[Page 69]
HALIFAX, MONDAY, MAY 2, 2005
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
3:24 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Mark Parent
MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the Subcommittee on Supply to order. We will resume with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Liberals have 10 minutes left.
The honourable member for Clare.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: M. Ministre, j'aimerai continuer ce qu'on a commencer vendredi. J'aimerai parler sur la loi sur les services en français. J'ai quelque questions pour le savoir quel sort de progrès qu'on a fait depuis que le progrès de loi était amener en chambre en le mois d'octobre. Je dirais mon premiere question c'est, on a tu nommé des coordinateurs des services en français dans les miniteres?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Acadian Affairs.
HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Dans tout quartorze qui au moment qui travaille sur des projects dans miniteres pour l'office. Ils on travialler sur des plans minitériel, dans plan coopératif pour le province et des racontres, et des submissions particulèrement Canadien, donc ils on fait beaucoup de travaille.
MR. GAUDET: Sont dans tous les miniteres on a une pesonne désigner pour offrir des services en français?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Oui.
MR. GAUDET: Excellent, félicitations. Je regard plus dans le project de loi pour faire réference a un coordinations des services en français. En parlent des diffrent minitere on a t'il un committée de coordination qui s'occuppe plustôt à progrès niveau, se committée est en place?
[Page 70]
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Ça c'est en place, ça c'est un committée de sous-minitres. Les sous-minitres qui siège au committée de function publique, Le conseil de trésor, la politique, affair inter-gouvernmental, et l'office des affairs acadien qui préside se group là.
MR. GAUDET: C'est enfait dire que tout les sous-minitres siège a se committée là?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Ça c'est les tois sous-minitres de commision function publique, sous-minitres de conseil trésor, les sous-minitres des affairs inter-gouvernmental et ça c'est le committée de sous-minitres.
MR. GAUDET: Je me rappel d'avoir vu dans le progrès de loi on parlait dans section deux que le gouvernment on désigner où on va offrir des services en français. Je sais qu'on est tôt mais je me demand si on a commencer a identifier où, ou dans quelle miniteres on va offrir des services parce que je sais qu'on a discuster se progrès de loi sans doute le question de santé on a dicuster a plusieure répris, si tout beisoin d'offrir des services en français surtout dans les régions acadien.
Je partagé avec les minitres un exprience que moi j'avais vécu lorsque mon père a venue a l'Hopital VG. Il avait un monsieur de Sainte-Pierre qui était dans le même chambre qui parlais absolument aucune mot d'anglais et naturellement, se monsieur là avec son épouse, je rappel pu, disait merci. J'étais là avec mon père, je faisait le communication, la discussion avec lui et les médecins et les gardemenants. Mon question est simplement on a tu commencer a indentifier les endroits où on va offrir les services en français à travers la gouvernment provincial?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Sa c'est la premiere bu du committée de coordinateur en français. Ils ont déjà submit des plans ministériel qui liste tous les chose qu'ils veullent faire, une grand liste que j'ai en embauche, en draft. Mais ce qu'on aimerait faire vraiment pour le court terms c'est de travailler avec santé, parce que je pense qu'on a une grande beisoin en santé et aussi de trouver un département pilot pour travailler cet année. Je pense si des miniteres qui son vraiment intéresser d'offrir ses services en français assez vite, avait une project pilot. Tout les ministeres on a fait leur plans ministériel avec une grande liste de chose qu'il veux faire pour les services en français.
MR. GAUDET: Notre consultation au point du vue des attentes des communauttées. Je suis certain lorsque tu parle des grande listes qu'on s'indentifier, je suis sans doute que les communauttées on déjà tous identifier leurs beisoins?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Se qu'on est en moment a faire, les affairs acadien a submit une grande liste de chose qu'ils veullent faire pour les services français dans la consultation déjà fait. Mais se qu'on veut faire c'est de prendre un liste des plans ministériel et puis les partagé avec les communauttées acadien. Donc se qu'on fait au moment on a une committée conjoint des coordinateurs puis avec la femme qui va garder à une façon de faire des
[Page 71]
consultations avec les communauttées pour dire, c'est ça les services qu'on vous offrir, que vous en pensez? Donc ça va être faire, je pense, au cours de l'été, l'automne.
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. GAUDET: Parceque j'était dépasser a plusieure répris, la question étas simple, quoi ce que les services en français que le gouvernment ont l'intention a offrir? Je ne sais pas, naturellement, en pas regarder le liste en quoi désigner les services qui v'on être offert ou c'est services la, je m'entent qu'il y a beaucoup de monde qui a des questions, beaucoup d'organizations qui fait sa. Je sait qu'on est encore tôt hors d'avoir passé naturellement, ont parle de simplement de sept, huit mois avec tous le travaille qui beisoin d'êtes fait. Tu me dit on regard a faire un consultation avec nos communauttée, avec le directeur, j'apris qu'il va nous quitté a point long term, c'est encore sur le plan qu'on va avoir se consultation l'été à l'automne?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Exactement, c'est ça la raison qu'on le faire avec les affairs acadien, avec coordinateur. C'est quelque chose qui peux tiens en ligne au temps, que quand on se regard pour un nouveau directeur pour remplaçessent que se job est en trains d'être fait.
MR. GAUDET: La liste je voulais dire, le fameuse liste, au point de vu de periode de temps quand cette liste va être prêt pour le publique pour savoir quoi le gouvernment va offrir, les services à telle endroit et en telle ministères extra?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Avec ce qui est dans la loi, qu'on beisoin d'avoir les réglement fait avant le 21 décembre, 2006, je pense que proche avant ça qu'on va avoir une liste des chose qu'on veux faire. Puis c'est assez grand ça va de la traduction de Web site à des services communauttaires, des services de Service Nova Scotia des choses comme ça. Comme j'ai dit c'est vraiment une bonne liste et puis c'est des chose qu'on peux faire.
MR. GAUDET: Ça c'était mon prochaine question. Vu que le cabinet ou le government in council, on identifier le 21 décembre, 2006. Je regarde au point du vu des réglement est au point du vu d'identifier les endroits où on va offrir les services en français. Les deux on a beaucoup a faire d'içi a l'année prochaine.C'est il intention de la gouvernment d'identifier les services qu'on va offrir en français premierement avant de regarder au réglement?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Ça c'est l'intention. Au moment on est entrain de faire un timide drafting sur les réglements de quoi se va payer. Mais pour moi ça fait vraiment d'importance d'avoir une bonne liste de service qu'on veux offrir que le commnauttée veux, qu'ils v'ont utilisé. Ça fait pas beucoup de suite d'offrir des services que personne va accéder. C'est quelque chose qu'il faut qu'on fait tout au même temps, beaucoup de chose qu'il faut qu'on fasse.
[Page 72]
MR. GAUDET: En terminant, il faut simplement féliciter le ministre et soin adjoint pour prendre cet initiative, parce que sa fait long temps qu'on parle maintenant, on va arrêter parler et mêtre l'action. Les commentaires que moi j'ai entendue dépuis les quelque mois, c'est que les gens sont très content et regarde pour le future proche, naturellement on va commencer a identifier. Ils attente le jour que le gouvernment provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse va offrir des services en français, que sa soit dans nos communauttée acadien ou içi a Halifax entravers des miniteres. Parce que je suis certain avec votre experience que vous avais déjà raconter des individus qui demand toujours s'il peux parler dans les different ministères, parce qu'ils regardent pour un contact qui peux les parler dans leur langue.
