HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)

Mr.Chuck Porter (Vice-Chairman)

Hon. Patrick Dunn

Mr. Keith Bain

Mr. Graham Steele

Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)

Mr. Keith Colwell

Mr. Leo Glavine

Ms. Diana Whalen

[Mr. James Muir replaced Hon. Patrick Dunn]

WITNESSES

Department of Environment

Ms. Nancy Vanstone, Deputy Minister

Mr. Kim MacNeil, Executive Director, Environmental & Natural Areas Management

Mr. Steve Conway, Environmental Home Assessment Program Coordinator

Mr. Adrian Fuller, District Manager (Bedford Office)

In Attendance:

Mrs. Darlene Henry

Legislative Committee Clerk

Ms. Sherri Mitchell

Legislative Committees Office

Mr. Jacques Lapointe

Auditor General

Mr. Terry Spicer

Assistant Auditor General

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Chief Legislative Counsel

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIR

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

VICE-CHAIRMAN

Mr. Chuck Porter

MADAM CHAIR: Good morning. I'd like to call the committee to order, please. Today we have with us witnesses from the Department of Environment regarding the Environmental Home Assessment Program. We will begin in the usual order with introductions.

[The committee members and witnesses introduced themselves.]

MADAM CHAIR: Good morning and welcome. I would like to now ask the deputy if you would like to make some opening remarks.

MS. NANCY VANSTONE: Thank you very much and good morning. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to talk to you about the Nova Scotia Environmental Home Assessment Program, one of our most successful programs, a relatively new program for us and one that we're very proud of. You've already been introduced and gone around to my colleagues who are here today to help me answer any questions you have on this program.

Just to give you a very quick intro to the program, the Environmental Home Assessment Program, or EHAP as we refer to it, began as a pilot program in 2006-07. It was designed to help Nova Scotians learn about the best practices for maintaining their wells, septic systems and oil tanks. The program was directed at 4,000 Nova Scotians who are on wells and septic systems across Nova Scotia and they need information to ensure those systems are functioning properly. The pilot started with the ability to provide 400, one-on-one assessments with a homeowner to review their system, to provide them with information so that they could maintain it properly, and in some cases to respond to problems identified with their septic system during the assessment.

I'm very pleased to report that EHAP is no longer a pilot project, it is part of our ongoing program suite at Nova Scotia Environment. This fiscal year we'll be spending $1.5 million to continue the work of EHAP throughout the province and that will involve conducting 1,000 home assessments this year.

EHAP is about prevention. It's about avoiding costly malfunctions of these systems in people's homes. It's about educating Nova Scotians on how to maintain those systems to protect not just their health and the health of their family, but also protecting the environment, protecting their neighbours, and avoiding costly and unnecessary repairs.

EHAP provides a face-to-face communication with homeowners to ensure that they have the knowledge they need to make the right decisions. The program - actually, I have one of the kits here and we can talk about the details of this more - involves a lot of face-to-face education with homeowners. An assessor from an environmental non-profit organization goes to their home and delivers the program. They provide them with information on their septic system, tips to extend the life of their system, improve the maintenance of their system, water-saving devices, and environmentally friendly household cleaners. A key message of that part of the program is the need to pump regularly, so one of the aspects of the program is to also provide them with a voucher for $100 for pumping out their system.

The program also provides information on the importance of testing their water regularly and it provides a water-quality sampling kit to encourage them to do this. Their oil tank is inspected and the homeowner receives information on how to do this themselves. If, during the home assessment, it's determined that the septic system is malfunctioning, they can apply for a grant to help repair or replace their system. We provide Nova Scotians who meet a financial test with a grant of up to $3,000 toward repairs to their septic systems. As of December 2008, the department has assisted over 500 - 511 - Nova Scotians with grants to repair or replace their septic systems.

The feedback we've been getting on this program has been very positive. We've had letters from municipalities, from the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, encouraging us to continue the program, extend it beyond the pilot. We've had letters from individual homeowners thanking us for the assistance. Because of EHAP, people are getting information they need so that they're safer in their homes and their environment is safer. Our goal in the department is to make sure that every Nova Scotian who relies on a well and a septic system has the tools, the knowledge, and the information they need to make proper choices about the health of their family and the health of their household and their environment.

We think this program is having a very positive impact and we are really looking forward to answering any questions you might have about it and providing further information.

We have provided some information in advance of the program. I think it was circulated, as well, so on behalf of myself and my colleagues, we're happy to answer any questions that you have on it.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. Before we begin the opening round of questions, I want to draw the members' attention to the west gallery, where we have Dan Rector, who is job-shadowing Mr. Muir today. Dan is a student at the Nova Scotia Community College, Truro Campus, and is the president of their student council. So I'd like to welcome Dan to our proceedings and hope that you have a very productive day.

Mr. Steele, you have 20 minutes for the opening round of questions.

MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Thank you very much for coming today, a very interesting program. This particular item was put on the agenda of the Public Accounts Committee at the request of the Progressive Conservative caucus and they're not in the habit of putting things on the agenda that aren't good-news stories. So it doesn't surprise me to hear you say in your opening remarks that you consider this to be one of your most successful programs.

The difficulties that I have with it are the typical difficulties that we have with many programs coming before us, particularly, I would say, in the area of the environment, and that is there is very, very little information available to us, as members of the Legislature, as to how the program is working. For example, today in your opening remarks I think is the first time the government has ever said anywhere that the program has moved beyond the pilot-project stage and is now considered to be a permanent program offered to the people of the province.

After two years one would think that we would have information available to us that allowed us to evaluate ourselves the degree to which the program has been a success, but we don't have that. All we have is your word, as the deputy minister, that it has been a success, to which I would say, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, okay, let's see the data, let's see exactly what has happened.

Now, I know you have the data but we don't have the data. The data is not available to the public, as far as I can tell - I've looked for it, I can't find it. As a Public Accounts Committee, we need more than to have a deputy minister come in and say this program has been a great success, just trust us. We need the data and we deserve the data because we can't do our job without the data. So that's the first difficulty.

The other one which I'm going to explore a little bit this morning is this thing where the government proclaims a program to be a great success but doesn't point out that it is limited - very limited - in its reach and, in fact, very few people qualify for it, that in comparison to the need, it is the proverbial drop in the bucket. If somebody today in Halifax County were to apply for one of the grants, for example, to repair their septic system, what

would they be told? They would be told that the money is all used up for this fiscal year, so they can't have it. So the program is a success, I would say, as far as it extends, but it doesn't extend very far. So those are the themes that I want to explore today.

Let's see if we can get some of that data I was talking about, some of the information. The Environmental Home Assessment Program is available to any household that has both a septic field and uses well water. How many households in Nova Scotia have a septic system, Ms. Vanstone?

MS. VANSTONE: The number of homeowners who potentially would qualify are in the range of 400,000.

MR. STEELE: Okay, so we have 400,000. Now, is that 400,000 households that qualify in the sense that they have both a septic system and well water?

MS. VANSTONE: Yes.

MR. STEELE: I understand that one of the other limitations of the program is that it has to be the person's primary residence, that if you have a secondary residence, for example, the typical one being a cottage somewhere in the country, almost all of which would have a septic field, almost all of which would be on well water, that those simply don't qualify. Now, the figure of 400,000, does that include secondary property?

MS. VANSTONE: It's actually 400,000 people - just correcting that - as opposed to households or homes.

MR. STEELE: Okay, how many homes, then? Of course you do this by household, not by individual.

MS. VANSTONE: We don't have the data on the number of homes.

MR. STEELE: Okay, so 400,000 people, their primary residence uses septic and well.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes.

MR. STEELE: Okay, so that wouldn't include anybody with a cottage property, for example, just from the way you're doing the data.

MS. VANSTONE: The reason we don't include cottage properties - they are included in the sense that there is an element of this program that's around broad communication and education, so the environmental groups that deliver the program, as part of their contract requirements, have to do education in that region. They may have sessions, for example, cottage owners could have them come and put on a session to that group.

[9:15 a.m.]

Really what we were focusing on, because money is limited and we want to make sure we're directing it at where we think there is the most benefit, was people who were dealing with this in their primary residences.

MR. STEELE: I guess that's one of the points I wanted to draw out today is the money is limited. I don't think most people realize just how limited the money is and just how few people have actually received the benefit of one of these programs. How many households have actually had a visit from a home assessor?

MS. VANSTONE: We've had 2,300.

MR. STEELE: So that's 2,300 households. Now, the earlier figure you gave me was in terms of people. It seems kind of odd to me that one thing you're counting in terms of households and another thing you're counting in terms of people. You use the figure 400,000 - so 2,300 households in a province where there are 400,000 people in need, I think shows the smallness of the program compared to the potential need. How many people have asked for a home assessment?

MS. VANSTONE: Well, I understand we don't have a waiting list per se on the home assessments, but the groups have pretty well been able to deal with the demand that has been coming on the home assessments.

Steve, I would just ask if there's a . . .

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. STEVE CONWAY: It's not so much a waiting list but a working list, so as people would request home assessments, the home assessor would then organize their days to do the work.

MR. STEELE: What I'm trying to do is I'm just trying to get the data, which is not available to me any other way. You've said that 2,300 people have received an environmental home assessment under this program. What I'm trying to get now is, how many people have asked for one but have not yet received one?

MR. CONWAY: That number would be changing but it would be roughly in the order of 100.

MR. STEELE: How many people have asked for a home assessment but have been told that they're not eligible for one?

MR. CONWAY: That, I don't know.

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Vanstone.

MS. VANSTONE: The reason they would not be eligible for a home assessment would be if they didn't meet the criteria about owning the home or it being their primary residence. As I understand it, in terms of a wait period for people who want to participate and have a home assessment, they are getting responded to, they wouldn't wait more than maybe a couple of months in terms of having an assessor come out and do that program.

