly to the CEO of WorkplaceNL for that. That's a valid question and no

problem for us to get the answer for you on that.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

Looking

at the line item there, under Salaries, the spending on Salaries was lower than

expected. You did briefly mention that earlier with my fellow colleague, but are

there currently any vacancies there?

B. DAVIS:

No, there are no vacancies

now. That was a vacancy at the time that was filled.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

I have

a general question that sort of is brought up to me. There are times that you've

probably experienced – I'm talking to your departmental staff here – where

somebody is working in an industry, and they have insurance coverage to be off

on medical and they're not being covered because the insurance provider is

saying they believe it's work related. The worker is waiting on medical

documentation to clarify whether it's a workplace injury or disease. I'm talking

about diseases now.

What

happens is the individual does not have coverage. They're basically there and

they actually are entitled to wage compensation, either from the insurance

provider or from workers' compensation. But because of this gap and waiting on

the medical documentation and then decision on their claim, they could be months

without any wage.

there anything that can be done to actually prevent this from happening, where

the worker is the one that actually is harmed by this gap, such as having an

agreement between the insurance provider to provide the coverage, and then if

it's ruled that it's a workplace illness or disease, then workers' compensation

can compensate them back. That seems like a logical thing.

B. DAVIS:

That is a very good question. I worked on a case like that that reached out to

me as an MHA before, and I forwarded it off to WorkplaceNL to look at. They had

their processes in place. They had worker representatives and employer

representatives that they can talk to, and then they tend to try to work out

those individual cases. So what I will say to you, MHA Evans, is that if there

are any of those cases that come up, please do reach out to us, and I say that

to any of my colleagues.

Because

some of those cases sometimes do slip through the cracks, and we want to try to

reduce those issues that are common sense in nature, like you just detailed, is

a perfect example of how we can try to fix those things. Sometimes it's just an

individual ask, in the right way, to say that this is something that has been

overlooked. Because sometimes there's a communication error that breaks down and

we just want to try to limit those. I know WorkplaceNL is interested in trying

to move those files that may be in those situations on many cases.

L. EVANS:

Well, I've dealt with it at

the MHA level, with workers' compensation and the insurance provider, and now

I'm aware that I could reach out to your department. But what about other people

who don't have that link with their MHA that is going to – we have to start

looking at changing the way things are done where people are there. People who

have bills and family responsibilities who are there and entitled to

compensation, but are not getting it. It is very destructive.

I would

prefer that, actually, maybe your department could work on finding some

solution. Because there are a lot of people out there that don't have a direct

line to their MHA or don't have a direct line to somebody that can call your

department and your department would actually be quite effective I'm sure but,

like I said, I am more interested in a permanent change where this just doesn't

happen.

B. DAVIS:

Just to expand on that

question and hopefully give you a little bit more clarity. One of the

recommendations in the most current stat review is to expand worker

representatives with WorkplaceNL. That is one of the recommendations that are

being evaluated, so I am very hopeful that we'll be able to move on that. That

will increase the number of people that workers can reach out to when they have

questions or concern, just like you highlighted, that can help navigate,

sometimes, a very complex system.

So I

think that could be one of the fixes, but we will take that away from today and

I think that is a valid concern that you raised here today.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

That's

the end of my questions.

CHAIR:

Thank you, MHA Evans.

So if

the Committee is ready for the question, shall 6.1.01 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subhead 6.1.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Before we continue, I

certainly want to welcome my colleague, Chris Tibbs, for Grand Falls-Windsor -

Buchans to our Committee meeting and Chris will be looking after our next set of

subheads.

So if I

can have the Clerk call our next set of subheads, please.

CLERK:

Labour, 4.1.01 to 4.1.03.

CHAIR:

Shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.03

carry?

MHA

Tibbs.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Warr, and good morning to my buddy, Minister Davis –

B. DAVIS:

Good morning to you.

C. TIBBS:

– and the team behind you.

Thank you for all the work you do, the work behind the scenes; we all know is

the real work that is done. I know Minister Davis does a lot of hard work but no

person is without their team.

we'll start off at 4.1.01, Labour Relations. Minister, can you provide us with

the amount of conciliation, preventative mediation and arbitration processes

that were undertaken and the results of these processes? And how many employees

are in the division themselves.

B. DAVIS:

We can provide you with the

document for that, for sure. I don't know if we have the information right here

in front of us – Tara?

T. KELLY:

Yeah, I have that.

For

staffing perspective there are six positions: director, two industrial relation

specialists, two senior meditators and one clerk. Then as far as the numbers go:

conciliation request, we had 36 new ones in this past year; 22 that we're

carrying over from last year, so that is a total of 58 people that we're working

on; 36 appointment of arbitrators; preventative mediation requests was 51; and

first collective agreement mediator was one.

I don't

have the result at this time but you could follow up on that if you wanted.

C. TIBBS:

Perfect. Thank you, Ms.

Kelly.

We'll

switch over to Salaries. There are $38,300 more budgeted this year compared to

what was spent. What is the reason for this, Minister?

B. DAVIS:

The deference is a little

step increase – it is actually lower than it was budgeted for last year but what

was actually spent on revised last year was based on lower staff – vacancy rates

at staff there. So now the staff is full complement and that would be the

$471,800; that would be the full complement there.

C. TIBBS:

Perfect.

For the

Transportation and Communications cost, there was $10,000 less spent compared to

what was budgeted. What was the reason for this one?

B. DAVIS:

As I said to MHA Forsey,

you're going to see in T and C most of those things will be COVID related; less

meetings, less travel with respect to meetings and things. So you're going to

see in T and C right across the board is going to be, as I say, cause COVID.

C. TIBBS:

Hopefully we are away from

that, finally.

B. DAVIS:

Yes, hopefully.

C. TIBBS:

4.1.02, Standing Fish Price

Setting Panel.

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

C. TIBBS:

What is the remuneration for

the members of this panel?

B. DAVIS:

I don't have that number

right in front of me but I think we may be able to get that. We can get that for

you. I don't know offhand what the remuneration is. I know they are remunerated

for it; I think the total for Salaries would be $107,500 so there is a

three-person panel and two alternates as well –

C. TIBBS:

Perfect, thank you.

B. DAVIS:

– that would be involved in

that process. We can get that for you, MHA Tibbs.

C. TIBBS:

I appreciate it.

For

Professional Services, there was $8,000 more spent last year compared to what

was budgeted this year. What would be the reason for that?

B. DAVIS:

The higher was due to

increased hearings and anticipated costs for an independent consultant.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you, Sir.

4.1.03,

are there any reviews planned for the

Labour Standards Act and, if so, when should this be completed and will

there be any new legislation brought in?

B. DAVIS:

As I said many times in the

House whenever I'm asked a question about Labour Standards is we look to the

public, if there are concerns people have, we look at legislation. Legislation

is living document that can be changed when it needs to be done, but we also

have to look at the balance that exists within labour. You have to look at the

balance of the employer and the employee with those standards. So that's what we

always juggle with.

Obviously, there is a minimum wage review that would be coming into that and

Truth and Reconciliation Day that will all have to feed into that when that work

is done.

C. TIBBS:

Sure.

Nothing

slated as of right now, though, in concrete?

B. DAVIS:

No.

C. TIBBS:

Okay, perfect, thank you.

Moving

to Salaries, there's $31,100 more budgeted this year compared to what was spent

last year. What would be the reason for this, Minister?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, we're actually down on

what was actually budgeted the previous year, but the difference is obviously

there was a vacancy in the revised of last year so the Salaries are a little

lower than they were in last year's budget.

C. TIBBS:

Great.

course, Transportation and Communications, there was $11,400 more budgeted this

year compared to what was last year. What was the reason for this?

B. DAVIS:

That's the same thing that

would be there. It was down last year because of COVID and we're bringing it

back up to the level that it would be normal, as you said, post-COVID,

hopefully.

C. TIBBS:

Hopefully.

Professional Services, there was $10,000 spent last year that wasn't budgeted.

Can you explain this figure?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, that is board fees. We

decided as a government that the individuals that sit on the Minimum Wage Review

Committee should be compensated to sit on that. It used to be a volunteer

committee. Those five individuals that sit on that Committee are compensated for

their –

C. TIBBS:

So like a remuneration or

something?