Je suis fière que le dosier avance, il faut le simplement manir de garder a jour le dévélopement. Je sais que ça prend du temps naturellement quand on parle de décembre, 2006 on quoi que c'est une long temps mais dans pas long temps ça va arriver. Alors en tout cas je vais finir en vous remercient et en vous souhaitent sans doute bonne chance parce qu'il y a une grosse travaille a venir et continuer sur la bonne route.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With those commentary words, we will close. Do you have some closing remarks?
MR. D'ENTREMONT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member for Clare for his questions and for his interest in the Office of Acadian Affairs. I do offer him the visit to the Office of Acadian Affairs to see the new offices and to see the new multi-purpose room that his community can use any time he comes to the city. Hopefully he'll come and do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E1 stand?
Resolution E1 stands.
Resolution E14 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $641,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate of Acadian Affairs.
Resolution E40 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Harness Racing Incorporated be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolutions carry?
The resolutions are carried.
[3:40 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[3:47 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
[Page 73]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll now call upon the estimates for the Department of Environment and Labour.
Resolution E6 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $27,947,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment and Labour, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour.
HON. KERRY MORASH: Mr. Chairman, it's my honour to present to you, my colleagues and the people of Nova Scotia, the details of this year's budget for the Department of Environment and Labour. Before I begin, I would like to introduce some of my staff. Bill Lahey is the Deputy Minister and has been with the department since last June. He is on my right. And also with me today is Chuck Allen, Manager of Financial Services. Certainly we have other members of our management team in the audience to assist, if there are questions they can help us out with.
As you know, the mandate of our department is broad. Our mission is to protect and promote, for the safety of the people and property, a healthy environment, employee rights, consumer interests and public confidence in financial services, insurance, pension service, and alcohol and gaming sectors. Under competitiveness and compliance, this year I'm very pleased to report that the government has provided new funds to our department to help us achieve these important goals. We have received an additional $500,000 towards the establishment of an Office of Competitiveness and Compliance.
This program will allow Environment and Labour to advance beyond the positive steps we've taken with red tape reduction to focus on strengthening and improving both our regulatory and non-regulatory compliance instruments. The central focus of this initiative is to improve the quality of our regulatory systems. Competitiveness and Compliance Programs complement the many activities already in place at Environment and Labour, in respect to our regulatory mandate.
In human resources, we clearly are a regulatory department. We administer 29 Acts and more than 120 regulations. We employ 160 officers, who together conduct over 100,000 inspections each year. Our staff are certainly our most valuable resource. So you'll notice that our business plan for 2005-06 highlights a number of human resource initiatives for the department. These include a Workforce Planning and Development Program to address our succession planning and knowledge transfer needs, a continuous learning strategy to upgrade and maintain core competencies, as well as program-specific knowledge and skills across our inspectorates. We are also going to increase access to external sources of specialized scientific and technical expertise, and, as well, French language service delivery.
[Page 74]
Beyond these important HR initiatives, Environment and Labour's plan also includes a number of other specific goals. I would like to take a few minutes now to highlight these goals, beginning with Occupational Health and Safety. I'm pleased to point to the decision last week by the Public Prosecution Service to dedicate a Crown Attorney exclusively to the prosecution of provincial regulatory offences, beginning with a focus on Occupational Health and Safety. This move will enhance the way these cases are handled at the investigation and prosecution stages. This year we will introduce initiatives to improve governance and accountability within the Workers' Compensation Board and within the broader workplace safety and insurance system. We will also continue to improve integration of our workplace safety strategies through collaboration with the agencies that make up the Workplace Safety and Insurance system, as well as many other partners.
Finally, we will continue to promote safe and healthy workplaces by targeting inspections towards businesses or industry sectors where the risk or experience of injury is highest. Two key areas we will focus on this year are residential construction and young workers.
In addition to our many responsibilities for health and safety, we have also identified, in our business plan for this year, many environmental initiatives, all directed by our provincial green plan towards a sustainable environment. We will continue to make progress on the protection of wilderness areas and nature reserves in Nova Scotia, and we'll work to complete a comprehensive system of protected areas for Nova Scotia.
Recent changes to the Special Places Protection Act will allow us to simplify the process of designating nature reserves. Work will continue on the development of management plans for our existing 33 wilderness areas, and we will continue to support important and co-operative research projects that will help us improve both our knowledge and our protection of rare and important species and ecologies. A high priority continues to be the protection of our provincial water resource. To that end, we'll continue to work with municipalities to develop water supply protection strategies for all water supply areas, and treatment and operational strategies for all municipal water.
We're also working with other departments and stakeholders to promote the safety of drinking water provided by registered and non-registered public drinking water supplies. We continue to develop outreach and educational programs to promote the safety of private drinking water supplies, such as the new guide for private well owners. Complementing the drinking water strategy are a number of other sewage management projects, whose ultimate goal is source water protection. There is a large number of sewage management initiatives underway at Environment and Labour that together form a framework for our activities in this area.
[Page 75]
We are involved in activities at every level. Nationally Nova Scotia is chairing a subcommittee on the development of a Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal waste water effluent. This is an activity that was established and is supported by myself and all other Canadian Ministers of the Environment. We're currently working towards having recommendations ready for ministers to review at a meeting later this year.
Closer to home, we're working with our Atlantic counterparts to revise and adopt the Atlantic Canada Standards and Guidelines Manual for the collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewage. A technical working group is in place, and we hope to have the project close to completion by this time next year. Obviously we also have a lot of provincial initiatives underway as well, and these include a review and re-engineering of an on-site sewage disposal system program, and an audit and go-forward plan for the province's 27 municipally- and privately-owned lagoon systems.
One of the most important initiatives we now have underway is focused on the management of biosolids in Nova Scotia. Our comprehensive action plan includes having up-to-date guidelines for storage and land application, participating in the creation of a code of practice for the application on agricultural land, and improving education and awareness through participation and seminars, as well as through the hosting of our own science forum.
When Environment and Labour started dealing with complaints about odour arising from the land application of biosolids last year, I learned just how much information has been collected and how much research has been conducted on the topic. I realized very quickly that there are many different options proposed for testing and disposal of this material. With advances in technology, together with a new focus on this issue, I expect there will continue to be new scientific developments and advancements in management's best practices.
So, with this in mind, I listened to the concerns and suggestions of residents, and committed early on to hosting a science forum on biosolids in Nova Scotia. We want to provide a platform for discussion that includes all interested parties and that will help us come to some common understanding around the science of biosolids management. I believe my goal for the science forums are realistic. I don't expect everyone coming out of the day to suddenly agree on a path forward, I don't expect that there will be any easy answers or any magic bullets that automatically solve this issue for us, nor do I expect that this will be the one and only time that we have to get together on the topic.