MR. STEELE: As I'm doing my job here of the accountability, one of the things that I want to know, I'm trying to identify the degree of the unmet need. One element of that need is people who ask for a home assessment, want one, could benefit from one, but are told they don't meet the program criteria, and that can be because remember, the criteria are fairly strict - you have to have both septic and well water and it has to be your own primary residence. My understanding is you don't actually have a figure available for the number of people who have asked for an assessment but have been told they don't qualify.

MS. VANSTONE: No, we have that feedback from our delivery agents in the four regions, which are the regional environmental groups. The other thing that's important on the delivery of this program is that we don't do the direct delivery of the home assessments. They are done by assessors hired by the environmental group and that's done deliberately because this is very much about prevention and about voluntary compliance. It's kept confidential, we don't have the records in terms of the individuals, and their addresses, who receive the home assessment.

MR. STEELE: No, but, of course, that's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking you for their addresses, I'm just asking for the data. You can't run a program without getting the data and I assume that the organizations that are actually administering the program report back to you with the numbers of people that they serve.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, and the information is that people aren't waiting more than two months to get that program.

MR. STEELE: How often do you get reports back from those other agencies?

MS. VANSTONE: Quarterly reports.

MR. STEELE: Is there any reason why those reports couldn't be made available to this committee, so we can just see the data for ourselves?

MS. VANSTONE: We can certainly look at that. I'm not sure what's in them, but we'll . . .

MR. STEELE: Yes, I mean if we have quarterly reports over two years we should have eight quarterly reports from three different delivery organizations, I assume that it's fairly straightforward. I know one of them is delivering in two regions.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes.

MR. STEELE: By the way, I do want to compliment the department on the agencies that you're partnering with. I know down in the western area it's the Clean Annapolis River Project, a very sound organization; I know in the central and northern regions it's Clean Nova Scotia - I just don't recall off the top of my head what the other one is. But those are very . . .

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, Atlantic Coastal Action Program in Cape Breton.

MR. STEELE: All very credible organizations, so I think you've chosen good partners. I know they're delivering the data to you so you have the data, but we in the Public Accounts Committee don't. So if we're going to take a serious look at how this program is functioning I just think we need to see the data. In fact, it would have been helpful for us to see it in advance of today's session, rather than coming to the session and having to ask for the data that would allow us to ask the questions we need to ask, to make sure the program is functioning the way it should.

How many of the people who have received a home assessment have taken advantage of the $100 credit for pumping out their septic system?

MS. VANSTONE: I'm hearing about 20 per cent. One of the challenges we've had and an improvement we've made on the program this year is when we started out we offered a $50 voucher toward pumping out your septic system, and what we were finding was people weren't taking up that voucher.

MR. STEELE: Did you do any evaluation of why they weren't taking it up?

MS. VANSTONE: Part of it was awareness, and we do - not we directly - the environmental groups do follow-up questionnaires after the home assessment. So they come back later in the year and do a follow-up questionnaire to find out if they're doing the things that they talked about, if they had their system pumped, and they'll also do a follow-up with their clients at five years to see if they've changed behaviour. That's really what this is about, we want to change people's behaviours so that they're maintaining their systems properly.

What we have done, we thought maybe that voucher wasn't enough, so this year we have increased it to $100, if you exercise that by the end of this fiscal year. If you take longer to do it, it drops down to $50. There were a couple of things we were finding. One was that people felt they didn't need to do it in the first couple of years, and when we first started this

we only had the voucher out for a couple of years because we weren't sure if the program was going to continue. Now we have extended that, they have three years to use the voucher, and we think that will make a difference in terms of the time period. We have this added incentive if they do it initially the year after they've had their home assessment.

MR. STEELE: Of the homes that have had the home assessment, how many were found to have a non-functioning or poorly functioning septic system?

MS. VANSTONE: Again, this is where we get into a challenge with the confidentiality of the information. If the assessor goes to do the home assessment and they identify that there's a malfunctioning system, they explain that to the homeowner, they advise the homeowner what they should be doing to address that situation, but they don't report that to us.

MR. STEELE: I don't expect that individual cases are reported back to you, but surely you're getting some statistics back.

MS. VANSTONE: We can talk about the number of applications we have that come out of the home assessment for people who then apply because they want to repair their system - and the majority of those are not because there's an inspection, they're coming out because of the information they got from the home assessment.

MR. STEELE: That's an interesting question that I was going to get to later, but I guess what I'm getting at is that as the administrators of this program, in order to decide what's going well and what's not, surely you need to have some statistical information about what the assessors are finding. For example, the 20 per cent uptake on the voucher is pretty low, especially when you look at estimates of independent people who think that a very high percentage of Nova Scotia septic systems are not properly functioning, mostly because people don't understand them and don't properly maintain them, so a 20 per cent uptake is fairly low.

I would think that in order to ensure the success of the program you'd want to know how many people have problems with their system and why the uptake on the voucher is so low. If you don't understand that you're not going to know how to change the voucher system to make sure it meets the need. I just don't know how it is you can shape the program if you, yourselves, don't have the statistics you need to make those kinds of judgments.

Let me ask then about the grant, which is phrased as "up to $3,000" which leaves me wondering, I guess my first question would be, if it's up to $3,000, how much is actually given out? How many grants have been given out and what is the average of those grants?

MS. VANSTONE: We've given out over 500 grants - 510 or 511 - to date. Steve, I'll just ask you to correct me, but I think most of them have been at the $3,000 amount.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: If the repair is less than $3,000, obviously we're not going to give them $3,000, but certainly most of them are over the $3,000. When you're looking at average amounts per application, or per grant committed, it would be very close to the $3,000 mark.

MR. STEELE: One of the difficulties that has been identified by people familiar with the program is, of course, no amount of voucher, no amount of grant is going to help if the person has no money. If they're going to clean out their system, a $100 voucher toward, say, a $300 cost means they still have to come up with $200 that they don't have. If you have a $3,000 grant to do a $10,000 repair you're not going to do it, because most of the people who fit within the income caps that we're talking about here simply don't have $7,000 lying around doing nothing. Has the department looked at the question of how many people are not fixing or cleaning their systems because they simply can't afford it?

MS. VANSTONE: The department does work with the Department of Community Services for very-low-income Nova Scotians, to assist them on the replacement of their septic system. They can apply through Community Services and receive, in some cases, the full amount of the cost to replace a system.

MR. STEELE: And that would apply to people who qualify for social services, which is very low. Your threshold is $50,000, so there's the great middle class there between about $20,000 and $50,000 income who don't have a lot of money. They have the offer of a grant or a voucher, but they simply don't have any spare money around and so they don't do the repairs, they don't do the cleaning. Has the department taken a look at the extent to which that is a problem with this program, people who have an assessor come out to identify the problem, but the person says, I don't have the money to fix it, thanks very much? Have you looked at that?

MS. VANSTONE: We are seeing a lot of take-up on the program, so we think that it is having value for people, they are responding and wanting to make the repairs and take advantage of the $3,000 grant. So certainly for some people they'll still have a challenge; if the cost is more than $3,000, that will be a challenge for them. But there has been great take-up on the grant program availability, so I think it is meeting a need and helping people make those repairs, or toward replacement. In some cases they're not replacing the entire system, they're making repairs, and the $3,000 is a very significant contribution toward that.

MR. STEELE: Let me ask this - just as my time wraps up - you said that 400,000 people in Nova Scotia are potentially eligible for this program - 400,000 - and the number of people who have actually received an assessment - never mind doing any work - is 2,300. When you look at the number of people who have received a grant, it's 500. That's 500 households when the potential need is 400,000. Has the department considered increasing the budget available to the program?

MS. VANSTONE: We are always looking at that, in terms of our budget discussions, and we'll continue to look at that in future years.

I just want to pick up a little bit on the suggestion that 400,000 Nova Scotians have a malfunctioning septic system, because that's not the situation. It is certainly a significant problem . . .

MR. STEELE: But I didn't say that. The numbers that you gave me were 400,000 people on both septic and wells . . .

MS. VANSTONE: On wells and septic systems, yes.

MR. STEELE: . . . so that's the potential need for an assessment. I didn't say that all of them were malfunctioning. I just think if the budget is so much less than the need, my question, which I think I'll have to wait for the next round, is whether the department has considered expanding the criteria so that it's more than just this proverbial drop in the bucket.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, the time has expired for the NDP caucus.

I recognize Mr. Colwell for the Liberal caucus. You have 20 minutes.

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you. I'd like to thank the department for coming today and I have great respect for the staff in your department who administer this program and other programs with the septic and well systems that you've put in place.

I have a couple of questions. When you do the home assessments, when the home assessor is doing this in these organizations that come, what kind of training is required for them to do this home assessment?

MS. VANSTONE: They receive training support through Steve, the coordinator of the program. So, Steve, do you just want to talk about the training they get?

MR. CONWAY: Yes, each year we go back through it again, of course, but it's two to three days of training once a year, to go through what the proper procedures are, how to identify problems, basically.

MR. COLWELL: As part of the training, they would do a water - as part of the test, you do a water test, for bacteria and anything else for the water test?

MR. CONWAY: No, they don't actually do the test, they provide the sample bottles to the homeowner and talk to them about how to do a test properly so they don't contaminate the test and do it incorrectly.

MR. COLWELL: Do they do a dye test for the septic?

MR. CONWAY: No, they're looking for visual indicators only, and the homeowners' descriptions.

MR. COLWELL: Isn't that a little bit shy of where you should be in the testing, because typically a dye test will show you a lot more, you can look around at a system and the system looks okay but maybe, indeed, certain times of the year is malfunctioning?