B. DAVIS:

Remuneration, yeah.

C. TIBBS:

Perfect. Thank you, Sir.

Revenue

there was $3,000 spent less revenue last year compared to what was collected.

What was the reason for this?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, so the decrease in

revenue is due to clearance certificates that come out of this department.

C. TIBBS:

Sorry what was that?

B. DAVIS:

Clearance certificates for downturn in the real estate activity.

That would be ensuring that you're in good standing with the

Labour Standards Act. There was less of that required. We anticipate that

will come back a little bit more over time, right.

C. TIBBS:

That's all for me.

Thank you, Minister. Thank

you, Team.

B. DAVIS:

Perfect.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA Evans, 4.1.01 to 4.1.03

inclusive.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Chair.

4.1.01,

under Labour Relations: Have there been any new unions who are bargaining units

that have been certified in the past year? How many first collective agreements

have been successfully negotiated?

B. DAVIS:

Very good question. I don't

know. Tara, do you have the numbers for …?

T. KELLY:

We had one request.

B. DAVIS:

We had one request and I

think it was certified. So I can check that, MHA Evans, from the Labour

Relations Board. They're sort of arm's length on that stuff; we don't get into

that, but I can get that information for you.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

What

were the total number of strikes and lockouts in this province in the previous

year? Do they represent an increase or demand from the previous year, 2020?

B. DAVIS:

That is a very good

question. I can get that through our Labour Relations Division and have it

forwarded to your office.

L. EVANS:

Okay. And everybody?

B. DAVIS:

And everybody. When I send

it to you, it is going to be for everybody. Just like Lay's chips, I give one to

you; I got to give one to everyone.

L. EVANS:

I had a cat who loved Lay's

chips, by the way.

B. DAVIS:

I have a dog that loves

them.

L. EVANS:

Have any changes been

considered to the union certification processes and what arguments have been

raised against reinstating card certification?

B. DAVIS:

Very good question. We are

always, as I said to MHA Tibbs, looking at ways we can improve the legislation

that exists and the processes that we do. We haven't heard much outcry with

respect to what you're asking for now. The system, although we always look for

ways to improve it, the Labour Relations Board as well as Labour Relations in

general, we look from not only our own staff to look at ways to improve it but

also the general public and our trade unions that will be operating in the

province.

there are concerns that come forward with respect to that, we'll definitely look

at that and see what can be done. But I know there are changes that were made

for a reason, back before even our mandate – before 2015 – and we're always

looking for ways to improve when we need to.

L. EVANS:

So you're not really

considering any changes right now to –

B. DAVIS:

No. That was a long answer

for saying no.

L. EVANS:

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Now

that the federal government is implementing anti-replacement worker legislation,

will the department consider tabling similar legislation in this province?

B. DAVIS:

As I have said to your

colleague, I think it was the day before yesterday in the House with a question

of similar nature; we always look to the federal government when they bring

forward things like that. We always look and evaluate the need for that.

understand that labour relations and any changes that we make to labour

standards; we've got to look at both the employer and the employee side of that.

In this

province, I guess we've been blessed that we haven't had major long-term

strikes, and I know that when we do have long-term strikes, we're looking at

ways to find solutions. Sometimes that could be our conciliation officers that

comes in, or a conciliation board that we've had constituted when we had some

opportunities for negotiation that weren't moving as fast.

But, as

I've said to your colleague, we're always looking at ways to improve it. There

is nothing on the horizon that says we're moving in that direction, other than

what you've highlighted as the federal government. So we're always looking at

that.

L. EVANS:

So when the federal

government implements their anti-replacement worker legislation, will you

actually have a review and look at it?

B. DAVIS:

We will have a consultation

with our stakeholders that are involved in that area as well. As I said, maybe I

wasn't clear enough on that. When the federal government implements anything,

whether it be from a labour relation standpoint or a labour standards

standpoint, we're going to be evaluating that as well, and part of that

evaluation is going to be a consultation that we will do with our stakeholders,

both labour unions, as well as our employers.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

4.1.03,

Labour Standards: Is there any move to bring in paid sick leave for all

employees in the province, and are there any hesitations on the – sorry, I'll

just do the first one. Is there any move to bring in paid sick leave for all

employees in the province?

B. DAVIS:

Again, the federal

government mentioned that through the federal minister of Labour, just before

Christmas brought in legislation. Obviously, we've had conversations at our FTP

table with respect to that. All of us at the table, all of us ministers, agree

that's a positive move forward, but we're going to need some support from the

federal government who's instituting this, to support our businesses that would

be impacted by something like this.

That's

not a cost that the federal government have to bear. We've given options as

ministers to the federal government, similar to the employment insurance

benefits that can be done, that already exists. It is not creating a new pool of

money, but it's an opportunity to create flexibility in that fund to allow

workers and businesses to avail of that to provide that benefit to employees.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

B. DAVIS:

So the answer is yes, we're

looking at it, and that's something that we're working on at our FTP table.

L. EVANS:

And you say you're working

on it, but just to be clear, what would some of the major stumbling blocks be

for you that you'd actually have to overcome to be able to bring in full paid

sick leave?

B. DAVIS:

Well, if you were to add one

day of sick leave to every person in the province that's working, it's up to $48

million a day that would be borne by businesses and government agencies and the

like. Most of it borne by businesses and small businesses, so we are trying to

navigate a very challenging situation that we want to provide that – as

ministers, we want to provide that across the country and support that, but we

have to find a mechanism first for us to be able to do that.

Part of

that is through working with the federal government on funds that they currently

have that they put in place for COVID that they can extend and/or allow

flexibility within the EI program, which is one aspect that us ministers have

floated with the federal minister. We do have another meeting scheduled in June

and I look forward to having a conversation with the federal minister on that.

L. EVANS:

I wonder, have your

department actually looked at the cost of people who can't afford to be off,

bringing sickness – let's say contagious sickness like the flu into their

companies and then have that ripple effect in terms of the cost of loss of

productivity?

B. DAVIS:

Yeah, so that is something

that the federal table is looking at, not just from a provincial side, from

national and there are some positive numbers that say that moving in that

direction helps businesses just as much as it helps the employees too. So that

is sort of what we're working on at the federal table and hopefully we'll be

able to move that forward in the near future through conversation with the

federal government and were very helpful.

The

conversations with Minister O'Regan at the time when we had that meeting, I'm

going to say, six or eight weeks ago maybe, were very positive from all of us at

the FPT table and we have another meeting follow-up in about another three or

four weeks.

We're

looking forward to having those conversations; we're open to looking at all

options, especially – but we all understand how important it is to have the

federal government provide some financial leadership on this file. For the

businesses coming out of COVID and all that stuff, to allow them the flexibility

to get to where they need to be because I think they want to be there too.

L. EVANS:

Yes.

B. DAVIS:

Oh, sorry, I think our

deputy minister can jump in as well.

V. SNOW:

Thank you.

Just to

add to what the minister is saying. I think this federal table is a very good

opportunity for us to learn, not just from the federal government and what

they're doing in terms of the costs and the benefits of the paid leave, but also

some different provinces are also moving in this direction and they have made

significant progress.

British

Columbia is already offering five paid leave days and, in that, they have done a

lot of research in terms of the cost to the government but also the cost of

things you were talking about, like going to work when you are sick. All of that

information that has been gathered and lessons learned from other jurisdictions

is going to be very helpful as we look at this issue.

L. EVANS:

Yes, thank you.

Looking

at that cost per day is huge, but is that a true cost when you look at the loss

of productivity and the impacts through the whole communities and businesses and

things like that. A lot of times we look at the cost and it seems

insurmountable, but when you look at the benefits that would negate most of

those costs, then it's something that would actually be very positive for the

communities.

B. DAVIS:

And I full agree with you.

That's why that table is looking at those options, as our deputy minister just

said too. We look forward to having conversations about that, for sure.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Has the

government considered increasing minimum wage above and beyond any increases

tied to inflation, to the $15 an hour, for example?

B. DAVIS:

Very good question. As I

mentioned in my rather lengthy intro, we have a Minimum Wage Review Committee

that has been constituted. They've got their work completed. My understanding is

they're going to be doing a presentation to me later this month of that report.