What I do expect is that all participants will come together with open minds, ready to listen and to learn. I expect us to be ready to roll up our sleeves to start working on the issue and the concerns of citizens, and to stay with it until we come up with the best possible solution for Nova Scotia. I expect that all of us, residents, governments and industry alike, will continue to share ideas, consult and discuss, not just the issue of biosolids but the broader issue of sewage management.
[Page 76]
Another priority for the department, since it's also a priority of Nova Scotians, is our air quality. We'll increase air quality monitoring capacity by continuing to build and maintain a network of air monitoring stations, and through partnerships with organizations such as Environment Canada's National Atmospheric Pollution Surveillance Program, we will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxides in accordance with commitments under the provincial Energy Strategy and national and international agreements.
Mr. Chairman, in discussing some of Environment and Labour's business plan highlights today, I've only begun to scratch the surface of the significant responsibilities and contributions of this department. Electronics recycling, minimum wage, model pension law, and film classification are but a few of the many important projects which are underway this year; however, I think that in the interest of time, I'll stop here. I would like to thank you for your attention, and I'm pleased to answer any questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll turn to the Official Opposition.
The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Minister, thank you for this inside look. It seems like you took your remarks from the Minister of Economic Development, because he drags a puck like that, too. (Laughter) I'm pleased to see you and your staff here. The major focus of my hour, which shouldn't come as any surprise, will primarily be around labour issues. Other colleagues of ours may take up another portion of your time around the environment, but my questioning, by and large, will be in and around what is considered the Department of Labour and issues there.
We were quite upset a while back when there were changes to the Labour Standards Code as they related to overtime provisions. While we were happy they went through, we were somewhat angered by the fact that when they got to Cabinet, the regulations didn't truly reflect, in our estimate, the desired effect that they would have, and there were many changes in the regulatory aspect of who was in and who was out.
Mr. Minister, I'd like for you to take us through the course of why you significantly changed the intent of that legislation to fit your own regulations.
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. MORASH: I think it's probably important to point out, firstly, as everybody would appreciate, it's a very complicated and complex code. There were exceptions and exemptions that were there prior to us being involved in any changes. Also, when the changes did take place, because there wasn't a six-month lead time, the parties involved appreciated that there needed to be some time for people to get ready. When those changes
[Page 77]
came into place, we looked at the current exemptions or the past exemptions, and we looked at the aspects that were involved in the past, and we moved those through with regard to moving the Labour Standards Code forward. We tried to analyze it and look at the issues that were there, and keep a similar type of response as we moved forward.
We did introduce some exemptions to the new overtime rate, and it does seem to be working well at this point in time. I'm sure, as you'll appreciate, when these things went into effect we had snowplowing contracts that had been signed, and what we had effectively done, unintentionally, is we told people who had contracts that were currently in place, signed and valid, that they now had to pay time and a half at the rate of pay, rather than time and a half at minimum wage. We had a number of issues and concerns, and groups that brought very legitimate concerns forward to us, which we took into account as we moved forward.
We had staff do an analysis of the overtime rates, as requested by groups, and there were a number of people who were looking for exemptions. We did recommend, only, that IT professionals be granted an exemption to the new overtime requirements. Some of those issues were, we felt, very valid. They were professionals and individuals who certainly weren't making minimum wage, but because of the nature of the business and because of Halifax being almost a hot spot with some of that type of business taking place, and looking to grow that business, we felt that it was appropriate to exempt them from that.
We did approve an Order in Council that amended the regulations to allow IT professionals to be exempt. I believe that was back in March. So we still have some groups that are less than pleased with the stance that we've taken on this; however, after the review was completed, that's what we felt was fair and reasonable to the people who were involved.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, I don't think we have too much disagreement on those who were contemplated to be well compensated above minimum wage. What interested me in what you said was you used the term snowplow operators and so on who had been contracted. But what you have done, and I believe this is why I think you've kind of covered over the intent of the bill, was you didn't come back and say, well, we'll give you a sunset period. You went back and said, okay, we're going to give you this forever. That's the problem. My question to you is, why did you give them a blanket no-sunset agreement that they were allowed to work outside the regulations of the Labour Standards Code?
MR. MORASH: Would you mind just clarifying for me the specific groups that you're talking about?
MR. CORBETT: Well, the construction industry. They're the ones you talked about that had 'contracts', and they could have been sunsetted in. If that was the concern, and in your statement you used the term snowplow operators, they had contracts - I'm asking you, if that was the concern, why did you then not say, okay, for a period of 12 months or a period
[Page 78]
of six months, whichever would be appropriate, you would allow them to get out from under their agreement? Why did you slot them in forever? There's no sunset on them, Mr. Minister.
MR. MORASH: In December 2004, we committed to doing a review of the provisions for averaging hours of work over several weeks, and enabled employers to avoid unnecessary overtime costs. We consulted with Nova Scotians to get their input, and the results were made public. This was a long and tedious review done within the department, a good review that was done. The findings are on-line, and they are there for people to take a look at and to see.
We did introduce the averaging provision for the construction industry in December 2003. One of the main reasons for making the averaging provision for construction was because of the nature of the work, and the short construction season that we currently have in Nova Scotia that has to do with our weather. Although a lot of work, or because of better equipment and better machinery, a lot of equipment is running longer these days than ever before. But it's still weather-controlled. If you look at the weather over the past weekend, there was very little, had it not been a weekend, there would have been very little work done, if that was today and tomorrow, in the construction industry, say in Halifax, where things are moving very rapidly and there's lot of construction work that's taking place.
We had a number of concerns expressed by employee and employer proponents with regard to the averaging provisions. Some of that had to do with employees who basically were receiving fewer hours, just because their employers were abiding by the new rules of the road. That was fewer hours than they had worked in the past. That was certainly an issue that we took a look at, as well. We looked at best practices in this area in other provinces to try to determine what was done across Canada, from other jurisdictions. We posted some of the information that we found for comment, and we tried to make sure that people were aware of this. The averaging over the two weeks allowed for weather-related work stoppages that typically take place in the Province of Nova Scotia, and it's certainly something that we appreciated and thought was appropriate.
MR. CORBETT: Well, Mr. Minister, whether you work in the construction industry and whether it's covered by a collective agreement or whether you're outside the collective agreement, you do not have a collective agreement and you're open to the many loopholes in the Labour Standards Code, you still work in the same weather. I'm trying to get some clarity from you, why are you giving preference to contractors that do not have collectively-bargained deals? Why are you giving them a leg-up over ones that do have to work with a unionized workforce? That seems totally unbalanced.
MR. MORASH: Well, it certainly wasn't our intention to do anything but end up in Nova Scotia with a level playing field. I guess if you take into consideration the significant change that took place by the amendments that were made to the Labour Standards Code, we
[Page 79]
looked, we reviewed across Canada, we reviewed the concerns that came into us, and felt that this was fair and reasonable under the circumstances to allow for the average.
MR. CORBETT: I'll go back to the argument I have with your department on another point. Overtime, do you perceive overtime as being a bonus or a penalty?