MR. CONWAY: The dye tests aren't necessarily that effective in figuring that out. Usually if the septic system is failing, it will come up to the surface or back up.

MR. COLWELL: Is there any time of the year that they don't do these assessments - like for instance, now when there's a lot of snow on the ground, do they do them then?

MR. CONWAY: We encourage them to get the vast majority of them done before the end of December. The reason - there are a couple of reasons for that. It also allows in the wintertime to keep them off the roads as much as possible, but also to do the follow-up calls to see if behaviours have changed. But we do ask them to hold back some home assessments in case there are failures during the winter months and the homeowner needs the assessment in order to apply for the grant. So not very many are done during the wintertime.

MR. COLWELL: Is there any move toward, or assistance in putting outlet filters on the septic systems, the ones that will take them, because some tanks won't hold them - is there any move toward that? That's one of the biggest failures with the septic systems, the outlet filters let solids go out in the field?

MR. CONWAY: Certainly that's part of the education that happens. It's not a requirement in the guidelines at this point. I guess in terms of the solids going out in the field, there are other ways to avoid that for many, many years. We've had their tanks without those outlet filters, although they are helpful, but if you use your water properly and spread your water usage over time, you won't have that problem - and pump your tank regularly.

So the filter isn't going to - I guess it's not the end answer to stopping those solids from going out.

MR. COLWELL: No, but it does help, from what I understand.

MR. CONWAY: Yes.

MR. COLWELL: You talked a bit about the cost of the system. The systems are very expensive to repair and indeed, if you've got to do a replacement, depending on what kind of system it is, it can be extremely expensive.

I think that the program you have put in place is very positive - don't get me wrong, it's very, very positive - and any kind of assistance you can get towards replacing the system is very positive. I know we've worked in our community trying to get some people helped to get theirs resolved.

The biggest problem I find is that people are just scared to death and the confidentiality you have with the assessors, I think, is important because people think they're going to be hit with a $30,000 bill to repair a system or replace a system - a replacement at $30,000 - or even $10,000. When you get $3,000 to do it, they're going to be very, very nervous about doing that, especially if they're on a limited income and with everything the way it costs today.

At some time isn't it the responsibility of these assessors to report these things after finding malfunctioning systems because it should be - these have to be repaired. I mean if they're malfunctioning, they have to be repaired, there's no question about that. It's like an oil leak and they can cause some serious damage, not only to the present homeowner but adjacent homeowners, if they have wells that are - maybe old systems that are dug wells that are rocked up and not properly installed to today's standards.

Shouldn't there be an onus on some point that this information comes forward to the department and they work with the individuals to get these things fixed?

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Vanstone.

MS. VANSTONE: I think that's part of the challenge of designing a program like this. This is about prevention and about voluntary compliance. It isn't replacing our inspection and enforcement programs, and that was a choice we had to make in designing the program.

As you point out, people are nervous sometimes about even checking to see what the state is because they think it's in the ground, it's better not to know. So we think the confidentiality is very important in the design of the program, the fact that it is delivered through these local environmental groups rather than by the department. You want to make it clear that we're still doing our inspection programs. If we have a complaint, if we have - our inspectors are still doing their work to identify problems and ensure that they are addressed. This is an additional tool in terms of education, awareness and support for people in terms of what they do.

So if there's a problem, yes, we will still want to be out there as a Department of Environment in terms of the compliance issues, but we don't want to mix that up with this program which is really about prevention, education and that extra piece on trying to get to where we all want to be - well-functioning systems that protect the health of the families that use them and the environment.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I understand that and I think that's a great way to do it and I think this is a good program. I don't think you have enough money in it because $3,000 in some cases - in rare cases you may get repaired under $3,000. But if people are facing a huge cost and with the income levels you have set in the criteria, it's going to be a major, major impact - probably have to remortgage your home to repair this or take another type of loan out to repair this.

Another issue, too, is that we've had an issue with a property being purchased by individuals who, after they bought the property, found out that indeed, the septic system wasn't performing at all. It wasn't working at all and the real estate company just walked away and said, we don't know anything about that. The home inspector walked away and said, we don't know anything about that. Just a young family that definitely couldn't afford the several thousands of dollars they had to put in place to repair this. There doesn't seem to be any accountability for something like that.

Is there any move from the department to make it mandatory that when you do purchase a home that number one, the home inspector has to inspect these things and be qualified to do it, because I don't think most of them are, and that someone has to take responsibility when they get a clean bill of health on a property. They should have some confidence that that's correct and some accountability - we went through the whole process and there is no accountability. Basically, it's buyer beware and it's not appropriate. Is there any move in the department to make accountability available for this?

MS. VANSTONE: There's no work underway in terms of anything mandatory, but you are pointing out that it's a problem when people buy a home and they find out afterwards that there are problems. Really, where it comes to is, I think, in terms of improving what's done in home inspections and the type of work that's done before people buy a home. It's the same as years ago - we didn't have the home inspectors checking on the quality of the roof or the electrical the same way that people do now when they buy homes, so that they have that information before they make the decision to buy the home.

We do work with groups, Wastewater Nova Scotia and other groups, in terms of that information out there that people should be thinking about this, getting information, asking those questions, doing what they can in terms of inspection and that's certainly one we can follow up on if maybe we're not already having discussions with them.

Do you want to just add something, Steve?

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: Just to interject a little bit, there is disclosure when they do real estate transactions. Not necessarily that it's perfect, but I can tell you I've been involved in situations when I was an inspector where the buyer went back and sued the seller and were successful in getting the fix of the system, so it is possible.

MR. COLWELL: The problem with that is you can go sue the seller, if the seller has anything you can get from him, number one. Number two, it's a very expensive thing to do, so therefore if you're faced with a large cost - several thousand dollars to put a new septic system in - then you have to hire a lawyer to sue them with maybe results, maybe no results, you're further and further behind. If it's someone buying their first home and they're struggling just to buy the home to start with, they definitely can't afford to hire a lawyer and go through that long drawn-out court process and then hope they collect some money, so that's really not a long-term alternative for most people.

It's okay for somebody who can afford to buy the home, but typically if they can afford to buy the home and extras that go with it, then they can afford to hire a lawyer and sue them and they can afford to fix the septic system, but that seldom happens today. It's mostly a process where people buy the property, buyer beware and bang, a month later they have a huge problem on their hands.

I'm surprised - we check the roof out because the insurance company wants that done, that's why it's done and they'll tell you flat out, if the roof doesn't look the way it should, fix it and if you don't fix it we're not going to insure you. So that's fine, your roof leaks and it will cause some damage in your house. If your septic tank fails and it contaminates your well and your neighbour's well, you've got a serious problem on your hands - people get sick, people can die - and I just can't believe we're not doing that. There are some very qualified people out there to do these inspections on the systems, through Wastewater Nova Scotia, for instance. They have lots of trained, qualified people and I don't think home inspectors are trained to the level that they need to be to do this when they're coming in and giving a house a clean bill of health.

I think it's something that, seriously, the department better look at because number one, that would clear up a lot of these problems we're having with the system that malfunctions that we don't know about and if someone is buying it, that would force the seller to fix it before the transaction went through, or the homeowner would at least buy it knowing what they had to spend and fix it themselves; whatever deal was worked out between the two of them. I think that would go a long way to cleaning up a lot of the problems you're having and cost the province absolutely nothing and actually long term save the buyers a lot of money in the process. Would there be any intention by the department of looking at something like this? Again, you can't compare it to a roof, you can't compare it to anything like that because this is really a health issue.

MS. VANSTONE: I think the point is well taken and we can certainly look at what more we can do on that. The big issue with it again is around awareness. I think that's the most important piece of this, that people need to be thinking about the septic system and their wells in particular. Oil tanks, I think we've seen what the insurance companies have been requiring lately has improved people's attention to their oil tank.

We do have discussions with various groups like Wastewater Nova Scotia that you mentioned and the Real Estate Association, in terms of working with realtors and providing them with information about the importance of these things, and broadening the general communication and making sure that we're doing what we can to make people aware of the importance of thinking about those systems when they're buying a house or when they're just operating their house, that they really are very dependent on the functioning of these systems.

MR. COLWELL: I agree with that and I think the department is doing a good job in that regard. But if you worked on a system like this, it would clean up a lot of these systems that you would immediately know that they're not right. It could be a regulation that the department could do immediately and ensure that the home inspectors are trained, anyone doing a home inspection would have to be trained to the department's standard. Then the department would have to be informed that these are not correct so they would be corrected. I think you would get a lot of these systems corrected.

I don't want to make anyone out there listening to this deliberation today think that every system in the province doesn't work because that's not the case - most of the systems are working very well. With the system the department has in place and the training you go through for installers and all the rest of it is working very, very well. The new systems are less likely to fail than the systems that were put in 30 or 40 years ago. Although I bring this up, I don't think you're going to find every house is going to have a malfunctioning system, I don't believe that at all, I think it would be rare that you would find one.

[9:45 a.m.]

But when you do find one that would be the time to fix it, when someone is purchasing the property or someone is selling the property, they could work out an arrangement whoever is going to pay for that, but that would cure a lot of these problems that you're seeing. It's easier to arrange a mortgage to pay for something like that when you originally buy the house, than it is after you buy the house and you're maxed out on your mortgage and you've got no room to do anything.

It's a very serious issue. You have to do a water test when you buy a home, that's mandatory now and it could just be the same thing. In an inspection like this, there are several ways you could inspect it probably a little more thoroughly than the one you're doing now. You could test a system to make sure it's correct, to make sure it has the right equipment in place. If it's a new system, you would have all the information on it anyway,

you would have the location of the tanks and the field and everything - it's just the old ones where there's no information available that that really would be the case.