I look

forward to receiving it. I don't want to prejudge what's going to come in, but

obviously we're going to take that advice, look at it, do some work on what

impacts that would be, and hopefully it's something that we can move on quickly,

because we all understand how important it is for minimum wage to be where it

needs to be.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA

Evans, do you have much left in this section?

L. EVANS:

No, I don't.

CHAIR:

Are you finished?

L. EVANS:

Yes, actually I am. I was

thinking –

B. DAVIS:

Great timing.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

If the

Committee is ready for the question, shall 4.1.01 to 4.1.03 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, subheads 4.1.01 to 4.1.03 carried.

CHAIR:

Can I have the Clerk call

the next subhead, please?

CLERK:

Labour Relations Board,

5.1.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 5.1.01 carry?

MHA

Tibbs.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you.

Just a

couple of general questions here, Minister. How many employees are currently

employed, and how many vacancies are there?

B. DAVIS:

At the Labour Relations

Board?

C. TIBBS:

Yes, Sir.

B. DAVIS:

Susan, do you have the exact

numbers there?

S. SQUIRES:

There are six positions on

the board, as past positions, and one is currently vacant.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you.

And

there were $13,000 less spent last year compared to what was budgeted. What was

the reason for this, Minister?

B. DAVIS:

Vacancies.

C. TIBBS:

Vacancies, it is.

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you, Sir.

B. DAVIS:

And delays in the

recruitment process.

C. TIBBS:

Sure.

Just

one final question: Do we have an update on the privacy breach that effected the

Grieg hatchery some time ago?

B. DAVIS:

No, I don't have one here,

but I can get that for you. The previous chair has finished her term. There's a

new chair put in place, I think as of about a month ago, maybe, Susan?

(Inaudible) I know that the chair change that happened since then, but they're

working on that stuff.

Susan.

S. SQUIRES:

Yes, a new chair came in in

early March, but the board has circulated a number of policies, one of which was

the receipt and retention of union membership information. They did do that and

that happened in the fall. I understand they circulated and had a webinar with

stakeholders. As a result of that incident, they did review their processes and

they have tabled some new policy processes as a result.

C. TIBBS:

Okay. We look forward to

that because we know how important it is.

That's

it for me.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

5.1.01,

MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

How

many hearings went before the board in the previous year? Do these numbers

represent the increase over the previous year? What kind of disputes did they

involve?

B. DAVIS:

Susan.

S. SQUIRES:

The Labour Relations Board

actually received, this past year, 62 applications, which was a 40 per cent

increase from the year before of 44 applications. They currently have 45 active

files that they're considering. That was of April 6, so it might be slightly

different now, but the beginning of the fiscal year, they had 45 active files.

L. EVANS:

Okay. The type of disputes?

S. SQUIRES:

I don't have a breakdown of

the number of active files and what they pertain to, but I know that in

2021-2022, for example, they went through seven certifications. They had a

number of hearings. So there is certainly a mix between union certifications,

hearings. I guess there are typical things that they hear before the board.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

S. SQUIRES:

But we certainly can ask if

there's a breakdown of those 45 active cases.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

B. DAVIS:

We also have regular

stakeholder meetings with respect to, not just the board, but the stakeholders

that meet with the board and have requested the services of the board. So when

we do find out there are issues or anything that comes up, something is taking

longer than it should, or in their mind it should be faster, or hasn't got the

result that they would like, then we can bring that forward to the board as

well. Obviously, they're arm's length from us, but we can say that someone has

expressed a concern and encourage them to go to the right people on the board

and have those concerns heard.

But one

of the benefits of having good stakeholder engagement with your people is that

you find those concerns earlier, so hopefully they don't fester and they don't

have longer term problems.

L. EVANS:

Okay. Thank you.

If there is a breakdown, you will be sharing it with everybody?

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

L. EVANS:

Okay. Thank you.

Is there currently a backlog in the number of cases to be heard and if so how

many?

S. SQUIRES:

So there are 45 active cases and that was as of April 6. So that's what we would

define as the current number that needs to go through whether that I guess could

be defined as a backlog.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

That is my questions for this section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

If the Committee is ready for the question.

Shall 5.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 5.1.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Can I ask the Clerk to call the next set of subheads, please?

CLERK:

Executive and Support Services, 1.1.01 to 1.2.01.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive carry?

MHA Pardy, we are on 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Chair.

A new portfolio for me so I ask for your patience as I forge ahead through this

very important section. Just before we start, just going to the minister's

preamble and his address at the start, just three quick questions in relation to

that.

When you had your program that offered the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador to switch from oil to electric, you had stated that you had 100

applications on the first go around. This time there are 140. Have you done an

analysis of what the household income of those 140 would be?

I'm just curious now because I know you have got a discrepancy on the peninsula

that I serve and whether it's the upper part or the lower part, there is

significance in that.

B. DAVIS:

Yeah. So there is no need for them to disclose income levels for the program, it

doesn't matter what income level they have for this particular program.

There is income-tested programs that are in other – the oil change program. The

HESP, I think it is, has increased the threshold from $32,500 to $52,500. That

one would have an income test, obviously, but this one, the one we have

announced in the budget, doesn't have an income test so there is no reason for

us to collect that information. I may be wrong on that but there is no reason to

collect any information.

I think Mr. Michael Harvey

would have a problem if we were collecting information we didn't need to.

C. PARDY:

Yeah.

Here is

the genesis of why I ask that and the rationale being that if you've got

everybody that's $100,000 and above or $80,000 household income that is availing

of this, then you know that below $80,000 you've got an area that they just

can't afford it.

B. DAVIS:

Right.

C. PARDY:

Then $5,000 doesn't cover

it. But as any money that is necessary in order for them to retrofit, they just

don't have.

That

was the genesis of my question. I know the Privacy Commission, I know that there

is a danger in that, but it would still be nice to know what clientele we're

serving. We can talk about it, then you can talk about a great initiative, but

if you have a portion of the population, like on the Bonavista Peninsula, the

lower part that got $47,000 household income that can't look at it, which is

what I hear, then – that was the genesis of my question.

B. DAVIS:

So just to answer that very

quickly. There are three programs that can work for an individual that would be

in a similar situation to you and work in varying levels of success, of course.

You've got, obviously the HESP with oil, that is for anyone that has $52,500 or

less; that is a $5,000 non-repayable grant. Then you can bookend our program as

well with that, so that is an additional $5,000 for that individual as well,

non-repayable grant. Then you have the Greener Homes program from the federal

government, that is an additional $5,000 to that for particular – they have more

threshold programs that are a little different than that. So that is essentially

$15,000.

Now,

the federal program you have to pay in advance to receive that money. But at the

end of the day, I know there are going to be gaps and when we find gaps – if

you've identified any – have them reach out to our office so we can try to make

those changes to the programs that are required to make them better suit the

needs of people from all parts of the province.

We get

the breakdown of what type of heat they have installed after; where they're

happening in the province. The Central region there was 20 of those 140 or so

that have received that and there is another 88 on the Avalon. So right across

the province there are applications and approvals, albeit there is more on the

Avalon because there is more population here.

C. PARDY:

That's good there are other

options. I wasn't totally aware of that but I will do my homework on that as

well.

B. DAVIS:

No problem; we're here to

help.

C. PARDY:

Indeed you are; that's good.

You

mentioned about the net-zero council. Are they listed? I'm assuming your office

would appoint them.

B. DAVIS:

Yes, they were appointed.

They are listed on our website. There are eight people with varying backgrounds.

I can forward you a list of that, no problem, and I'll forward it to everyone at

the Estimates here today.

C. PARDY:

That's good.

The

third point on your message was you mentioned that you're doing the waste water

testing.

B. DAVIS:

Correct.

C. PARDY:

You mentioned the

significance of doing so, the early warning signs. How extensive is your testing

of waste water? I don't think it's on the Bonavista Peninsula.

B. DAVIS:

We've got by far the best

person in this province, probably this country, to assess that, through Haseen

here. We have not expanded right across the province, but we are expanding that

process and working with the federal government, but Haseen you can jump in and

H. KHAN:

Currently, we are monitoring

17 locations throughout the province. We intend to extend that to cover the

entire province to about 70, 80 locations, slowly and gradually. In terms of

cost, an analysis is done, free of cost by federal government national lab in

Winnipeg. So testing is costing nothing to the province, but if you go to the

private sector, each sample will cost us about $300. At this point in time, it

is costing us nothing.