MR. MORASH: I guess it depends on the situation and the individual who's working. In some instances we've heard cases where people are working overtime - I guess an example that we heard - prior to Christmas, which they had worked several years and depended upon. I certainly know of other cases where because of a shortage of employees and whatever, people had to work excessive overtime, and in that case they considered it a penalty. So it depends on the circumstances and the individuals as to what it is, but it certainly can be both.
MR. CORBETT: Well, I'm not going to give you a labour history but certainly, I think it is understood that's where we arrived at the 40-hour work week, and the idea of employers having to pay overtime was the mere fact of their inability to manage their workforce. The idea is nobody asked a company to get into the construction industry and I hear what you're saying, you're talking about excessive hours but on the other side - and I don't disagree with you either when you talked earlier about having to go from under certain contracts - I still can't understand why you would have made a blanket attempt to do that type of averaging, if you want to call it that, and allow this certain segment of the workforce to be penalized.
We understand the certain philosophies about very small window-type operations, I think we would both agree with Christmas tree harvesting and wreath making, I don't think we'd disagree much on that. But what I'm trying to get to, Mr. Minister, are companies that pretty well nowadays, and you said this yourself, with equipment, are pretty much working 12-month years, it's not six months. If there's downtime it is because it rains particularly heavy and they can't trench and stuff like that. What I'm trying to get from you is can't you see the imbalance that creates for certain contractors?
MR. MORASH: One thing that's fair to point out, we certainly have had comments from contractors who don't feel that what we have done has gone far enough. They felt because of past history, past practices, and I guess the old saying that you make hay when the sun shines, it's a little like putting down pavement in the summertime, you can't do that unless you have adequate climatic conditions, you can't do it in rainstorms, you can't do it when it's too cold. There are some times that are better than others, so we certainly had a lot of discussions and concerns from them that we were curbing their ability to get the amount of work done that they want to get done in a construction season.
[Page 80]
As you said, we certainly have some equipment that keeps some of these construction groups going, but there are others who are very dependent upon the climate, and very dependent on what it's like outside, whether they're going to go to work today or tomorrow. If you have three or four days of rainy weather in one week, it seemed reasonable and appropriate that they be able to make up the time that they've lost in the previous week. The other thing you have to take into consideration is this is a significant change for a number of these contractors with regard to the amount of hours that they can work. From what we gathered it was a considerably longer time in the past that individuals would be requested or asked to work. That has been reduced because of the averaging input and because of the changes that were made.
MR. CORBETT: You don't see any problem then, as far as health and safety goes, if a worker is in his or her 16th hour of work and they're pouring columns for bridges over our highways? You find that, to fit the contractor's time frame, that's perfectly all right, it's no problem that a cement sacker could be there for 16 hours wheeling wet cement, because it then doesn't roll back on the contractor that they're going to get hit with time overruns? What I'm hearing from you is it's more important that the contractor hit its time targets than a person having to work for 16 hours, that doesn't bother you?
MR. MORASH: I think the point here is that it's most important that employers and employees work safely in whatever job they're doing. There are the joint occupational health and safety committees that are there to look at issues like this. We certainly had calls to the department with regard to different areas that worked long hours and whether it is safe, and it really depends on the individual, their supervisor, situation, and the joint committee to look at the number of hours that someone can work.
For example, one of the reasons it's so difficult to put a number on some of the things is, I believe there are, for whatever reasons, some individuals that a 12-hour shift is really just about the length of time that they can put in. In other instances there are individuals who can go longer and still be safe, it's on an individual basis between they and their supervisor with regard to whether they can work safely or not.
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. CORBETT: I don't think you really believe that. You come from a background of OH&S and you know that there comes a point for a worker, I think for you to be able to start saying, well, Joe can't do it, but Betty can, but then Jim can't, I don't think that's a real good answer to the question. So let's go at it from another tack.
You talked about having OH&S committees, can you tell me how many work sites are under your jurisdiction and how many inspectors you would have to find out that there's participation going on with OH&S, that they have the proper committees set up? How many inspectors do you have to cover all those many work sites?
[Page 81]
MR. MORASH: Are you talking specifically, occupational health and safety?
MR. CORBETT: Not just OH&S. If I had a complaint and wanted to call the Department of Environment and Labour to say, I have a problem with not getting paid my overtime, I have a problem that I worked 40 hours and the boss is only paying me for 30. How many inspectors do you have across the province that would do that?
MR. MORASH: I actually have a rough idea but to get you an accurate number, if you don't mind, we'll get it for you.
MR. CORBETT: If I have an accurate one that would be even better. You can ballpark it.
MR. MORASH: We have 30 Occupational Health and Safety inspectors and we have approximately 10 in Labour and Standards that would handle those calls if they came in.
MR. CORBETT: Let's talk about Labour and Standards ones for a bit then, I want to go back to the overtime. Where would you employ those 10 inspectors? Where would they be throughout the province? Would they all be here, in Halifax, or would they be situated in various regions?
MR. MORASH: Certainly, the majority of them are in Halifax but we also have an office in Sydney.
MR. CORBETT: How many are employed in Sydney?
MR. MORASH: I would say, two.
MR. CORBETT: Do you give them a geographic area, or are they free-wheeling? Could they be in Sydney and then hauled down to Yarmouth for a couple of days? I'm trying to establish, do they have a territory and how do they rotate through that territory doing inspections?
MR. MORASH: They certainly would have a territory which would be that end of the province. However, the majority of the concerns that we have would be launched by a phone call and they could get them from areas outside of their jurisdiction, which they would refer to the appropriate people for a response.
MR. CORBETT: So your inspectors don't do what we would commonly refer to as a cold call? They wouldn't show up at a site, they wouldn't show up at Stora unannounced, is that what you're saying?
[Page 82]
MR. MORASH: I'm not aware of Labour Standards people making a great deal of cold calls, they certainly would make some if there were issues or generic complaints or things like that.
MR. CORBETT: If they received a complaint would they inform the management - we'll use Stora as an example - of that operation that they're coming that morning at 10:00 a.m. or whatever, is that how they operate?
MR. MORASH: I guess we can check and give you the outline of exactly what the process is when a call comes in. There would be a flow chart available to make that clear to you. I do know from any involvement that I've had, you'll have an employee who will call and launch a complaint, the paperwork would then be sent out to the individual to fill in. There would possibly be - I guess it depends on the situation - contact with the inspector, with the Labour Standards Office, they possibly could meet. At some point in time as they are working through that complaint, the officer would also contact the employer to find out the issues surrounding the complaint. If they were going as far as going to an industry or business to actually find out additional information, I would suspect it would be reasonable for them to contact to make sure that the proper people are on-site that day for them to talk to. However, as you put it, if they were to do a "cold" inspection, I would anticipate they would go in to look around and ask some questions and be on a personal, fact-finding mission.
MR. CORBETT: I guess I go back to that, Mr. Minister, because we're days away from the Westray anniversary and in the testimony before Judge Richard, I thought that was one of the most glaring problems with inspections, that they were given a warning that, basically, they were coming, better get the mop and broom out, so that still may go on in your department. The management of these companies would then know that the inspector is coming and make sure all the guards are back on the saws and all of that stuff. Is that accurate?