An inspection on these may simply be, okay where is the documentation on the system that was put in three to five or six years ago and was it pumped? That is a question they do ask, but why can't you have a regulation that says, this has to be done? That's really my question.

MS. VANSTONE: One of the things that we do in the current program is try to get at that issue of keeping the records and the information. So part of the program is a log for you to keep around the maintenance of your septic system and encourage people to keep that log and keep the log with the house, so that it's there for subsequent owners, but it's not a regulated requirement.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, and I get back to the point that if you're going through this stuff and you're doing this program, which I think is great, except there's not enough money in it compared to what it should be, but it's a great start, I think the program is really good. But if you could pick up when the house transaction is going through, a perfect time to do it, a perfect time to identify a problem, a perfect time to get it fixed and then that problem is gone. Then if you have a problem the department has the power to move in, resolve the problem - get it resolved, whoever pays for it - and it's done and your neighbours don't have to worry anymore.

Sometimes neighbours are afraid of neighbours and if they notice that they've got a leaky system they're afraid to report it. That's unfortunate, but that's just the way life is. It would just mean that there's one more step closer to getting these things working properly and making sure they are all up to the standards that are set today, again, which are excellent standards and the installers and inspectors who are doing this work now are doing an excellent job. I'm probably just talking about the older systems that have been there a long time - there may still be some old cans in the ground, some old oil drums and all of those things that people who were doing these things 40 or 50 years ago used. I suppose it was better in some ways than what the alternative was that they had at the time, but it really needs to be changed today up to the standards that you've done and you've proven and tested and done the research on to know that the new systems work very, very well. At the same hand, 30 or 40 years ago, there were a lot of really good installers around who did an excellent job putting systems in, did them right and those shouldn't be a problem as long as they were maintained.

I still think you need a regulation for when a house is sold that these are properly inspected, maybe even with a camera down the tubes to see what's going on inside, check against the pumping which they're supposed to do, but sometimes people don't give you accurate information and all the things you should do to make sure that field is working properly, along with the well, to make sure that's safe to use.

It's an issue that really, I can't stress enough and it's something so easy for the department to do, it wouldn't cost the province any money and it would probably eliminate some of the problems that you have with your inspectors now trying to go out and identify these when they get a complaint - a lot of these would probably be cleaned up in that process over a five- or 10-year period. Again, I stress at no cost to the government and at the time when a house is bought it's just another cost of buying a house. Will you look at that?

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, I think we can do some research and look at that, whether it's a regulatory tool and what are the trade-offs associated with that, whether it's education or a combination of them. I think we can take that suggestion in terms of looking at a program for the future years.

MR. COLWELL: I think the only way it would work would be regulation.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, the time has expired for the Liberal caucus. I recognize Mr. Porter, you have 20 minutes for the PC caucus.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our guests today from the Department of Environment, it's good to have you here to answer a few questions for us and talk about the Environmental Home Assessment Program. I know in my constituency I have about 7,500 to 7,600 homes, probably half of those are on municipal services and the other half obviously are on well water and have a septic field of some type. I've had a few from my area go through this program with regard to septic replacement and I think they found out mostly through the advertising I've done within the constituency. Oftentimes when a program comes out, I will add it to something I'm doing like a newsletter or one thing or another with regard to advertising, "did you know" type of thing and making the people aware.

I'm kind of curious what the department is doing though on a provincial aspect? I know a CNS release goes out, I don't know how many people read them. Sometimes it does make the ChronicleHerald, the Post and some of the other bigger papers around the province and not all programs do; I have seen some there and others not. Are we doing mail-outs to people? How are people really aware this program exists? I'm kind of curious about that to start with.

MS. VANSTONE: The bulk of the advertising and awareness is done from the environmental groups who deliver the program in the four regions. They do that through advertisements in local newspapers, they do it through articles picked up in the community papers, they have attended home shows, they've been to sessions as well that neighbourhood groups might organize if people want information about the program. Steve, maybe you could just talk about the type of awareness things that the groups have done.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: Yes, there are several different ways that they use to promote not just the fact that home assessments are available, but also the messages of the program to change people's behaviours. The deputy has hit on many of them - we have a trade show coming up in the middle of February, for example, the next one coming up in this area. Also, even besides the newspapers, there have been Eastlink ads on the TV as well as radio ads.

MR. PORTER: I'm just kind of curious, in the last couple of years and a little beyond, the environment has become one of the number one issues around the world and certainly in this province. I'm just kind of curious as to all of those types of awareness ideas that you just spoke of, the groups that do them. How many people are paying attention? Do you have any idea how effective the actual - if you're not putting it right in their lap and I know you can't make them read it, it does go out in a paper and they do see it, as you said, on an Eastlink ad. How many people do you think are paying attention? How effective is what we're doing? I'm always curious about that piece, it costs money to do that.

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Vanstone.

MS. VANSTONE: It's difficult to measure who has been reading these and how it has affected them, but a couple of things on that. In terms of the follow-up questionnaires that the environmental groups have been doing - particularly on the Environmental Home Assessment Program - what we are finding is in some cases, some of the things, they're making those small changes just because of the awareness about the program. Things like thinking about spreading the amount of water usage out in their homes, conserving water. The number of people who are taking up on programs, I think, is a good indication, again, of awareness and we see it not just in this program but also in other programs, such as those delivered by Conserve Nova Scotia, a high uptake in a lot of those programs.

We're getting high demand for more information on our Web site, so we have been increasing the information we put on our Web. One of the other things that we're seeing is that a lot of the local environmental groups are looking for us to put information on the Web site that they can then use in terms of the many, many grassroots activities that are out there across Nova Scotia - they want those tools and information so they can get them out in terms of their organizations. I think you measure it in some respects by the demand that people are placing on us for more information. They are using those tools from what we can tell in terms of Web hits and requests for information.

MR. PORTER: I just want to clarify some math - I like numbers so I want to talk a little bit about numbers as well. We heard you use a term of 400,000 people in rural Nova Scotia who could apply in some way, shape or form for this program. I have around 7,600 - that equates to somewhere around 21,000 total when I take in youth and everyone else in my constituency of people. If you do the math that would be simply somewhere, if 400,000 people did the division times three even 100,000, 125,000, 130,000 potential homes in the

province. So do you think that would be somewhat accurate of how many homes are out there in rural Nova Scotia that would be on a well and water system?

MS. VANSTONE: Yes.

MR. PORTER: So of that, just again, and Steve, I believe you might have said the number 2,300 I heard in some of your opening comments - is that the number of applications that have come in?

MS. VANSTONE: Those are the number of home assessments that have been done to date.

MR. PORTER: And of those home assessments, how many have completed the process of going through the grant process - finished, I guess, completed through?

MS. VANSTONE: In terms of the grants it has been 511. Again, the grants are if there is a malfunctioning system identified and if they meet the income test as well.

MR. PORTER: Sorry, if they meet . . .

MS. VANSTONE: There's an income test on the grant - income below $50,000.

MR. PORTER: Right and that would fit, I think as we've already heard probably, quite a number of Nova Scotians in rural Nova Scotia and around the province.

So of the 2,300, 510 have gone through and completed the process. What about the balance of them, where are they? So there are 2,300, they'd come in, an assessment would be done, there would be a determination, no it doesn't fit, no you don't need to do anything with it. Where are the other 1,800 or so at this point?

MS. VANSTONE: They may well have not had a malfunctioning septic system, so there may be no need for them to apply for that.

MR. PORTER: Just for clarity, and sorry if my question, I didn't articulate that well enough - so basically their assessments have come in and they may be fine, there may be nothing.

MS. VANSTONE: They may be fine . . .

MR. PORTER: So that is again just some proof, I guess, for lack of a better word, some people are paying attention that the program does exist then, that was kind of where I was getting at early on at the beginning of my questioning - how effective is it? Well, obviously, it appears as though there are some people - although 2,300 versus potentially

125,000 and yet the numbers are still a little low. Maybe we need to find a way to make sure people are aware. Days like today, I think, there are a lot of people who pay attention to this, will certainly help awareness as well.

Of the 2,300 that we've done, do you have any idea, on average, how old the systems are that we're assessing?

MS. VANSTONE: I think from the preliminary information we've had, they tend to be fairly old systems. Septic systems are in the 20- to 25-year range.

MR. PORTER: Would that be reflective of those 500-plus that have been replaced, or whatever has been done with them? Or would that be in general of the 2,300?

MS. VANSTONE: I think they're seeing that in general in the 2,300, yes.

MR. PORTER: Of the 2,300 - an average of 20, 25 years then - so they, I guess, have some rough idea regardless of how long they've owned the home, they're going on I guess what they'd be told. I know that my colleague was talking about real estate transactions and stuff and declarations being done, they would have an idea that that would be fairly accurate.

Is there any way in the testing, when that's done, that the inspector can determine that's actually quite accurate, it is 20 or 25 years old, just by the type of system or looking at the system? Anything like that out there?

MS. VANSTONE: Some of that would be coming from the information an assessor would be asking the homeowner. In many cases I'm sure it's probably the same homeowner who originally installed the system in some of these cases. When we look at the average age of the people who are going through the assessment program, they tend to be over 50.

MR. PORTER: Over 50.

MS. VANSTONE: So they would be maybe having that original information from their home about their system.