C. PARDY:

Obviously, we'll use the

national lab when possible. We'll stay clear of the private labs.

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

C. PARDY:

So we can move across the

province, really, at no cost other than I guess the –

B. DAVIS:

The collections.

C. PARDY:

Yeah, the collections. Okay,

good to know. Thank you for those answers.

I'm

assuming in the binder we'll receive the employment status of the vacancies –

we'll have all that there, so we don't need to waste time with that.

B. DAVIS:

All of that.

C. PARDY:

Did the minister or the

Department of Finance give you any attrition fiscal targets?

B. DAVIS:

Every department, every

agency would have attrition targets. I can go to Bonnie and Bonnie can give the

attrition, but I'm fairly confident that – let me just check to see if I've got

it right here in front of me.

C. PARDY:

I just want to chime in,

Minister, I just left the – oh my God, I'm losing track of time now. That was

Tuesday was the Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture but they had received

nothing from the Department of Finance for attrition for this year. They did in

the past two years, but –

B. DAVIS:

So our attrition target, I

think, $69,166. Both positions happened to be vacant that were there – a data

entry operator and an environmental monitoring specialist.

C. PARDY:

Okay, good.

B. DAVIS:

And Bonnie –

B. STEELE:

There is no new target for

this fiscal. The numbers that we just gave were for the past two fiscals.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

B. STEELE:

Just to confirm that that

was the target that we did have for fiscals 2020-2021 to '21-'22. We haven't

been given a new target.

C. PARDY:

I am glad you clarified

that. I didn't want to create any division between Environment and Climate

Change and FFA.

B. STEELE:

Just confirming.

C. PARDY:

That's good. So nothing this

year in attritions.

Just in my time I will stick

– an academic study of young people worldwide found that most suffer from

eco-anxiety. I listen to my children, and rightfully so. When I was the

administrator of a school, our mission in environment was picking up litter. But

I think, at this point in time, our children are certainly focused on the

economy and climate change because it is such a big statement in our society and

what we have.

But what was concerning was

two-thirds are scared and sad is what this academic study stated, while almost

half say their worries impact their daily lives. I just ask for a comment on

that as we go about making changes and reducing emissions in our society.

B. DAVIS:

No, I get it. You are correct. I hear it from my nieces, nephews and students

when I go visit classrooms and things. There is no doubt people are worried

about what the future holds from a climate change perspective. That is why we

have put in place our Climate Change Action Plan with 45 actions. You know, 67

per cent of them are already completed.

It is not enough. It is

definitely not enough. We are working hard to try to do even more. Some of the

things that are required from a carbon-capture perspective for our future

haven't even been created yet that we are going to have to use as a world. But

there are thousands and thousands of people in this global community that are

working on these targets to try to make sure all of us, as a global community,

can hit it. I am hopeful that every jurisdiction around the world is working as

hard as we are trying to work in this department to make our difference to our 1

per cent of Canada's 1 per cent of the world.

We are doing our part to do

that and we are going to work, everybody together, to try to achieve those

goals, but burying our head in the sand and not talking about it is not an

option. Young people have really brought that forward with Fridays For Future

and many other initiatives that they're pushing.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister.

I just

remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

1.1.01

to 1.2.01 inclusive, MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Just

some general questions to start off with. Although Industry, Energy and

Technology released an outline for the transition to a green economy last

December, we did notice that there was relatively little regarding supports for

workers as they moved from one industry to another. Especially for workers in

the oil and gas sector.

So is

this department filling that piece of the puzzle and looking at ways to make

this truly a just transition where workers come out of its more prosperous and

lucrative jobs with better job security than before? So the just transition

really.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, MHA Evans.

Obviously, it' s going to be an all-of-government approach on helping spur

economic development, not just in the green economy, which is our focus, and

IET's focus but in every aspect. Whether it be in education or in immigration,

we're all trying to spur economic development so that people have opportunities

to have the jobs they want to, whether it be in oil and gas, obviously moving

from there to – whether it's lifting the ban on wind, the moratorium that was on

wind.

Those

are the future of how we see our province moving. I don't think anyone can

disagree that our province is one of the windiest ones. I think we took the

title from Chicago recently. Lifting that moratorium is going to help spur

another industry and, hopefully, one that's going to be able to be high-paying

jobs and numerous jobs for people to transition as we move through that oil to

the greener economy as we transition to there.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

The

reason why we brought that up is because, as the oil industry and a lot of the

supports for the oil industry ween off, there's going to be a displacement of

workers. So it's important for us to be able to help those workers, especially

at the larger salary levels because it has such a direct impact to our economy.

So we are looking for more information. I guess as you develop it, it would be

good to see that, exactly how we're going to support workers.

Moving

on to the next question: How much work has been done thus far by the Net-Zero

Advisory Council? I know it was brought up earlier, but how much work has been

done and what types of work are they going to be doing in the upcoming year?

B. DAVIS:

Very good question. Thank

you for the ability to be able to talk about the Net-Zero Advisory Council.

So they

are going to be looking at providing recommendations – they haven't provided any

yet, I expect that will – they have done, I don't know how many meetings. Susan,

three? Three. There is another one on the horizon as well.

So they

are looking at getting established themselves. Over this year, I fully expect

that they will be providing some advice and recommendations on some of the

things that we can do to improve, using other jurisdictions as a measuring

stick, I guess, and other jurisdiction, not just in this country but in the

global community on best practices and things that will get us the best bang for

our investment to get greenhouse gas emissions reduced.

I think

that is where they'll go. I'm going to be as anxious as you are to see what they

come forward with and don't worry, it will be shared with everybody.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Has

there been any consideration given to creating new mechanisms for incorporating

the cost of pollution into the price of the products to reflect the true cost of

their production and their consumption?

B. DAVIS:

We have legislation in place

for industry emitters and stringent requirements that they have to meet. I will

say that they have exceeded all of the targets that we have set recently, in the

past couple of years, and those targets are going to get harder each and every

year for them, too. But they are working hard. Our staff meets with them on a

regular basis to see what they are going to be doing in the future to better

address those emissions that they do have.

The

federal government has also come forward with initiatives and stringent

requirements that people have to meet as well. So we are always working to

ensure the big emitters are covering the cost of their emissions.

But in

addition to that, if you just look on a more granular level down to the MMSB

level where we're looking at EPR programs that exist, you know Extended Producer

Responsibility programs. We're looking at one now; there was public consultation

on what we call PPP, packaging and paper products. Industry players, when they

produce a cereal box, have to come forward and pay for the disposal of that

cereal box.

In this

province, that's what we need these Extended Producer Responsibility processes

in place for. That's one of the ones we're working on now. We have several in

the province now and those will cover the cost of recycling that product, or at

least alleviate some of the cost for it. Because recycling is very expensive in

this province and anything we can cover the cost of and reuse is going to be

better for us in the longer term.

L. EVANS:

Thank you for that answer.

Actually, that kind of goes to what we were getting at, because when you look at

the cost of pollution in producing something and consuming it, we normally think

of things like big oil or mining, but common things. The cost of a plastic

container in the restaurant industry or the cost of some of the products that

people use as household items that actually creates a lot of pollution to

produce it. Then, of course, people don't really realize it. So like I said, it

would be really good if we could look at some of those things, even in the forms

of mid – you talk about big companies but I'm talking about mid-companies as

well.

It's

something that we've all got to get on board with. I think it's something that

the province should be looking at. Something as symbolic as the sugar tax, if we

could start looking at ways to actually identify products that take so much

energy to produce and then of course create pollution in their consumption or

their inability to be consumed.

Sorry,

my mind is just kind of rushing ahead, so I'm sorry.

Moving

on to line items now, 1.2.01, Executive Support. What was the one-time expense –

oh you already did that, I do apologize for that.

I'm

going to move right on over to the provincial revenue in that line item. What

was the source of the provincial revenue listed here?

B. DAVIS:

Which

section are you

talking about, sorry?

L. EVANS:

1.2.01, Executive Support,

provincial revenue.