MR. MORASH: No, that isn't accurate. I guess for the sake of clarification, we've kind of mixed two areas together, we are talking about labour standards and overtime pay and those types of things, where people may call and lodge a complaint, but those aren't occupational health and safety related. They may be on the periphery where they could be referred, but with regard to our offices, our policy is if an officer is going to do an inspection of a facility they will not give notice. I can tell you from personal experience that they have not given notice to facilities that I've worked at.
We have an extremely professional group of individuals who are respected throughout the province and they will go and make their site visits unannounced, as it should be. In some cases, we've even had that to the detriment of an investigation and I only say that because if someone is going to a facility on an occasion to gather information, there are sometimes key individuals that they would want to meet with. I can tell you that there have
[Page 83]
been occasions where they've had to go back at other times because they've come in unannounced and unexpected, which is certainly their legal right and something that is, I guess, expected of them to do. They would then follow up to get additional information from people who possibly weren't available at the time.
I recall a couple of instances - and this would have certainly been quite some time ago - where we had inspectors come to visit a site and I think we had joint committee members and a number of people who were off to a safety conference or something, and they weren't available for the discussion. The inspector had a good tour through the facility, there was no opportunity for anyone to change anything, make any corrections, or do anything like that, but there had to be a follow-up visit to get some additional information that just wasn't available because some of these key individuals weren't on-site at that point in time.
MR. CORBETT: I understand that you're concerned about mixing OH&S and Labour Standards, that's a fair comment, but I want to get back to what you were saying before about the amount of hours people work and access to various information. The places you hear, I would suspect, most complaints that would involve Labour Standards would be in a non-unionized environment, by and large, because there is a grievance process with most collective agreements, so that's not really a large problem.
I have heard complaints, especially when workers are having problems with their employer paying timely wages, wages that accurately reflect hours of work, so you would see after that complaint was made that you wouldn't necessarily see the inspector coming in and for lack of a better phrase, do the cold call and say, I want to see your time cards or anything like that. You would see it would be much more appropriate for them to call and say, we've received a complaint and we're coming over, is that . . .
MR. MORASH: When it comes to complaints, Occupational Health and Safety inspectors have the right to visit any business or organization within the province, the legal right to go and investigate and that's also part of their mandate. They will investigate the complaints that come in to them and they do not, in any way, shape or form, need to identify that they are coming before they arrive.
MR. CORBETT: I don't dispute that they have the right to do that and indeed, I would encourage that they have the right to do that. My thought is, again, it's not so much OH&S but if it were a Labour Standards issue, that you're not that offended by the fact, you see it more that it's good that the inspector or investigator would call and say, we're coming over, we've received a complaint about you. That's better than the cold call, so they can't monkey the books or anything like that?
MR. MORASH: I know you do appreciate that when it is occupational health and safety, it certainly could be something that is imminently dangerous and something that needs very quick attention. We have a group of inspectors who are trained to go and look at
[Page 84]
the risk and make an analysis to determine if there should be stop-work orders, if there should be orders issued, what should be done to the facility, or to the employer, or to the employee, with regard to corrective action, to make sure that no one gets hurt.
With regard to Labour Standards, for all intents and purposes, we're looking at pay issues. So just to simplify, when it comes to the issue of whether I should have been paid for six additional hours of work from what my paycheque states, that is kind of a different level of urgency with regard to the investigation. Not that it is not important, but if you're sitting back to do that investigation, there are certainly a lot of circumstances where you may be better off to make sure that the payroll or HR person is present and available when you go to do that part of the investigation.
MR. CORBETT: Not surprising, I disagree with you. There is some validity in what you're saying but on the other side, in this province, the balance of power clearly rests with the employer, much more weighted on that side, than the employee and I just don't follow your logic there. I understand to a point when you tell me it's good to have these people here but I would think it would also be good for the investigator to have the ability to balance things out, rather than give them a heads-up that we're coming. Let's just move a bit over to more OH&S related stuff.
Are you comfortable with OH&S being over with WCB, Mr. Minister? Is that the best place for Occupational Health and Safety?
MR. MORASH: I think, again, we have to make sure that we clarify that Occupational Health and Safety isn't totally over with Workers' Compensation, but the prevention aspect has been transferred over to Workers' Compensation within the last couple of years. For what it's worth, if you don't mind me giving you just a little bit of history of when I was involved and when I started back in 1981 in safety-related work, at that point in time we had prevention officers who worked with the Workers' Compensation Board. There were a couple of gentlemen who used to come in and do inspections of types but the majority of the work that they did at that point in time was training, and they were very good, and very competent, and they did a good job.
[4:30 p.m.]
We also had occupational health and safety inspectors who came into the site at the same time. I can't remember the exact year, but there was a point in time when prevention was taken away from Workers' Compensation and brought back over to the department. Now we have taken prevention from the department and put it back over to Workers' Compensation. In my history and involvement with prevention, it seems to be something that has moved back and forth and I think there are benefits to it being in one place or the other. I think there are benefits to it changing so that people have a different emphasis and a different outlook on the prevention aspect.
[Page 85]
I think there are also some benefits to it being with Workers' Compensation currently, with regard to the employer groups that may more readily seek the advice of the prevention experts who are working currently within the insurance system that they are paying into, and they see that as a benefit to reduce their rates and to be able to see benefits to them, whereas we are a regulatory department and our inspectors do enforce the rules of the road, so to speak.
There are advantages to the prevention aspect being housed in either place, but at the current time - and I think it's the question that you're asking - I believe that the prevention aspect can be well initiated and has been within Workers' Compensation. They are starting some very aggressive prevention programs, they are spending considerable amounts of funds to try to reduce workplace accidents and illnesses. I think it has given them a renewed focus on prevention, even though prevention does belong to each and every one of us, to stop somebody from getting hurt.
I think where the prevention aspect currently sits is appropriate at this point in time. That certainly doesn't mean that at some point in time in the future it may not revert back; it almost seems like it has a six- or seven-year cycle, when things move from one area back to another. I'm very hopeful there will be some good results, with the initiatives that have taken place from Workers' Compensation and that they will be very successful. I will do everything I can to assist them in every way and we also appreciate that good prevention also includes enforcement, and there is close communication between our inspectors and the Occupational Health and Safety Division and the Workers' Compensation Board.
MR. CORBETT: You hit the point that I wanted to get to and that was that employers would certainly like to - on the prevention side - call upon the people they pay benefits to. Does it disturb you that there is a large group of employers in this province who don't pay benefits, who are exempted, and that they're getting this for free on the backs of other employers paying into this fund? They are getting access and these folks are doing zero to get this great service.
MR. MORASH: First and foremost, I'm glad that the service is available to everyone that it possibly can be available to. Also, from an enforcement point of view, we enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act and associated regulations with every employer-employee relationship in the province. So from a prevention point of view, it's imperative this service is provided to as many employees as we can possibly make it available to in the province. On that aspect, I believe that we have a good system that is working.
There certainly have been concerns from other employers who pay into Workers' Compensation. They do have some issues with regard to yes, they seem to be paying for others who, in their opinion, should be paying their way.