MR. PORTER: From purchasing their home and having owned it for some time then, basically, you're saying.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes. In fact, that may be why they're interested in the home assessment, because they know they've had a septic system there for a while. They may be thinking about how are they doing in maintaining those systems. They're probably getting to about the end of the typical life you would expect on a septic system.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. PORTER: As I've said, I've had a couple that have been replaced. Basically, as far as I know, they've been without incident. People have called my office asking about it, for whatever reason, I don't know - again if they've seen it through some of my advertising or how they've seen it. What is the proper process? Obviously, I wouldn't think that all 2,300 have gone through MLA offices - I stand to be corrected - but how are the majority of them coming in? Are they just picking up the phone and calling the Department of Environment and being bumped from here to there until they get the right department or whomever?

MS. VANSTONE: They typically respond to the advertising that the environmental groups do - the four groups that have the contracts to deliver the program - and they go directly to them. They can come through us if people ask for information, we would certainly direct them from our offices as well to the program, if they are interested.

In some cases, if they have a problem, the inspector may direct them to the program, if the inspector is talking about the type of programs that might help them with whatever that problem might be. So yes, there's a toll-free number as well.

MR. PORTER: Okay. You talked about - well, you said it was no longer a pilot program. When was that determined that it was no longer a pilot program?

MS. VANSTONE: This was the first year where we received the continued funding for the program, in 2008-09.

MR. PORTER: Okay now of the couple of people that I have dealt with - I mean, we'll always say there's never enough money. Well that's fine, there's never enough money regardless of what department we seem to be looking at - that always is what seems to be a perception at least anyway - but these folks seem quite thankful to take $3,000 from the government towards their replacement.

When people are going through this process, are they telling the inspectors, well, how often does it happen? We've replaced 500. Are the people out there saying $3,000 isn't enough, or are they saying thank you very much for the $3,000. I mean I'm interested to know and I think Nova Scotians in general are interested to know.

MS. VANSTONE: We're getting a very positive response from the people who have participated in the program. They're very appreciative of the assessment and also appreciative of the $3,000 grant and also the work that the department does with Department of Community Services for the very low income people because in many of those cases they're getting additional funding through Community Services that can meet the entire cost of the replacement.

So it's a program where we get very positive feedback from people. Only a very few have pursued the grant and then said no, we're not going to make the repairs because it's not enough money.

MR. PORTER: Do we have any idea - again a little bit of numbers and data - any idea what the average cost of replacing a system is? I realize there's trench systems, there's bed systems, there's - unless it's changed a lot over the years as well, everything from tanks to types, I guess. Any idea what the average cost is?

MS. VANSTONE: The average numbers that I have are between $5,000 to $15,000 but again, Steve, I'll just ask you maybe to speak about the range of systems out there and costs.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: Yes, actually I've even seen a couple of systems be replaced for the $3,000, which is probably the lowest I've ever seen. There are some that are very difficult lots and they've even had to employ new technologies. I've also seen costs upwards to $25,000.

In general - and it all depends on the lot conditions and what type of system needs to be there and their location - the $5,000 to $15,000 is generally what range you see.

MR. PORTER: And that's for a new system? The entire system.

MR. CONWAY: Yes, that's a full system, yes.

MR. PORTER: So if they were in a rocky territory or something that required some changes to the landscape, I guess all those things are reflective of the cost of replacement.

Just a little bit about the secondary residence, I guess was the term used earlier; I was kind of curious about that. So if I own a home, obviously, and I'm on a system and I own a second home or I own a cottage, for example, where's the difference here? Why is it that I couldn't make a second application to do exactly the same, while maintaining the environment, doing the right thing and promoting the program and so on?

Just for clarity, my understanding is I can't take advantage of the second residence, and why is that, if that's accurate?

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Vanstone.

MS. VANSTONE: It's around setting priorities. We've talked about - I think everyone has been saying it would be nice if there was more money in this program and we

could do more assessments. So our priority is on people's primary residences, in terms of giving them the assessment.

The other comment in going to whether people couldn't apply then for a cottage as a second assessment - really, it's about education. They've been educated and their first application would be part of our reasoning on the program, so they would have had the one-on-one assessment. They should be able to take that same information and use it at their cottage, as they've gained when we went through the assessment of their home.

MR. PORTER: Okay, and I guess I'm - thank you for that clarity, I wasn't thinking about that. So they would use it on their cottage or their second home or whatever it might be, yet they're still not able to take advantage of the potential $3,000, is that what we're saying?

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, on the grant part.

MR. PORTER: So it's priority so that everybody has the opportunity to do that.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes. Also, the grant part is income-tested.

MR. PORTER: Yes, of course.

MS. VANSTONE: So that's another part of the feeling is that really it should be in your primary residence if there's an income test on this.

MR. PORTER: Okay, so the income wouldn't change, I guess that would be irrelevant. I was just thinking - not likely that this would ever happen - a surplus left or not enough homes or whatever there was, I don't know. Say, you could do 5,000 homes a year, just as an example, and only 4,900 applied, so there's a balance of 100 homes at $3,000 that could be done and I was a secondary - why wouldn't we look at that?

I understand the income piece and a little bit about what you've said there. I was just curious if that was something that would be considered if there ever was a surplus - not that there likely will be, there generally doesn't seem to be, but I did want to throw it out there just to same, to get your feeling on that.

MS. VANSTONE: Well certainly now we aren't seeing any surplus. So again, our priority is on primary residences.

MR. PORTER: Okay, that's fine, thank you for that. How many assessors do we have working in Nova Scotia out there?

MS. VANSTONE: There are eight assessors. They are employees of the four environmental groups that have the contracts, so there's two in each region.

MR. PORTER: Two per region. I know we talked a little about that and maybe from the time that I contact, make my interest application, where am I at in time frame for getting assessed? What was that again? You may have spoke to that earlier.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, they can go relatively quickly, in terms of the availability of the assessors. So they just do the intake and they schedule the appointments. There aren't delays of any more - it might be two months at the most.

MR. PORTER: So they just call up the homeowner for a convenient time, come out,

do their assessment, file paperwork.

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, it's a personal visit.

MR. PORTER: What's the general turnaround time on start to finish of something like this? I know weather, I guess, probably does have some impact, as you have said.

MS. VANSTONE: I guess the other thing that impacts on the turnaround time is urgency. If people are calling up and wanting to use the program because they actually think they have a malfunctioning system, then that would go higher up on the list, in terms of how quickly the assessors might get out to the homes. Then the actual assessment of the home is probably about a half a day's session, a couple of hours - an hour and a half.

MR. PORTER: So just on that - I've got a little time left here, I think - what takes place during the assessment? So I call up and make my appointment, the assessor comes out, he or she comes out and - what's involved in that?

MS. VANSTONE: I'll just ask Mr. Conway to actually take people right through. You might even want to use your props.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: Yes, we did bring a prop. They bring in a little baggie with them, with goodies - the reading materials that are left with the homeowner, you have a copy of those, to allow the homeowner to go back and check things if they'd like later, or they can call the home assessor if they have questions later on.

Essentially the home assessment is an information exchange, in terms of trying to change behaviours and informing the homeowner of best practice. As part of that, it's reviewing the homeowners one-on-one and you talked earlier about trying to effect change and how do you know that they're really taking up on it. That's where it's most effective -

that one-on-one exchange. But, as well, it's just a visual look at their well and their septic system and their oil tank and if there's obvious concern, then they raise that and discuss the importance of it.

So in terms of, for example, a septic system malfunction, they'll inform the homeowner that it does really need to be fixed and help them know what steps to start the process.

MR. PORTER: Okay, so I know I'm running out of time, I'll come back just a bit on the malfunction piece and how that assessment is carried out. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The next round of questions will be 15 minutes per caucus. I recognize Mr. Steele for the NDP caucus.

MR. STEELE: Thank you very much. I do want to spend this round talking about domestic oil tanks, which is part of the Environmental Home Assessment Program.

Before I do that I just want to close off where I was in the last round. Let me use the figures that Mr. Porter had used because it is helpful to try and make this real. Now Mr. Porter says that he has roughly, call it 7,600 homes in his constituency, which sounds about right; that's the average number in any constituency. He says about half of them, roughly, would qualify in the sense of being both on well water and having a septic field. So for the sake of the mathematics, let's say he has 4,000 homes in his constituency.

Now this year there's enough money in the budget for 1,000 environmental home assessments. So if Mr. Porter got every single assessment available in the province, it would still take the department four years to assess every home in his constituency. But, of course, he wouldn't get every one in the province because the province is broken down into four regions and 250 are allocated to each region.

Now let's suppose that Mr. Porter got every single one of his regional assessments - that's 250 - it would now take him 16 years to have every home in his constituency assessed under this program. But of course Mr. Porter is not going to get every single one of his regional assessments. Let's be generous and say he gets one-fifth of them because after all, if you divide the province into four regions, there are about a dozen constituencies in each. Let's leave out the metro ones, where there's not a lot of septic and well, at least in the core area - that certainly wouldn't be the case out, for example, in Mr. Colwell's area.

Let's suppose that Mr. Porter gets one-fifth of his regional assessments; now we're down to 50 per year and in order for his entire constituency to be covered, now you need 80 years. That's the point I'm trying to make about how the program is good, it's a success, but it's really, really small compared to the need.

Now if I were to call the department today and apply for a grant to have my septic field repaired, I would be told that the money is gone for this year, wouldn't I?

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Vanstone.

MS. VANSTONE: We are still continuing to take that application information. They're on hold while we're determining whether we have any additional resources this year, also whether people are using the grants that are pre-approved. So we are trying to manage the budget.

MR. STEELE: I would be told - all other things being equal - I would be told the money is gone for this year, right?

MS. VANSTONE: Not necessarily. I'll just ask Mr. Conway to explain what kind of response people get if they call.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: Thank you. Yes, we're running short, that's true, and we've pulled money from other parts of the budget and delayed other things and whatnot, to try to put priority on those people's situations. The ones that have been asked to hold off are ones that aren't in serious need of repair. If you applied right now - well, actually I'll give you an example because I just had a call over the Christmas break and the sewage had completely stopped leaving the home - it was backing up in the basement - and we still committed money to those people . . .