B. DAVIS:

Oh the revenue.

L. EVANS:

Yes.

B. DAVIS:

Okay, so that's similar to

what we had come through with respect to the review division from WorkplaceNL.

That is money that comes through from the MMSB to the department to pay for the

CEO of MMSB. It's a cost-recovery model. The increased revenue would be the cost

recovery for the CEO of MMSB.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

That's

the end of my questions for that section.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

MHA

Pardy, do you have anything left in 1.1.01 to 1.2.01?

C. PARDY:

Yes, Chair.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

C. PARDY:

Just before I continue on,

the last note and I'll leave our conversation for the climate change section,

but just to follow up when I talked about the youth and the concern and the

anxiety that this academic study had. One thing that the

article references

talks about the UN Climate Panel finds that even if we do nothing to mitigate

climate change, the impact by the end of the century will be a reduction of an

average income increase from 450 per cent to 438 per cent. And keep in mind, I'm

in favour, and I think we are in favour of reducing greenhouse gases and

emissions. I, we, would be in favour of our renewables wind energy and doing all

that. So we're on board. The only questions we would have sometimes is the pace

and the concern that would be around that.

You

mentioned in your intro, as well, the Fish Price Setting Panel. Recently, we

created a little stir in my other portfolio with the Fisheries, a little stir I

think that went about the province when we looked at the appointee. The

appointments of the Fish Price Setting Panel are done from the Independent

Appointments Commission.

Can you

share with me: This Commission will give you a candidate or will they you give

you a choice of three candidates and your office will select which one? Just

curious because I don't know when I ask.

B. DAVIS:

So I guess it depends on the

number of applicants that come in and how many comes through. I can't remember

exactly how many were recommended in that case. There was multiple, but there

was multiple positions to be filled. In that case, I think there was a regular

member and two alternates that needed to be filled and I think we received three

or four names in total and varying backgrounds.

With

respect to the Fish Price Setting Panel, you have backgrounds with harvesting

and processing. So they try to map so you don't have positions dictated for

that. They're supposed to be outside of that realm, but they have to have

experience in that. The Independent Appointments Commission brings forward the

names and then it comes forward to LGIC.

C. PARDY:

So you had three or four

vacancies?

B. DAVIS:

That's correct.

C. PARDY:

So just enough appointments

or names to fill the vacancies that you had?

B. DAVIS:

Correct.

C. PARDY:

No more?

B. DAVIS:

No more.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

When it

comes to this panel, and fisheries-wise, I know David Vardy was the one who

headed up a panel. I think the eminent fish-pricing panel back in 2000, around

that time. The latest appointee to the panel was on that as well, part of that

study.

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

But one thing that I

gleaned, in reading that study, was the fact that that panel needed to make sure

that it was neutral. I could read, throughout the document, that it needs to be

perceived as neutral and it needs to be neutral. I would think then, so we don't

have people staking claim or a power struggle between the panel, if all of the

panel are perceived as being neutral.

That

was the gist of my question when I asked. I knew it wasn't the Fisheries who

selected the panel, but at least for going forward, it's a thought and a

consideration when you do select this panel for the fishers out there, if they

perceive it to be independent, then I think you have much better chance that

they're going to adhere and believe in what is happening.

If I

can move on, before the Chair pushes me on, 1.1.01. If I can go through a few

line items now quickly. We've got in 1.1.01, Minister's Office, the Salaries. We

had $25,000 less last year in the Salaries in the Minister's Office compared to

what was budgeted. If you can explain that.

B. DAVIS:

Yes, so there was a vacancy

with respect to the departmental secretary to the minister for a period of time.

During that period, where we had just constituted the new office, we were

sharing some resources. So we were able to do that for the short term while we

were getting that position filled.

C. PARDY:

Thank you.

I'm

assuming Transportation and Communications here and through the other items will

be COVID related?

B. DAVIS:

Correct.

C. PARDY:

So we don't need – just

assume.

1.2.01,

Executive Support.

B. DAVIS:

1.2.01, okay.

C. PARDY:

We look at Salaries there,

Minister.

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

So we had $129,700 more – I

think that might be the right math – budgeted this year compared to what was

spent last year.

B. DAVIS:

That, last year, didn't

include a communications director position. That has to be included now, so

we're working through vacancy factor to fill that position.

C. PARDY:

Okay, so communications

director being added.

B. DAVIS:

Correct.

C. PARDY:

2.1. 02

– Chair, we are moving right along. 2.1.02, that's environmental. If I were –

CHAIR:

We are not there yet.

B. DAVIS:

You're too quick.

C. PARDY:

Well, I am good with that section.

CHAIR:

So if the Committee is ready for the question, shall 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 inclusive

carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 to 1.2.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Can I get the Clerk to call the next set of subheads?

CLERK:

Environment, 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive carry?

MHA Pardy.

C. PARDY:

Thank you, Chair.

Environmental – if I were to ask on carbon tax this year, anything to do with

that, I am better off waiting for the carbon section?

B. DAVIS:

Carbon tax is held through Finance but if you want to ask us the questions, that

is fine. You don't necessarily need to do it in Pollution Prevention. You can do

it in Climate Change and the other sections.

C. PARDY:

Okay. I will wait until that time.

Looking at some of the line items here. Professional Services – significant

difference in Professional Services from what was budgeted to what was spent

last year and certainly to what is budgeted this year.

B. DAVIS:

Yes. So you are going to see – sorry, I didn't mean to jump in there quickly.

C. PARDY:

No, that's good.

B. DAVIS:

You are going to see that in a couple of line items here where you are going to

see in and outs coming in. Generally, that's to do with the former US military

sites in Labrador project. We moved the money back because we couldn't spend it

last year. So now that had to be removed and brought back into this year's

budget, with the hopes of spending some of it.

We are in the process of consultations with Indigenous governments and the

federal government to go forward on what the ask is going to be for that. So we

put some money in there as a starting point, but there is definitely going to be

more spent over the next subsequent years. But it is just essentially a push

out, moving into the next years.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

If I can go back to the Salaries in the same section, 2.1.01, Minister? $24,600

more budgeted this year than was spent last year. If you can explain that.

B. DAVIS:

Just higher due to forecasted salary increases.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

B. DAVIS:

And what was spent last year was down a little bit based on the fact that there

were vacant positions, similar to what happens in the divisions.

C. PARDY:

Yes.

Purchased Services, in the same section, there were $283,000 more budgeted this

year compared to what was spent last year. If you can give us a breakdown of

what those expenses were for. That is Purchased Services under 2.1.01.01.

B. DAVIS:

So that deals directly with

the US military sites in Labrador as well. So that is in two separate sections

there and you'll see it come through in, I guess, four sections. If Bonnie wants

to jump in, she can clarify it. But the way it is accounted for in the public

accounting systems is the way we're doing it. It is not the easiest to

understand but that is the way it is.

So that

$283,000 is a reduction in what we put in place for US military sites. It is

just going to be carried forward in future years.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

Grants

and Subsidies, in that

section as well, I know we are back to the $2 million

budgeted; would the list of those be in the binder that we've received?

B. DAVIS:

We can get you a list of the

grants that were passed out. That's no problem, for that section.

The

Grants and Subsidies decrease over last year was based on the provincial waste

management projects and unused funding because of COVID, not closing down

landfills and things like that. That is essentially where that would be a

reduction in. That money is still going to be spent; it is just going to be

moved out to a subsequent year.

C. PARDY:

Okay.

You had

the revenue section, Minister.

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

There was $2 million in

revenue budgeted last year but nothing was collected, if you can explain that,

and the $25,000 expected to be collected this year.

B. DAVIS:

Right, so that $2 million

is, again, to do with the US former military sites. It's the money that we

didn't receive from the federal contribution for it because we didn't do the

work. We're still in that process of meeting with the federal government.

They've

got a budget line there, through their treasury board process, but now we're in

the consultations with Indigenous organizations and governments to figure out

what the actual extent of the cleanup is, what the cost of that will be and then

we will both be going back to the federal government to determine what the

actual cost is. This is money that was budgeted for but we didn't spend.

C. PARDY:

And they're paying fully for

the cleanup? Will they pay fully –?