[Page 86]
MR. CORBETT: That's truly a problem. Nobody would disagree that you want a safe work environment and that any lines of prevention are helpful. I would have argued with those who said that they didn't agree with WCB running television ads. Some people said to me, it was a waste of money, and I don't think so. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable way to invest in accident prevention, that's the type of medium that could hit most people.
But the point is that there's an imbalance here, that people who pay into this are paying for that service, and that's good, but there are a bunch of people out there getting a free ride. Doesn't that bother you, the ones who are getting the free ride on the backs of the people in this province who are paying some of the highest premiums in the country?
MR. MORASH: There's certainly an imbalance there and that's a question that stakeholders who advise the Workers' Compensation Board, I'm sure, will or do have opinions on, but that's not something that they've expressed to me in large numbers. I've certainly heard the comments and as you would be aware, we've had the Dorsey report that made recommendations to the province. Mr. Dorsey also said that this had to be a phased-in system because we had to do what we could as we moved forward. I would expect that is something that will be looked at more closely as time goes on, in the future, but it is something the department has looked at, and certainly something, I'm sure, that the Workers' Compensation Board is interested in and there have been discussions regarding that. At this point in time, I'm pleased that a prevention service is available to the maximum number of employees in this province, to try to prevent people from getting hurt.
As you know, we're having far too many fatalities, we've just gone through the Day of Mourning last week, this is Occupational Health and Safety Week, something that is recognized throughout North America. We are all trying to work hard to prevent these accidents from occurring. As the issues go, our accident rate has probably maintained or levelled off and we do have more people working, which equates to a reduction in the number of accidents per capita; however, that's not good enough. We certainly want to make sure that we decrease the number of people who need the services of Workers' Compensation, and I do mean this very seriously. All of our jobs are involved with trying to do everything we can to reduce the need for Workers' Compensation at its current level.
MR. CORBETT: This is where the rubber hits the road about this stuff. Actually, instead of moving toward Dorsey, we're moving further away, as far as taking everybody in. If you recall, in the Fall session of the Legislature I asked you a question in Question Period regarding why some call centres are in WCB and some are out. At that point, Mr. Minister, I believe you took an undertaking to get back to me, which you haven't done. I'm asking you here, today, why are some call centres in the system, who drew that line for you and can you put some clarity to it for me?
[Page 87]
MR. MORASH: If that was a question asked and we didn't get an answer to you, I do apologize for that. We will undertake to get an adequate answer during this sitting. We're going to be here, I'm assuming, for a little longer than today, so we'll get you that information.
MR. CORBETT: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, but it's a good seven months since I asked the question. Maybe, with the collective wisdom around you, someone could give you some indication of why that would be, why one call centre on one corner would pay WCB and the one across the street wouldn't. They're doing functionally the same work, one would assume, why would someone be in and someone be out?
MR. MORASH: We'll make an effort to try to track that down right away, but that's not something I can give you the detail you are looking for right now.
MR. CORBETT: I'll tell you quite honestly, Mr. Minister, the reason I'm pressing you on this, it's not something I'm just trying to chase my tail on here, it seems that when you look in policy, there's nothing in policy from the board that would exempt them, and nothing in regulations. I just wonder because there are some out there saying that it's because they operate in kind of a quasi-area of financial services, selling credit cards over the phone, that that may be the reason for some of it.
Maybe that's where it is but I find no matter what service they're operating, to me, it doesn't make sense. It would be like from your background, if one mill made kraft paper and the other made glossy paper, they're both paper mills, so I would think - let's be honest here - it's the type of work you're doing, it's not who you are doing it for. That is why I would like the clarity on it, because people have asked me that very same question and looking at both policy and regulation, I can't see where these folks would be exempt, so I'd appreciate getting that answer. I was just advised that I have between 15 and 18 minutes, so there are a few things I would like to get to.
Mr. Minister, you and I have discussed this both face to face and by written correspondence, and that is about the growing benefits around our pension plans. I have a letter here from you that I received on April 22nd, and I can give you a copy if you don't remember the correspondence.
I was concerned about the last paragraph that says: With respect to your civic concerns about Neenah Paper, the employer has not made any application to the superintendent to reduce the above payments. As such the change to the pension plan regulations has not impacted the funding of Neenah Paper to date. I can give that to you for a look - I'd like it back - to make sure the statement is accurate.
[Page 88]
The reason I'm perplexed by that statement, that's the very idea why we're trying to be proactive. When we talked to the superintendent, the whole idea around the grow-in benefits was to look at municipalities, not publicly- or privately-traded companies that could clearly cease to operate much easier than a municipality or a government entity. I'm kind of perplexed when you tell me that you haven't heard any complaints yet, the whole idea of getting this forward now to prevent this from happening is to close the gates.
The whole idea around, I would believe, the three large paper mills in this province and probably Nova Scotia Power, would all be large employers that I would worry about. Why is it that your position is more neutral, like if something happens then we'll react to it, as opposed to saying they don't have to be exempted, so to speak? Why are you taking a laissez-faire attitude toward those employers?
MR. MORASH: Again, to clarify, rather than a laissez-faire attitude, there was model pension legislation that was proposed across Canada and what we ended up doing was basically moving in the direction of model legislation. Model legislation included all aspects, whether it be private and/or public sector, so it was looking at uniform legislation and that's the reason we proceeded.
With regard to the last paragraph you read from, specific concerns at Neenah Paper, the employer has not made any application to the superintendent to reduce the above payments, the point we were trying to make there was there was a payment plan established and the employer was maintaining that payment plan, so there hasn't been any reduction in the amount of money that's being transferred to cover pensions at this particular organization. They are, at this point in time, continuing to maintain their payments and ensure that their pension fund is solvent.
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. CORBETT: That's not really the argument in front of us, and I don't disagree that today, as we speak, the owners of Neenah are meeting their responsibilities, but the changes allow them not to. I'm more worried today than I was even last year when you folks introduced the regulations because after you introduced the regulations, we saw what happened at the Nackawic mill in New Brunswick and the devastation we saw of people who were in that plant. Doesn't that cause some concern on your part, Mr. Minister - and these things don't have to take a long time to change the complexities, it could be a couple of bad months in the market and things can go south pretty quick - that we may end up with a Nackawic here in this province?
MR. MORASH: Again, I think I need to point out that New Brunswick's legislation and Nova Scotia's legislation certainly are not similar. The situation that occurred in Nackawic with regard to the requirements of the employer, and the requirements for benefits are certainly not identical by any means. Are we always concerned with making sure that
[Page 89]
pension programs and pension plans are there to assist employees to the best of their ability and that they are funded and solvent? We certainly are.
The Superintendent of Pensions, who I know you've had discussions with, is very capable and always watching out for the abilities of these plans to do what they are expected to do. In the cases that anything happens, or just from a normal retirement point of view, we need to make sure that the money is in the fund or in the pot to be able to pay people upon their retirement.
MR. CORBETT: I beg to differ with you. There's not a whole lot of difference between the legislation and regulations around pensions in New Brunswick, we're fairly similar in a lot of ways. I think the Nackawic situation does carry some real relevance to this province. With that in mind, that's why we pursued it here today and will continue to pursue it. We think that position has to change, foremost.