MR. STEELE: How many people are on hold right now?

MR. CONWAY: Eleven.

MR. STEELE: The information that I have is that there are considerably more than that that are on hold.

MR. CONWAY: No.

MR. STEELE: The information that I received is from one of the agencies that delivers it. If anybody knows, you'd think they would know and the number that they gave me is considerably more than 11. People who have applied for the grant, who qualify for the grant, but who have been told essentially there's no money left this year. Anyway, we're not going to solve it here, but this is another example of the fact that if this committee had the information before we actually came to a meeting, we could discuss what's going on. What I get frustrated about is what we spend our time doing is dragging the information, the data out of the witnesses, never mind actually discussing what the data means. I have a number

that is different from your number. My number came from one of the agencies delivering the program. Somebody has the wrong number, either the department does or the agency does. But anyway, let me move on to domestic oil tanks.

One aspect of this program is that when the homeowner gets the environmental home assessment, they will get information about caring for their oil tank. Now they won't get any more than that because I think the department is afraid of liability. Certainly the inspector doesn't look at the oil tank or purport to give advice about the state of the oil tank, nor is information provided about how to fix any problems that might be identified in the oil tank, but they do get information about how, in principle, one ought to care for one's oil tank. The thing that's important to realize is that two-thirds of all Nova Scotian homes are heated with oil. We have, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of domestic oil tanks in this province. Spills from those tanks are a very, very serious environmental issue.

[10:15 a.m.]

Let me mention, for example, Norm Andrews, who will be very familiar to the department. He is a Clayton Park homeowner whose oil tank leaked in 2001. His odyssey since then - and it's not over yet, even though we're in 2009 - underlines just about every conceivable problem that a person could have when their oil tank spills. Now what is fairly unique about Mr. Andrews is that he is what some people would call stubborn and I would call persistent. Mr. Andrews has just refused to take no for an answer or to take non answers. Everybody would like Mr. Andrews just to go away, but he's very smart, he's very articulate and he's not going to go away until he gets answers to the issues that have been raised by his oil spill. Now the Department of Environment is well aware of his case - I'm sure the department has a voluminous correspondence file over the past eight years.

I don't want to get into the details of Mr. Andrew's case other than to say this - the essential problem, as far as I can see from reviewing the case with him, is that the homeowner in a domestic oil case is treated as an outsider, is treated as a nuisance, is treated even as a potential wrongdoer who is told what they have to do or else they'll be cited for non-compliance with the law. Everybody involved with the oil spill treats him as someone who does not deserve accountability. That is true of the site professionals who report to the insurance companies, it's true of the insurance companies who don't consider themselves to be accountable to the policyholder, it's true of the department that doesn't consider themselves to be accountable to the homeowner and Mr. Andrews is simply one example of something I have seen in other cases of the horrific problems that are caused when you get an oil spill. The cost of his oil spill is going to run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I've seen other oil spills in Fairview, the first one I saw was the owner of a small apartment building, what I call a small landlord. I'll always remember when he came to me because he thought he was ruined. This was his personal investment, this is where his

savings were and he had an oil spill under this small apartment building and he was getting no help from anybody.

There's another senior lady who had an oil spill on her property and five years later came to me with a letter from the Department of Environment saying, what does this mean? The letter was certainly not written in any language that she could understand.

I tried to help her deal with it because again, like Mr. Andrews, she was being treated like an outsider: the insurance company didn't want to talk to her, the site professional didn't want to talk to her, the department was writing to her in very legalistic language and didn't consider her to be somebody with an interest in cleaning up the oil in her home but, rather, as a potential wrongdoer, and if she didn't do certain things by a certain time she was in violation of the Environment Act. That was the nature of the letter that she was getting.

This is a senior lady with very little education, very little, I would say, sophistication in dealing with matters like this. Why does the Department of Environment not do more to regulate domestic oil tanks?

MS. VANSTONE: I certainly agree this is an oil tank issue and oil spills are a serious problem when that happens and certainly very difficult for the homeowner. There are a couple of things that we do in terms of oil tanks. They are regulated, to some extent, by the Department of Labour and Workforce Development in terms of the standards on the tank and on the installation.

When it comes to the Department of Environment, if there has been a spill that's reported by the homeowner or by someone else, we move into an inspection and enforcement issue. We need to go to the site, we need to see the extent of the spill, advise the homeowner in terms of their need to contact a professional in terms of containment and cleanup. Really, the Environment Act is premised on polluter pay, so it is the responsibility of the homeowner on those spills. So it is one that there are different people involved in this - in terms of the insurance companies and the professionals - on the cleanup.

On a broader issue, in terms of what the department is doing to look at this issue, we have a couple of major pieces of work underway. One is a study that we're having the Law Reform Commission undertake on behalf of the province, looking at site contamination and liability issues, because this is a huge issue in terms of the challenge on how people respond to these. I believe that report is due in February of this year. So that will be an important piece of information for us all on it.

We also have an advisory committee on contaminated sites and we're going through a review of the program - not just on domestic oil spills but on industrial contaminated sites as well. That committee has several groups on it from outside of the department. In fact,

Kim, maybe you could just speak as to who is on the advisory committee on contaminated sites and the timeline for their work.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. MacNeil.

MR. KIM MACNEIL: It's really all the parties that are involved in a contaminated site incident. We have representatives from the legal community, we have representatives from the oil companies, insurance companies, as well as a variety of consultants.

I think that the work being done by the Law Reform Commission is notable in that one of the things that they will look at, I think, will hopefully work toward addressing some of the concerns about older folks and, as you say, not sophisticated to the ways of consultants and insurance companies, that there is a concern there that folks who do not have the financial means to do some of this work are addressed under the contaminated sites program.

MR. STEELE: Okay, because here's the thing. A good deal of work can be done on what happens once a spill happens, because I don't think the department's response is adequate in the case where there's an actual spill. For a homeowner it is a catastrophic event, it is very, very stressful, and what they're getting are legalized letters threatening them with action, insurance companies that treat them as an afterthought, and site professionals who treat them as somebody they don't have to account to.

Let's leave aside what happens once a spill actually happens. What we all need to be aiming for, of course, is to make sure the spill never happens in the first place. Every single domestic oil tank in the province represents a potential spill that will cost $100,000, $200,000, $500,000 to clean up. It's a major potential liability and we don't do nearly enough to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

What happens in Nova Scotia is that the insurance companies have become the de facto regulators because the province has essentially completely vacated the field. So the insurance companies write to homeowners and say, according to our records your oil tank is x number of years old. If we're going to continue to insure you, you have to replace your tank and you have to replace it now.

So the insurance companies aren't happy about this, it's a disaster for them, as well, every time one of these tanks spill. Yet other provinces are directly regulating oil tanks and requiring that they be replaced after a certain number of years, and yet Nova Scotia seems to have no interest in moving on this. This is a major, major issue out there in the province. Why is the province not doing more to make sure that these spills never happen in the first place? If a homeowner calls, what they're going to get is an environmental home assessment where the assessor comes and hands them a booklet, that's all they're going to get. Why can't you do more?

MS. VANSTONE: First, if I think that education, in terms of regularly looking at your tank and the line, is a useful piece of information for people and if people were doing that, I think we would see some spills that happen, not happen.

The other thing is, in terms of what the insurance companies are doing, I think that's having a good impact. We are seeing the number of spills declining in the province and I think it is largely due to the awareness that the insurance companies are forcing on some homeowners. So I think those are both good things.

The fact is we could still do more, and that's why we have this work underway with the Law Reform Commission. Our advisory committee will be coming out with a discussion paper on contaminated sites and we'll be looking for ideas, information and proposals that we can bring forward in terms of how we can improve upon the situation.

I completely agree, the key piece is to avoid the spill happening in the first place.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Order, the time has expired for the NDP caucus.

I recognize Ms. Whalen for the Liberal caucus. You have 15 minutes.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you very much and again, welcome this morning. I'm very pleased that we're on the subject of oil tanks, because that's certainly more relevant to my urban riding and also something that affects people right across the province. As Mr. Steele has mentioned, the number of homes that are heated with oil is, by far, the majority in the province, so therefore it does represent a significant concern. I wanted to know if you could tell me how many oil spills there have been in the last year. Do you keep records of the number reported?

MS. VANSTONE: There are, and I'll turn to my colleagues in a minute to just maybe explain the numbers in a little more detail. We have about, I think in general, 500 oil spills reported typically to the Department of Environment. The more specific statistics I've seen are the numbers that come in on the emergency line that we share with the Coast Guard. In that case we're seeing a decline. In 2002 there would have been almost 500 coming in on that line and now they're down below 150, I believe. I'm not sure . . .

MS. WHALEN: I think that's good enough, I just wanted to get a relative sense. Have you any estimates on numbers that perhaps are not reported? Is this a problem in the Province of Nova Scotia?

MS. VANSTONE: I think that may be a problem in terms of reporting. These are the ones that are reported to us or that have come to our attention, the attention of our inspection staff, often a complaint from someone other than the homeowner.

MS. WHALEN: So you don't have any real sense or any figures on perhaps non-compliance or non-reporting of those events.

As Mr. Steele said, it's a traumatic event when it happens. It's a huge, huge cost and I think it would be very difficult for some people to report it. Certainly in the city you would be reporting it or finding out about it because of the proximity to neighbours and that sort of thing, but I just think it's a huge issue.