B. DAVIS:

I'm going to say hopefully. But I don't expect that will be the case. Maybe,

Bonnie, do you want to jump in on that one a little bit?

B. STEELE:

Actually, I think we'll get Rob to speak to that because he is …

R. LOCKE:

The former military sites

are potentially going to be funded through a 50/50 cost-shared agreement with

the federal government. As the minister said, while we are consulting with

Indigenous governments and organizations, we can't put a fixed number on that to

finalize consultations until we have the final cost of what the cleanups could

cost. We don't want to go in, for example, with an ask of $20 million only to

find out that the cleanups could actually cost $30 million. Certainly, doing due

diligence now, speaking with those groups in trying to build consensus toward a

cost.

The

revenue that you're seeing, the difference is that until we finalize a

cost-shared agreement with federal government, there will be no anticipated

revenue, until we actually start to do the work, invoice the federal government

and then receive revenue back in return.

The

framework we have initially worked out is that there would be an anticipated

revenue, roughly 50 per cent of what the province could spend. That is reflected

in the $4 million you've seen pushed out to future years in Professional

Services and Purchased Services. Similarly, then, the removal of the $2 million

that will come back from the federal government. So all of that has been pushed

now to future years until we can finalize that agreement.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Locke.

remind the hon. Member that his speaking time has expired.

2.1.01

to 2.3.01 inclusive.

MHA

Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Chair.

2.1.01,

Pollution Prevention: How many estimated liabilities for contaminated sites are

currently calculated and how will the estimated process unfold in the future,

for example, for Come By Chance Refinery?

B. DAVIS:

I think we can get you that

list. I don't know if we have it here today.

Robert,

do you have a list of contaminated sites? We can get it for you.

R. LOCKE:

We can certainly get that,

yeah.

B. DAVIS:

We don't have it here, I

don't think, but obviously the liability would be pretty high in certain areas,

of course.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Would

you have an update on the Impacted Sites Liability Assessment Program and what

cleanup plans are in the works for this upcoming year?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, we're just the, I

guess, the holder of the list. We're not necessarily the ones that –

Transportation and Infrastructure would be more of the ones that would determine

what gets cleaned and when and the budget associated with that. We're just the

holder of the list. I won't say this to diminish it, but more of an accounting

of what we have out there and what the potential liabilities could be. Until you

actually get in there and dig into what the site would look like after it has

started to be cleaned up, it's hard to say exactly what would be there.

But we

can get you the information we have on the registry, is probably the best word

to describe it. But I think your question about what order in which it will be

done and the magnitude in which it will be done, would be better served to

Transportation and Infrastructure.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

B. DAVIS:

I think you have an

opportunity tonight, though, for that.

L. EVANS:

I was just thinking that.

Looking

at greenhouse gas emissions: What are we currently doing to date for

implementing the 45 actions that were to take place by 2024 to reduce the

greenhouse gas emissions?

B. DAVIS:

Thank you for the question.

Currently, of the 45 recommendations, we have 67 per cent of them fully

completed; 33 per cent of them are in progress, at varying degrees of progress,

but we're continuing to know that's definitely not going to be enough to reach

our 2030 or 2050 targets. We're going to have to do more. That's going to be why

we're starting to look at the next plan, but that's a part of the reason why we

put in place the Net-Zero Advisory Council to provide some insight into that.

The

federal government has really doubled down on this. It's truly doubled down on

the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund, because, in this past budget, they

announced $2.2 billion for that fund again, which will give us a similar number,

we hope, to what we did the last five years, which was about $90 million to

change out buildings and electrification and putting things in place for our

transportation and heating of buildings, which are big pillars of – they account

for 30 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions now in the province.

If we

can tackle the transportation network, not just from a personal vehicle

standpoint, which we're trying to attack, but also where the next levels go for

public transit, what we can do for shipping and things like that.

Those

technologies are moving on and I know the federal government put also another

$9.2 billion into the green economy and green tech and all those things that are

going to try to help us hit those targets about carbon capture and other things

to go along with that. But it is a moving target as we speak and we're doing

everything we can to hold industry accountable but also help individuals

transition to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Can we

get that update, the 67 actions that are completed and the 33 that are in

progress?

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

L. EVANS:

Can we just get, like, a

written report summarizing the progress?

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Has

there been any progress made in the last year to improve or specify the policies

and procedures for calculating the liability of a given site, as per the Auditor

General's report in 2020?

B. DAVIS:

We'll throw it back to our

resident expert, Robert.

R. LOCKE:

Yes, so in response to the Auditor General's report, my division staff have –

we've revised the guidance document that departments and agencies follow with

respect to calculating liabilities for those sites. One of the main improvements

is that there is now a cost for inflation that gets added to the liabilities.

We're still in the process of finalizing this year's report, but once it's

available we can certainly make those calculations and numbers available.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

I'm not

sure if this is the right place to ask it but just another question here that

just came up: Has the government started calculating its corporate carbon

footprint?

B. DAVIS:

I'm going to say yes, we do

that, through Susan's shop.

Susan,

would you like to make a comment on that as well?

S. SQUIRES:

All of our GHG emissions in the province are calculated and we participate in

the national reporting inventory for all our GHG emissions. That's broken down

by sector, so we would report into those just like industry, manufacturing,

residential use, all of it. We have initiatives over this Climate Change Action

Plan about greening government and different departments have done different

things, so there is, I guess, a multitude of areas in which we're working on

that.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Moving

to 2.2.01, Water Resources Management. It's good to see you, Dr. Khan. I've

worked with you in the past.

2.2.01, Water Resources Management: How many municipalities have been on a

boil-water advisory for more than a month, one year and how many residents do

such long-term advisories currently impact?

B. DAVIS:

Yeah, so as of April 28 – we

can get you more up-to-date information but that's not that long ago – there was

188 boil-water advisories in place. There are 146 communities affected by those

boil-water advisories, serving a population of about 43,000 people, so just a

little over almost 10 per cent of the population, a little less.

But 174 of those, which is

the interesting part of this, which is something that I know the previous

minister – Minister Bragg – when he was with MAPA, or whatever the iteration was

before, was really firm on when we give funding to municipalities and

organizations like that, instead of building a recreation complex in a

community, we should be really focusing on giving clean drinking water to the

constituencies there. It is not, as they say, the big, shiny building that is

sitting in a community, but it is something that is going to make a big impact.

But the point of that

statement was that 174 of those are non-microbiological reasons so they can be

fixed – I won't say easy, but there are systems in place. There is funding

available within the government to fix these things. We just need the

communities to apply, and I never miss an opportunity to encourage individuals,

municipalities, LSDs to apply to clean their drinking water.

The ones that are very

challenging, those ones are the ones we will all try to step up and try to find

solutions for. But they are very small numbers, the ones that are more

challenging to fix. The rest, you know, it could be that they have a system

already in place and they are not putting chlorine in it or chemicals in it that

needs to be put into it, because some people don't like the taste of the

chorine. Those are the things that we can fix and try to find ways to work

together on. So a very good question, MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

And will be able to get a

breakdown of the ones that have been on the boil-water advisory for more than a

month, more than a year?

B. DAVIS:

Yeah, we can do that.

L. EVANS:

You can just send it over.

B. DAVIS:

They are online, but we can get you a copy. That is no problem.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

I guess about tying the

boil-water advisories to access to funding is one of the things you are doing,

but what are you doing to address the boil-water advisories that have been in

place for a long time?

B. DAVIS:

Well, that is a very good question. We have reduced that number. That was well

over 200 not too long ago. I think it was 240 or 235. So we have reduced that

over the last couple of years by putting in place, as I mentioned in my intro,

the water operator program, to help those smaller communities that don't have

the experience and/or skilled staff – they have skilled staff but not

necessarily in that particular area.

These individuals are

someone they can call to help those communities and they have helped a number of

communities get their systems back up and running, helped them maintain them

when they do have a faulty part or something like that. So those are things that

we're doing, tangible, that can help them. But we're encouraging people – like,

in this House of Assembly, I encourage every MHA to talk to their district

communities that don't have clean drinking water to reach out to us. We want

this fixed; we want to support it. It is a priority for not just our provincial

government, but our federal government as well.