I'll go back to my idea around the Labour Standards, there's an imbalance being created here, as with Labour Standards, and the imbalance is falling on behalf of the management side of the table, and putting the possibility of workers' pensions at risk. I think that imbalance doesn't have to exist and I think what has to be the overriding principle here is to make sure the people who are entitled to those pensions are protected to the utmost. As it is, for most workers a pension plan, many times in those types of situations, is mandatory and a lot of times they're not co-managed; sometimes in mills they are and they have no real, direct control. The one thing that you hope to have on your side is government regulations that tells them the fund has to be properly and fully solvent. I want to make that more as a comment than a question because I have a few more things I want to move on to.
On Page 8.3, in the 2005-06 Supplementary Detail, Environment and Labour, Program and Service. As I look at it, the question I want to ask is, Coal Miners Examination Board, you have a flat line - zero, basically - for that. I wanted to ask you why has that flatlined?
MR. MORASH: We're just shuffling through some papers.
MR. CORBETT: While you're looking for it, take my word for it, it's zero. The reason I'm asking this is I go back to Ian Plummer's report, following Westray and following Justice Richard's inquiry, and one of the observations Plummer made was that we did not have any underground mining examiners. So with the board at zero, and we now see that the Department of Natural Resources has put out tenders for Donkin, if Donkin was to open in the next year or so, would you have inspectors to inspect that mine?
[Page 90]
MR. MORASH: We certainly will ensure that we have qualified inspectors when the mine is opened. That certainly could mean that we have some additional training that we would do with people to make sure that they are up to our standards. I can certainly commit that we would have capable and qualified people to do the inspections we're requested to do.
MR. CORBETT: I could stand corrected here, but I'm thinking that Dr. Plummer's report said that we would need at least two to three years to bring people up to speed to do adequate underground mining inspections, in coal mines in particular. So there's no move afoot, then, in your department right now to take any of your existing people to get them up to speed, to be there when that mine opens?
MR. MORASH: We've recently hired a mining engineer, and we certainly are making provisions as we move forward with the anticipation that Donkin will open and that we will have a safe and efficient coal mine.
MR. CORBETT: With all due respect to engineers, will this person be given specific training in underground coal mining, especially since it would be submarine? Is that being contemplated? Again, Mr. Minister, we have a form of underground mining with Pugwash, but it's two vastly different atmospheres, pardon the pun. What I'm saying is, is there a move to have that person trained? I think back when the Cape Breton Development Corporation was on the go, the feds had maybe three, possibly four people specifically for the underground mining in Cape Breton. Do you see any move to have that engineer specifically trained for underground, submarine coal mining?
MR. MORASH: I think the point that you're making, and the answer you're looking for is that I certainly will commit to make sure that we have capable and qualified people when that mine opens. We will do what training is necessary. We will hire, if need be, people who are already qualified to do that type of work to be sure that we can inspect that mine and that we can ensure the safety of that mine, and we will do everything we can to make it a safe and efficient facility.
MR. CORBETT: So you would hope that by the time - let's put a 24-month projection on it. I won't put words in your mouth, these are my timelines, not yours. If they ever come back to haunt you, you can say they're mine. You would see that the inspector would then be trained in areas that would be able to secure safe ventilation, safe shotfiring, all those related, so they could perform an examination on - well, say, shotfirers and ventilation experts, you envision that that person or persons will be in place and be able to carry out those types of examinations on individuals?
MR. MORASH: We will have staff available to be able to inspect that mine to the standards that we require in the province.
[Page 91]
MR. CORBETT: I would hope so. Mr. Minister, as someone who comes from a family of coal miners and someone who mentioned, in the last few minutes, Westray, I can't implore enough that that has to be done before that facility opens, so that we're not kind of trailing behind the dog here. So that will be done, we will not just meet a standard but supercede a standard.
MR. MORASH: I do have some information just passed along to me that we have two already trained. I'm sure if you'd like to talk about what training they have and what abilities they have and what their credentials are, that's something that you and I can discuss, or the department would be willing to discuss with you.
MR. CORBETT: I appreciate that undertaking, Mr. Minister, and we'll do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has now elapsed for the NDP caucus. Were you going to respond, Mr. Minister? Did I cut you off in mid-sentence?
MR. MORASH: I think it's quite possible that Frank may have another discussion with me at a later date, so I'll wait until he finishes his remarks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll turn now to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Annapolis.
MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: Welcome to the minister. First of all, on behalf of myself, I'd like to express my appreciation to your department when it comes to inquiries that our offices make. We appreciate the effort, your staff does get back to us, so we can get back to our constituents. I think one member of your staff in the Valley spends more time telling people he's actually not related to me. He doesn't want any connection to the MLA. But it's okay, because I tell most of them I'm not related to the guy in the Department of Environment and Labour.
The other day in Question Period I asked you some questions around occupational health and safety. The committee was in the gallery. One of the issues was around violence in the workplace. I know those recommendations that were made have been there long before you, I think for about 10 years now. I'm just wondering, what is the delay, why is the department not willing to move forward on the recommendations that were put forward by that committee?
MR. MORASH: I certainly appreciate the questions on these. I know that you're aware that we've been working on some regulations. We have the diving regulations, which a member of your caucus and I discussed a year ago. We have moved a long way with the diving regs. We're currently getting to the point where we hope to take them to Cabinet very soon. That has been an ongoing issue, as well, and a long-time regulation that has kind of
[Page 92]
been in the hopper, so we're moving through that one. That one had become a priority of the department, and certainly something we want to see through.
[5:00 p.m.]
We have violence in the workplace, I think we have joint committee regulations, and we have other regulations that we have been looking at. We're in the process now of coming up with priorities for where we want to spend our time and efforts to get the maximum amount of benefit for the employees in the province. Another one, I think, is ergonomics. We've been working very diligently with regard to the diving regulations. Some of the aspects - if you don't mind, maybe I'll just take a second to talk about some of the challenges within the diving regulations. We're trying to come out with one set of regulations which are very comprehensive. They look at professional divers with regard to deep diving.
We are also looking for a set of regulations that would include aquaculture because, unfortunately, there have been very serious and fatal accidents in aquaculture, so we want to make sure there is a regulation out there that we can use to make that industry safer with regard to the diving that they do, which certainly isn't typically a deep dive. We also have the sea urchin divers, and we're looking for a regulation or something that would be prescriptive and beneficial for them, that they would be able to use when they go and do their work.
We are also promoting codes of practice within specific groups. When you're looking at a regulation that takes in those wide varieties of occupations, every time you come up with what you think is a solution, someone comes up with something that is very legitimate, and you have to go back and work through and look at it. Our job is to make that industry as safe as we possibly can, to look at the risks and make sure that they have some guidance to work safely. In some cases, it was appearing that we were putting undue regulation on someone who could perform their duties safely without having all the additional information or all the additional requirements that the regulation had.