I wanted to ask you about the work that's going on - I don't have too much time - the work that you're doing right now to examine this, and that was interesting to me that you've got the two committees - the Law Reform Commission and the advisory committee - looking at contaminated sites right now. I wanted to find out where you're getting the input from homeowners, because even your advisory committee doesn't seem to indicate the people who have been impacted by this.

I think even in the first instance you should be speaking to people who have had the unfortunate experience of having an oil spill on their own properties. I think Mr. Steele hit the nail on the head in saying that the homeowners are almost persona non grata in the whole process, that there doesn't seem to be an official way in which they are consulted, informed and respected in the whole process.

Just to mention that you had discussed about the concern for people who are not sophisticated, I would go back to the fact that even the most sophisticated homeowner, even the best educated homeowner, even homeowners who are engineers and so on themselves, are left out of the process and find themselves very marginalized at a point in time when they and their families are traumatized, when they could be in conflict with neighbours, there's concern and just a heightened feeling of catastrophe, really, that's surrounding this, and yet they have no official role to play and the department doesn't recognize them directly. So any change in your approach, your guidelines and your procedures, I think, must address the very important role of the property owner.

I think it's important to see them as part of your client perspective, your customer service, so I want to make that really clear in the short time that I have, that this is essential. The experience of some of the individuals who have gone through this would be extremely valuable, I believe, and constructive in your building of new procedures and new ways of looking at this.

[10:30 a.m.]

Certainly, I've had a number of people in my riding that I've spoken to, who have been involved in oil spills, and across the board they reflect that trauma and crisis that we have heard about. What I would like to see is that at this early point - perhaps you could just answer - in those two committees, particularly the advisory committee, which I guess is more

under your control as deputy minister, could you let me know if there's a mechanism in place to hear from homeowners right now?

MS. VANSTONE: Yes, and I'll ask Mr. MacNeil to just give you some detail on that. At the broadest level, our intent is that the work coming through the department, with input from that advisory committee, will also have a significant public consultation component to that work, so that's one place. The other thing is that we do incorporate information that we hear - it's more anecdotal - from individuals who have had an experience with this and we do collect that information in the department, and we have had meetings and brought that forward into the process as well. Mr. MacNeil.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. MacNeil.

MR. KIM MACNEIL: Yes, just speaking to that, if there are people in your constituency who have experienced this and would like to speak to the department about that, we'd be more than happy to and, in fact, one of the folks that Mr. Steele talked about will be coming and speaking with the coordinator of that consultation program.

MS. WHALEN: That's very good. In fact, I know that in writing you've been asked by that particular individual if he could please give his input. I think it is being done with really the best of intentions, to see that the system is improved, so that people who are going through this in future will not have to experience some of the difficulties that have been shown to exist in the system.

I want to ask you about the accountability within this system. You have site professionals - if I have a home and I have an oil spill on my property, immediately I would be told to get a site professional, right? It's not the department that has anything to do with cleanup. Right now, who manages those site professionals? Are they licensed, number one?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: Yes, the site professionals, for the most part - and Mr. Fuller may want to speak to this, as well - the majority would be engineers or people who have been certified through a program that the department has in place. However, that whole process, the way certification takes place and the qualifications of the people who are doing these assessments, are being looked at further through this consultation process.

MS. WHALEN: Is it true that in the original Act, when this was brought in - I think it was in the 1990s that the Act was rewritten and had the site professionals identified as a professional group - that it was intended they be properly registered or licensed as site professionals, not through their other bodies that they belonged to but as site professionals for contaminated site cleanup, and that it has been a missing component, we've never set that into place?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: Well, it has been in place; in fact, one of the environmental groups served as our certification folks.

MS. WHALEN: Would that be the Environmental Industries Association?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: Yes, it was.

MS. WHALEN: But they say they have nothing to do with this, I've spoken to them.

MR. KIM MACNEIL: They no longer do, so what we're hoping to do is address that certification concern through the consultation process.

MS. WHALEN: Do you think the Environmental Industries Association is willing to resume that role? I understood they'd never set it up. Why would they have dropped it if it was ever established that they had a role to play?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: I'm not familiar with the details of the process that went on with the Environmental Industries Association, but I know that it is a concern. I think it's also a concern that the way we handle domestic spills, which is what we are talking about here today, is possibly different from how we want to handle industrial or commercial spills.

MS. WHALEN: Going back to one of the instances that I had seen, if there's a dispute between the site professional and the department, how do you resolve that? Maybe a difference of opinion or you see the resolution of the site cleanup differently - how do you resolve that? Ultimately, if there's no sign-off on a project the homeowner can never sell their home, the house is valueless, as we said, it's like being wiped out. How would you resolve that because I don't see the accountability in the system?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: Normally the certificate of compliance that's issued is done in conjunction with the site professional and the department. From time to time there is a back and forth between the site professional and the department. The department staff ultimately have to issue that certificate of compliance based on the information.

In my experience if the proper information is supplied then that site certificate is made available. Normally, it's a difference in the amount of information that's supplied to the department, that's the glitch.

MS. WHALEN: Mr. MacNeil, have you seen any instances where there has been a dispute that has just kind of come to a standstill and hasn't been resolved?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: I'm sure there are instances, specifically I know of a couple. Normally they are resolved, but again, I go back to the consultation process that we understand the system isn't perfect, it's very complicated and very expensive. As a result the

requirements that would go into any new piece of regulation we would hope would address some of those.

MS. WHALEN: Would you be addressing things like a code of conduct or a code of ethics for the site professionals? I don't see where they're being held to a standard - again, they may be professional, but are they abiding by certain guidelines in terms of the way they treat the homeowners or regard their work?

MR. KIM MACNEIL: Absolutely, the consultation would certainly take that into account, any standards that site professionals would be held to.

MS. WHALEN: I think that's very important. Again, I want to reiterate that I've heard you say you will be meeting with one of my constituents to get lessons learned. I can assure you that the intent of the offer would be, can we learn from this, can we improve the system? I think it would be very valuable to the department to listen and in good faith record what you're hearing so that it can be incorporated, it was important to me. Could you tell me, are you ultimately going to be rewriting regulations relating to this? Is that your next step after you go through this advisory committee?

MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Vanstone.

MS. VANSTONE: I think it's really important that people realize they need to be engaged and provide input into the consultation process. So what we're doing now is gathering information, doing some research, we're putting out some broad proposals and suggestions for consultation. Yes, they'll look at potential regulatory options, they'll look at other non-regulatory tools in terms of policies, training and information tools that we could use as well. So regulation is never usually the answer in and of itself but there'll be a suite of potential tools, so it's very important that people get engaged and provide us with the feedback in that consultation process.

MS. WHALEN: It was mentioned that in other provinces the government has taken a more active role in this entire area of regulating and controlling oil tanks. Is there a thought that we need to be more progressive or more involved, more active in this role, from the Department of Environment?

MS. VANSTONE: Well, we certainly recognize that we need to address the issue here. In terms of whether we wanted to move to a program where we were inspecting all oil tanks, we have looked at that at a very high level. It's quite expensive, it's somewhat problematic because the oil tanks are often in people's homes so it's a very costly program, at a high level, in terms of our assessment of it, so we felt we got much better value through education than through something like that.

I don't know, Mr. MacNeil, if there's anything further on this that I missed.

MR. KIM MACNEIL: No, there isn't.

MS. WHALEN: That's it, okay. I would like to ask again, just mentioning the Environmental Industries Association, that I think we do need a partnership with the department so that you have a third party that has some accountability and some control over site professionals because a big issue that has come up through a number of the concerns or instances has been that you don't have a good complaint mechanism in place. I think it should be said here publicly that when people have made complaints to the department, the Ombudsman has said they cannot deal with it.

The department does not have an alternative dispute mechanism in place, although you do in writing but not in fact. I'm referring specifically to one of the instances you know very well, but this again would be a more sophisticated homeowner looking for an avenue to be heard through an official process, to have a complaint heard and understood. I would define the response as being very "closed door" to the public with a complaint. I think it's very important that it be considered when we're talking about the customer service side, that you don't just serve industry or professionals, you also serve the people of Nova Scotia. I know throughout government I do see a move toward customer service and treating everybody who has interaction with the department as a customer. I just raise the point that, again, it's a gap in the system right now, a lack of a proper complaint-handling mechanism.

I believe that was mentioned, as well, with the Auditor General to some degree, or complaints were made and there was no feedback, or reports were made and there was no feedback - I think that was in the last Auditor General's Report. Perhaps it hasn't been the focus of the department, but I think now that you're a stand-alone department there's an opportunity.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, I'm sorry, the time has expired for the member and the response, unfortunately.

I recognize Mr. Muir for the PC caucus. You have 15 minutes.

MR. JAMES MUIR: Well, thank you very much. It has been a rather interesting discussion, I've learned a lot. I've got sort of a wide variety of questions. First of all, I want to congratulate the department for this EHAP program and the educational component that goes with it. One of the things that distresses me when I sit in this, and I've done it now twice in the last two weeks, is when I hear my colleagues from the other Parties saying that the government has to do this and the government has to do that and it's always the government's fault. The individual citizens, it seems to me that we, as participating members of society, have to take some responsibility as well.

I'm going to go just very briefly to oil tank spills. I'm going to ask, first of all, a question because this is a problem that I dealt with a number of years ago and actually it was

the oil company that was responsible for the spill. They accepted responsibility, by the way, it was not a question of who was responsible. The issue was trying to get closure on it - who would sign off that this thing was clean? The oil company just finally drew a line in the sand and said we've spent $250,000 fixing this thing on a $40,000 property, or whatever it was. But who would sign off on that - would it be the Department of Environment? Who makes the final decision? They just said, well, we've done enough.