We're

pushing hard to try to get this stuff, but it is going to take all of us, the

municipalities, our MHAs on both sides of the aisle here, to work together to

try to get these communities fixed because that is the only way that it is going

to work. Communities, like all of us, like to see the big infrastructure that's

above ground so that every person can go in and visit. They don't necessarily

worry as much about infrastructure that lies underneath the ground. That is

something that is really important for the livelihoods of individuals. It is

part of the Health Accord. It is something that we are committed to and we have

been committed to well before the Health Accord as well. So very good question.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Minister, and

thank you, MHA Evans.

Just

before we go back to MHA Pardy, out of respect for our friends down at the

Broadcast Centre, I'm asking for five minutes. So we'll reconvene at 11:30 a.m.

B. DAVIS:

Perfect.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay. If we can just gather

our seats again, please.

So we

are back on 2.1.01 to 2.3.01.

MHA

Pardy.

C. PARDY:

A question on the

remediation of the old dump sites: What would be the estimated cost of

remediation of a dump site? I know outside of St. John's, here in Robin Hood

Bay, I think you can get probably a handle on what those dump sites would be.

B. DAVIS:

I guess that is the

million-dollar, probably billion-dollar question. I don't know if we could ever

get a handle on what the full remediation will be of sites. I don't have it off

the top of my head, but what I do know is that we're working with some of the

sites like Discovery region in Coast of Bays to try to find some ways to have

them move in their garbage so we can get rid of those sites. That's what that

money that was carried over – that $2 million was it – for sites. That's where

we need to go.

So when

we get those deals done, like with your region down there in Discovery, once we

get that worked out, that'll help us close out those dump sites and then

transition people to the landfill that's closest to them, whether it be Eastern,

Central or Western.

C. PARDY:

We're struggling in our

district with our dump site capacity –

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

C. PARDY:

– as you well know.

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

C. PARDY:

I keep telling the residents

and the councils that my understanding was the year before last and then it was

last year, so I'm assuming, surely, we wouldn't be too far off.

B. DAVIS:

Well, the whole thing is

we're waiting for the Discovery region, right, that's where we're working

through. It's not just on our end; we're waiting for – what's the best word –

Robert, you can sort of jump in there

R. LOCKE:

MHA Pardy, as it happens, we

actually have a meeting that we're arranging now with representatives from

Discovery region. The whole purpose would be to advance the strategy in that

area, to work with them, to consolidate closed sites and to move into the modern

waste management system for the Eastern region.

C. PARDY:

So the rubber is hitting the

road now?

R. LOCKE:

Yes, it is indeed. Our staff

are actually – I think, they have a meeting planned, if it's not, within the

next week or two, I think it's very imminent.

C. PARDY:

Perfect.

Last,

before I move on to another topic, the US military bases, we must have an

estimate – even though when I ask that question I know how precarious that is

and tough job to get an estimate because you don't know what's lying beneath.

But do we have an estimate that we're working on that we're going to go 50/50 on

with the feds?

B. DAVIS:

We'll let Robert jump in

there because he's been working intimately with the file.

R. LOCKE:

Yes, so the latest estimate

we have is approximately $25 million, $27 million. As I said, that number is not

finalized and we don't want it to be finalized until we fully consulted with the

Indigenous governments and organizations, the people who use the land. We need

to know what the proposed land use will be. There's historical knowledge in

those communities that previous assessments may not have picked up. So we are

looking to potentially have sessions actually in each of the communities with

the Indigenous organizations to gather knowledge and basically for both of us to

work together to build consensus on what is there and how best to remediate in

order to meet the needs and improve these sites going forward.

C. PARDY:

Okay, good. Good, good,

good.

One

quick point on the ATV tires, and I know you're not MMSB. It fails me when we

look at the environment that a small business in Clarenville can change tires,

they don't sell the tires but they can change someone's tire on the ATVs, four

tires. What MMSB has really expected them to do is to give that back to them to

take with them and to dispose of themselves.

Sometimes that's problematic. Sometimes it doesn't get where it ought to be. So

what the business owner opted to do was he would save the tires and he would

bring them out. So at one point in time he brought it out in his business truck

and you know that didn't work. So they didn't take them. The only thing being

was that if he went home and changed his truck and brought them back out, they

would be taken.

What

our goal would be environmentally was to take those tires out of the circulation

that don't end up on streets or in waking trails that we would have, but once we

put that barrier up – and we have it – and once those leave his business and

bring those ATV tires out, if there's even 20 per cent that don't make it to the

transfer station, then that's 20 per cent too much.

There

might be a little tweaking or another analysis that I would see. I know it's not

for discussion here, but it's probably something we should look at with that.

I had a

fisherman that brought a net up. He had a net in the back and only to get to the

transfer station in Clarenville and they don't take nets. So he called: Well,

what do I do with that? They don't take it. It's Robin Hood Bay.

If you

think most fishermen are going to transfer it, that would be living in the

District of Bonavista and make the track for there, then I said, not going to

happen.

B. DAVIS:

(Inaudible) I tend to agree

with you on that.

The

MMSB has put an RFP out for tires. I know that's clued up now, or very close to

cluing up. I think that's going to be an opportunity for us to look at a local

options, hopefully, that will deal with the tires. Because normally you can't

deal with the ATV tires anyway because of the mud and stuff, based on where we

were bringing them to, which was in Quebec, they couldn't cross borders because

of the potato bug and all that stuff could potentially come in.

We're

working on things. It's not lost on me, because anything we can take out of the

landfill and recycle is going to be better for us for the longer term, not just

from a greenhouse gas emission and a waste management position, but anything we

can divert out of those landfills to increase better than 50 per cent of the

diversion is where we need to be, as, not just the government, as a people.

C. PARDY:

Now, I'm not going to raise

about how shipping our tires out of the – because I think you had stated in

Estimates last year, the fact that we just don't have the volume. It's just for

us to do something with it, but I don't know what the carbon footprint would be

using the concrete plant in Quebec. I'm assuming –

B. DAVIS:

Yes, obviously, we're

looking at options. Hopefully – stay tuned – there'll be an option that would be

better than that forth coming.

I can't

speak to that yet at this point because I don't know if it's finalized or if

it's even clued up that way, so stay tuned. Obviously, it's not falling on deaf

ears, I agree with you 100 per cent on let's divert as much as we possibly can

and use it if we can.

The

problem that I've always heard is that we have an awful lot of tires, but

nowhere near what it needs to be in industry. But that doesn't negate the fact

that we can't use something for it. So stay tuned, we're working on some things.

Hopefully, when you ask me next year in Estimates, you won't even ask me, you'll

say congratulations, Minister, on the great program that you've put in place for

these tires.

C. PARDY:

Good.

Keep in mind the debate that we had about the all-terrain vehicles and helmets

in Side By Sides.

B. DAVIS:

Yes.

C. PARDY:

Remember, the stats would tell you that we have got double the ATVs per capita.

We have got the highest in Canada. So once we look at our per capita, we are not

normal as far as in Newfoundland and Labrador thinking that we haven't –

B. DAVIS:

I would think we definitely are normal.

C. PARDY:

No, we are not normal, I don't think.

B. DAVIS:

I think the people would think differently if you had said they were abnormal.

C. PARDY:

Definitely not abnormal. But we are not the normal breed.

If I can go to Water Resources Management, you had stated there – and I commend

you on that – the onus is on MHAs to make safe drinking water available and for

us to be all a part of it. Let me give you a scenario and you tell me what you

would think.

So we have got a community that has been on a boil-water order – 66, 70

households. They just got a Municipal Capital Works Project last year for

$250,000 because they figured that is what they could afford to pay. They have

been on a boil-water advisory. So this is the second one they have got. The

first one they got, they paid it off. Now they have got another one for

$250,000. Well, they have probably got another three to go, but they can't

afford that one million to pay it off in what the lending institutions would

provide for them for six or seven years.

We have got a community with a boil order since 1985 and, at a public meeting,

they were wondering if government can say we will grant you enough to do a job

that your drinking water will be safe to drink and you will come off the

boil-water advisory. The only thing being is we need to be able to have a longer

borrowing term.

Is there something that government can do that would help communities like

Newman's Cove to be able to get there much sooner than having to wait for

another decade and go through the trickles of the $250,000?