MS. VANSTONE: It's the responsibility of them to have a site professional who will provide information to us. Then I think what you're talking about is the letter that comes back from the department. So maybe, Adrian, could you just speak to how we deal with that?

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Fuller.

MR. ADRIAN FULLER: Sure, thank you. Yes, I mean it would be the site professionals who would submit that letter and I assume that if the oil company took responsibility for that spill, it would be their site professional who would submit that information to the department for that closure letter for that property.

MR. MUIR: The issue of what happened with the people who owned the property, the oil company said, look, our people tell us that whatever this problem was, for which we were responsible, it has been satisfactorily remedied, but somebody else - he couldn't get a clean bill of health for his property because somebody else had to give him something. I assume it was probably the Department of Environment. I haven't heard anything about it for awhile so I think probably it was straightened out eventually. But it was rather distressing, that particular incident I'm sure, particularly for the homeowner, they just happened to be the innocent bystanders.

Part of what happened was the oil company paid for them to stay in a motel and all this. Then they said, look, we're not paying for you anymore because we think that the problem has been remedied. So it would be the Department of Environment that would eventually sign off on that?

MS. VANSTONE: We would accept the information provided by the site professional and indicate that it was complete, but not knowing the specifics of the incident you're talking about, I think the point you're raising goes to some of the earlier discussion about this being an area where we do need to improve the information systems, the regulatory systems and the technical expertise that's dealing with these issues, because they are very problematic for the property owner. There is a need for more clarity and a better system to respond to it, yes.

[10:45 a.m.]

MR. MUIR: There's really nothing uglier than an oil spill, I don't think, quite frankly. I had to have my tank replaced a couple of years ago because the insurance company said that it was - and I don't know how old the tank was but it was a homemade tank and I think it was probably maybe three-thirty-seconds pure steel. How long does an oil tank last?

MS. VANSTONE: I think now they expect an oil tank should last in the seven- to 10-year range. I think it varies a little bit in terms of the quality of tank you have and the new technology for tanks.

MR. MUIR: Okay, now, I had gotten mine from my oil supplier.

MS. VANSTONE: If they're indoor, as well, that makes a difference.

MR. MUIR: Yes, it's indoor, that's correct.

MS. VANSTONE: I think about 15 years if it's an indoor tank and 10 if it's an outdoor tank.

MR. MUIR: You don't sell insurance, I know, although you are seen as an insurance agent by some people, an insurance company I guess. I assume that it is possible if somebody has homeowners' insurance to say, just like for sewer backup, you can get $5,000, you can get $10,000, you might be able to get $2,500 and if it goes over that, then as the homeowner you're responsible, you accept that liability.

In terms of oil contamination, do you know anything about insurance policies for that, what limits there are?

MS. VANSTONE: No, I'm sorry, I don't.

MR. MUIR: Okay. I asked that kind of personally because I have no idea what I have on my own property.

MS. VANSTONE: What I would say, though, is that the insurance industry needs to be part of this discussion we're having around the advisory committee on contaminated sites, the discussion paper we put out, and the work we do on new tools or adjusting what we have now. The insurance companies need to be part of that picture. They are now and we need to recognize that more formally.

MR. MUIR: Turning now to septic systems - I think my colleague, the member for Hants West, asked this question - how long does a typical septic system last now? I think you said 30 or 40 years, or something like that.

MS. VANSTONE: I think the general age that people look at is about 25 years, it could be more. It really depends a lot on how you maintain the system, as well, and that's part of the education around the Home Assessment Program. So if you're spreading out your water usage, if you're not putting hazardous waste down your system, if you're having it pumped regularly, the life of your septic system will be much longer.

MR. MUIR: What happens when it fails, typically? I've got a property that has a concrete tank. Previously it had a metal tank but quite frankly, when we replaced it, basically we had a hole with no metal that actually functioned as a septic system but it actually worked. How long is this concrete tank that I have in there now going to last me?

MS. VANSTONE: Maybe I'll just ask Mr. Conway to explain a little bit about what's going on under the ground with your septic system, in terms of what's happening.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Conway.

MR. CONWAY: Thank you. Yes, in terms of what happens when it fails, I think, was the original question. Generally water will follow the path of least resistance so usually it's one of two things - it will either bubble up through the ground or it will back up into the home and you'll end up with a basement full of poop, I guess, which happened to the people I mentioned earlier, during Christmas time. That's usually how you first see it.

MR. MUIR: So basically it's not the tank as much as it is the - I'll call it the drainage system that probably is where you'd first . . .

MR. CONWAY: The field bed itself, although there are, as you mentioned, steel tanks and there are still a fair number of them that we're seeing through this program, so some of them are tank failures. When your system doesn't work any more, it's because there's a problem with the bed.

MR. MUIR: You talked about Community Services providing assistance to people whom, I guess, would be on their roster. If they are getting money from Community Services for septic or oil tank repair or whatnot, would they also be eligible to get some help under this program, or is it either/or? No, they are, so it is a double thing.

MS. VANSTONE: It often results in them getting the full cost recovered.

MR. MUIR: How much of the budget, of that $1.5 million that you have for the EHAP program, is targeted for education?

MS. VANSTONE: Well, I'm just thinking how you split down the education piece. About $500,000, a little bit more, goes to the environmental groups for delivery of the home

assessments and for their work on education, on going out to community events, advertising, participation in trade shows, things like that. So that element would be related to education.

There's also some funding about directing the department, in terms of supporting some of the materials that you saw in the kit as well. So that's probably in the $50,000 to $100,000, on top of the funding that goes to the environmental groups.

MR. MUIR: It just seems I guess that until people start taking responsibility for this stuff, and I guess the big thing is to get them to think about it and I expect most people don't think a whole lot about it - I know I thought about my oil tank because the insurance company said that if you don't change it, we're not going to insure you, so it got changed. As I say, I'm not really convinced it needed to be changed but I did take their word for it.

Similarly, with septic systems, how frequently should you pump?

MS. VANSTONE: You should be pumping every three to five years. Just picking up on your comment about the awareness, and this is really about people needing to understand the systems they have in their own home and how they need to care for them. Hopefully it doesn't mean that we have to go to every home for them to understand that, to go to the earlier comments.

The broadband information that's put out there for people, in terms of advertising and awareness, we would hope that that would be influencing people's behaviour, the kind of discussions that people have in their neighbourhoods. We've seen some of that in places where there have been home assessments, that we see more interest and applications coming from those areas, so they must be talking with each other and expanding on that.

This whole challenge about making people aware of the systems they're running in their own house is really the key piece . . .

MR. MUIR: The Home Builders' Association - I don't know what type of programs they have although in a portfolio that I had at one time I used to meet regularly with them, for example you know that if your roof is 20 or 25 years old or something like that, just about everybody knows that you have to take a look at it and it may have to be replaced, it may not have to be replaced.

There are other things, I guess you could say, like putting insulation in and everybody knows you're going to save some money, I guess, if you're better insulated.

What I'm thinking in this education is, how do we get people started to talk about those two things that you are working at right now and have made a good start? How do we get them to include that in their thinking about routine maintenance for properties?

MS. VANSTONE: I think it's advertising, using the Web information, dealing with community groups and residential associations, working with real estate associations, waste water associations, homebuilders. It really is actually surprising that people sometimes don't think they should be testing their water when they're on a well. They just don't realize it's very important for them to be doing those tests every six months, in terms of the maintenance on their wells and the quality of the water that they're drinking.

MR. MUIR: Water should be tested how frequently?

MS. VANSTONE: For bacteria, every six months and for chemical and minerals, test every two years.

MR. MUIR: Every two years for chemical and mineral tests. How much does it cost to get your water tested?

MS. VANSTONE: If you're doing the bacteria test, I think it's about $25, the chemical test about $150.

MR. MUIR: Do you have any idea what percentage of people do that water stuff? I guess the Department of Agriculture does the testing, I think - at least it does for the bacteria.

MS. VANSTONE: We'd have to get that by looking at the number of tests that might come into private labs, as well as to agriculture, the number of tests that people are doing. They may be doing them as part of regular maintenance, they may be doing them because they have had some incident and they want to check after that. Maybe after flooding, people should be testing their well after something like that as well.

MR. MUIR: That's fine for me, thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. The time has expired for the questioning round. I would now invite the deputy to make some concluding comments, if you would like.

MS. VANSTONE: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your interest and also appreciate your very positive comments about the value of this kind of a program, like the Environmental Home Assessment Program and its emphasis on education and on avoidance. I appreciate your comments that it would be beneficial if the program had more money to it and more able to accelerate the number of home assessments and grants that we could provide. We'll certainly take that information back to the department.

Your comments around the data - we are starting to collect that information and we'll be doing more on that as part of the information that comes from the questionnaires. Also, you made some very helpful suggestions around the opportunities to maybe increase the

awareness of this, around property transactions and some useful comments around the issue of oil talks. So that information, we will take back to the department.

So thank you very much for your interest and for your support for the program. I just reiterate again, it is really important that we have programs like this that are focused on prevention and not always on the inspection/enforcement and after-the-fact activities. Those are important but this investment in awareness and prevention is very valuable in this area and I hope it will be a model for more programs for us, so thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. On behalf of the members, I'd like to extend thanks to all of you for being here today. I also just want to remind the department that there was a request that the committee be provided with copies of the quarterly reports from the organizations that are delivering the program throughout the province. That information can be provided to the clerk, who will then see to it that it is made available to the members.

The only other thing - we had a response to, I think, a request from a member of the committee, the Liberal caucus, of the witnesses who were here on the 3^rd of December, so this has been circulated.

With that, there is no other business for today's meeting and we stand adjourned. Thank you.

[The committee adjourned at 10:58 a.m.]