B. DAVIS:

Well, before I throw it to Haseen, I just want to say, yes, would be what I

would like to say, but I haven't specifically had a conversation with them to

see what their requirements are as you described them. I would be more than

happy to sit down with them to try to find solutions on what we can do.

Haseen is probably more intimately involved in this, obviously, than I have. But

if there is anything we can do with respect to gas tax, federal government and

provincial government to work towards getting that there – we are all in this

together to try and get them there. Let's figure out how we can do it and Haseen

H. KHAN:

Thank you, Minister, and MHA Pardy.

As the minister said, there are two options. For these type of communities, we

have launched a special program that every year we will select four or five such

communities. We will

work with them one on one – what is the cause of this problem, how the problem

can be fixed and these are the options. So this is one option.

The

second option is, as the minister mentioned, drinking water safety is our

priority. We can also provide these communities with a small potable water

dispensing unit, which will provide them with clean and safe water for drinking

purposes.

We have

done that for a number of such communities, and there are 32 potable water

dispensing units operating throughout the province. So yes, there are options to

respond to these types of special situations, MHA Pardy.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

We'll

go back to MHA Evans, 2.1.01 to 2.3.01 inclusive.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Chair.

Just

going back to 2.1.01, under Pollution Prevention for waste management there.

Given the large carbon footprint associated with solid waste, is the department

giving any consideration to diverting organics from the regional waste

management sites?

B. DAVIS:

The short answer is yes,

we've given consideration – it is a costly venture, so we're looking at options

on smaller sites that we could do it in. I'll give you one example and I'll let

Robert jump in on this after I give this one. I was in Deer Lake. They do some

composting in their site, for their own – I guess they have a municipal site but

the residents can come get the product. It's a fenced-in yard, they'll open it

up when it's ready to go and they can take it out.

There's

a program that smaller communities can use together for regional sites, where

they can actually get tumblers from MMSB and that's one of the options that

we're using for smaller scale to try to reach across the Island to get some

people moving in that diversion point. Robert, if you want to jump in on that

one, that'd be great.

R. LOCKE:

Sure, thank you, Minister.

Certainly a recognition that organic waste going to landfill is an issue.

Overall, from a provincial perspective, that is certainly recognized that we

would be working toward a provincial solution for organic waste management from

the municipal side.

From

the industrial side, there are a number of companies that have approached us

over the last while with solutions that they're certainly looking at

implementing and we're supporting, where possible, to divert organic waste from

landfill. Things like sewage waste treatment, enhanced treatment or processing

of aquaculture waste, things like that. So it is certainly something the

department is working with stakeholders to address.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Moving

back to 2.2.01, Water Resources Management. Just looking for an update. How far

along is the work now on the Drinking Water Safety Action Plan?

B. DAVIS:

Good question. I mentioned

earlier that we have already done a public consultation and that has been clued

up. The department is working on the report from there. I would say, as I said

to MHA Pardy, stay tuned, it is not going to be very far and we'll have that

released.

L. EVANS:

Okay, thank you.

Could

we get an update on the monitoring of methylmercury levels downstream? I know

you are monitoring the methylmercury in the water, but also I am looking at

bioaccumulation in the food chain. In addition to the water methylmercury

monitoring you're doing, are you testing any organisms, such as fish and also

waterfowl that feed on the aquatic vegetation and the insects and organisms in

the water?

This

monitoring that you're going to talk to me about now, are there reports

available to residents that would actually show the methylmercury levels in

water and also in the food chain?

B. DAVIS:

I think it is available on

our website for the levels. I will let Haseen jump in here on this one because

he can talk about it a little bit more in detail from scientist to scientist

more than MHA to scientist.

L. EVANS:

Just to clarify, we're

looking at what testing is going on, on what and where are the reports.

H. KHAN:

Thanks, MHA.

Methylmercury monitoring has been going on in three mediums: water, sediment and

biota. Water data is available on the Department of Environment and Climate

Change website. It is updated on a regular basis, as and when data is provided

to us by the lab.

Sediment and biota monitoring is undertaken by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

as a part of EA release requirements. They submit annual reports to the

department on their findings. We post those reports also on our web page. So

there is a one-point contact to the public for all information on methylmercury,

which has been collected to date. We, as the departmental, are lead on

methylmercury monitoring in water. To date, monitoring has not shown any

increase in methylmercury levels.

L. EVANS:

Okay.

where did you say the other reports are? Is that available to the public?

B. DAVIS:

The Newfoundland (inaudible)

is public as well on our website.

L. EVANS:

On the website.

Thank

you.

H. KHAN:

We can send you the link.

L. EVANS:

No, that's good.

Are

there any priorities for flood-risk mapping to be conducted this coming year?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, good question.

We were

pleased to put in $1.2 million in this budget for flood-risk mapping, $600,000

from the federal government and $600,000 for the province. In 2022, just so we

know, we conducted flood-risk mapping in Ferryland, Brigus and other places. In

2023, it's looking at the Codroy Valley where we've had some issues as of recent

with respect to flooding in the fall.

we're looking at those areas of highest priority where we have issues that can

provide information to the municipality and the community groups to ensure that

those areas are not impacted in infrastructure and the costs come forward.

But I

will throw it back to Haseen again on flood-risk mapping, if there is anything

he'd like to add, because I think it's not known widely, but it's a very big

service that's provided by the department, that's used by many other departments

and agencies across the province.

Haseen.

H. KHAN:

Thank you, Minister.

The

province has been involved in flood-risk mapping since the 1980s under various

federal-provincial cost-shared programs. We, as a province, have developed

flood-risk maps for about 46 communities. We maintain that information on our

web page.

Every year we try to select four or five communities from our priority list,

which is available on the web page.

As of today, there are about 22 communities which are on the priority list. So

either the maps have to be updated – our maps have to be done right from

scratch. So, as the minister mentioned, it is an ongoing process and we will

continue to update flood-risk maps as prepared maps for those areas for which we

have no information.

For the information of Members, there are 50 communities in the province which

are kind of prone to flooding from time to time.

B. DAVIS:

One of the things that I think is novel about ours is that we factor in climate

change numbers and initiatives that come forward that some other jurisdictions

don't do but we do that because I think it's important to factor that in.

Thank you, MHA Evans.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

Is it possible to get an update on the implementation of the Regional Water and

Wastewater Operator Pilot Program?

B. DAVIS:

Yes, good question.

Myself and Minister Howell were in Gander at the Water Operators Provincial

Conference – I think that's what it was called – where we announced $240,000,

almost $250,000, to maintain that program to ensure that communities that don't

have the readily available skill sets have the ability to utilize those trained

professionals to learn how to operate their system or maintain their systems. I

look at it as almost like you call a friend thing, when you have a problem it

gives you an opportunity to call someone who knows and walks you through that

system and knows your system well.

L. EVANS:

Just looking at weather forecasts now. When you are actually predicting the

impacts from weather emergencies such as blizzards and hurricanes, where do you

get your information to make such forecasts?

B. DAVIS:

I get it from Haseen, but I'm going to throw is back to Haseen to say where

Haseen gets it.

So thank you, Haseen, for providing that information to me and everybody else.

H. KHAN:

We do lots of work in this area. We kind of compile our own information in

consultation with communities as well as through our own ongoing monitoring

programs, because we cannot make informed decision making until we know what is

happening out in the field. So we have a very strong network and partnership

with communities, as well as with operators and that is how we get information.

C HAIR:

Thank you, Mr.

Khan, and thank you, MHA Evans.

2.1.01

to 2.3.01, MHA Pardy.

C. PARDY:

Just a couple of more points

to finish up there.

On the

Newman's Cove situation, which I just mentioned, we can discuss that –

B. DAVIS:

Absolutely.

C. PARDY:

– and have a look, that's

something that we can explore. In the response on number two, where it mentioned

that we had drinking water safety, small water dispensing program, I'm assuming

that would be under the special assistance grant through municipalities?

B. DAVIS:

For those PWDU systems?

C. PARDY:

Or would it be through your

department?

H. KHAN:

It goes through the Capital Works program.

C. PARDY:

Okay, Capital Works program.

B. DAVIS:

We're more than happy to sit

down with you, MHA, just like any other MHA, i