Also, once you go through that and when you think you have what everybody can work safely with, then it went for a legal drafting. Of course when the lawyers look at something, they look for something that will stand up in court, and something that judges will take a look at and lay penalties if there are infractions. And sometimes when they make their changes, it can come back that it no longer meets what the department was looking for for the guidance of the employees who are out there. That's just an example of what we've gone through since I've been in the department with regard to the diving regulations.
MR. MCNEIL: I recognize that, but I'll go back to what I originally asked, and that was around violence in the workplace. It's my understanding that those recommendations have been before the department since 1994. We're still waiting to have those brought forward. I'm wondering, what's the delay? We're talking about the safety of employees
[Page 93]
across Nova Scotia. We had one incident in the Legislature last year, and now people going into the Legislature go through a metal detector for the safety of the members of the Legislature. There are employees all across this province who do not feel safe, at times, going to work. I'm wondering why we're delaying over 10 years on those.
MR. MORASH: I think one of the things that's worthwhile pointing out is that currently under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we do have legislation that basically says that employers are responsible to make the workplace safe for their employees. So there currently would be legislative authority, which holds the employers responsible for that, at this point in time. So it's not like there isn't some coverage out there now. What we'd look at with the violence in the workplace would be similar to diving, we'd be looking for something very prescriptive that either industries or groups of organizations haven't put forward a code of practice of their own.
The other part that does come into play is that certainly the department encourages codes of practice from different groups, so that the people who are out doing the work, who really know how to identify those hazards best and know how to come up with the best possible solutions, have that opportunity to do that as well.
MR. MCNEIL: So would it be that you consider those recommendations that were put forward by the NSGEU Occupational Health and Safety Committee with a joint committee, when they put them together, as redundant, not necessary, that there's already legislation now that deals with that?
MR. MORASH: The system is such that we do have an Occupational Health and Safety Act. As was mentioned earlier, after Westray, that received certainly a full review. We have what I believe is a very adequate Occupational Health and Safety Act that compares with any other legislative regime across Canada. We have that. However, we're always intent on trying to come up with the best possible regulation and come up with regulations that assist people to be able to work safely, and also are there if there is an issue so that charges can be laid. However, charges are generally laid under the Act, currently. The regulations are there.
I'm not saying that they're not needed, I guess I'm trying to explain why some of them have taken so long and why, when you're trying to look at all aspects of it - I guess violence in the workplace may be a good example - we will assess that, we will take a look at it and pay close attention to that and look forward to it. And the process has been going on that people will look at every kind of workplace that there is in the province, every type of scenario that there is in the province to see if we can come up with the best possible solution for something that will work province-wide. We are always challenged in - I guess Halifax isn't a good example, but the rules are made here, with the lawyers and with the legislators. When you're looking at something that . . .
[Page 94]
MR. MCNEIL: I think we might have found the problem. (Laughter)
MR. MORASH: When you look at something that is going to be used throughout the province, there are generally a lot of scenarios that you didn't anticipate or you didn't realize or you didn't know were happening, or legally it's very difficult to find wording that encompasses that case to get that type of guidance. We will look at getting a priority of what regulations we can move forward with.
MR. MCNEIL: When can we expect to have that priority put before us?
MR. MORASH: Well, we do have a new compliance initiative which will be working through some of these as well. I would hope that by Fall we would have a priority list, and we've made that commitment to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee. We, as with everyone else, appreciate that this has been a long period of time for some of these, that they've been on the books. People deserve to know what the intentions of government are with those, and that we will work towards that.
MR. MCNEIL: In the Public Safety budget, I noticed it has not increased in your Estimates Book, Page 8.2 - very little. I guess if you go from estimate to estimate, the reality is the Forecast is what you would have spent. It's roughly the same. As you know, our Health Critic put in front of the Legislature a bill regarding the use of safety needles. There seemed to be some confusion about who was going to be responsible for that, whether that was for the Minister of Health or whether that was for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I'd just like to hear your comments on that.
MR. MORASH: It seemed like the Minister of Health made it pretty clear that it was the Minister of Environment and Labour who was going to discuss that.
MR. MCNEIL: Did he tell you that?
MR. MORASH: Not in so many words, I guess. Fundamentally, the safety of employees is the responsibility of everyone in the province, and everybody has a part to play. In this particular case, when it comes to occupational health and safety, and safety in the workplace, the Department of Environment and Labour has the lead role with regard to the regulatory responses that take place.
As I mentioned, or tried to relay, possibly during Question Period and not as well as I could have, the employer-employee relationship and the people who are out there doing the work certainly have a large part to play in that. Generally it's codes of practice that I know have been developed for sharps and needle sticks, and there has been a pamphlet that has come out from the department as a bit of a guideline to assist departments with that, or people who are using needles in the workplace. So there has been co-operation and there has been work that has taken place, and codes of practice and policies within different
[Page 95]
jurisdictions that are there now to take a look at that. It's certainly something that we will endeavour to look more closely into. We will be seeing what the benefits are and trying to gather as much scientific information and other information as we can from other jurisdictions to see what we do in the future with that.
MR. MCNEIL: Maybe that's what you were saying. One of the responses was that you were allowing the individual DHAs to deal with that issue individually. I guess my thoughts around that or my question would be, wouldn't that fall under your responsibility, the need to protect the health worker regardless of where they were working in this province? Wouldn't a uniform policy, as opposed to allowing that kind of approach to this where one district may and one district may not? It may very well be based on, in their case, budget issues and not safety. Wouldn't that be a case where it's incumbent on you and your department to ensure that medical providers in this province are protected to the very best of our ability?
MR. MORASH: I think it's important to point out that it's the law currently that each district health authority, or each group or anybody who would be exposed to the risk of needle sticks or sharps punctures or anything like that, that they analyze those risks; it's the law that they come up with preventive measures; it's the law that they come up with policies; and it's the law that they work at preventing those accidents. They are the people who are out there now doing the work, and if they've developed codes of practice, they've worked along that, they know.
MR. MCNEIL: I appreciate where you're coming from on this, but if you look at the specific issue of the use of safety needles and needles in general, this is not something that's confined to one corner of the province, it's not something they only do in Halifax or they only do in Annapolis or they only do in Cape Breton. It is health care providers across the province who are doing that. Why would it not be the responsibility or incumbent on your department to ensure that that policy was uniform across this province, in terms of protecting health care workers to the very maximum of your ability?
MR. MORASH: It's important to realize that under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we do have a uniform policy that says you must protect your employees. We can enforce that if there are issues that come up throughout the province currently. It is the law that you protect the people who work for you, otherwise we have the authority to go in under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and lay charges and say, thou shalt. So we currently do have that ability.
At this point in time we don't have anything as specific as you're actually looking for. It has also been on the advisory council, back in October 2003, so the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council is also looking into this. I know there has been an information campaign that has come out, and we are, at this point in time, still looking at some additional information and looking at this. We haven't, by any means, ruled out the ability of moving
[Page 96]
something forward, but at this point in time we do have legislation that covers the province and holds employers responsible to protect their employees.
[5:15 p.m.]
Again, programs and policies, and employee and employer education on how to best dispose of these materials, how to do it properly and how to make sure that the risk and the exposure is minimized is also something that people are looking at now. I can tell you we're looking into that and we'll find out. I've been told that there are some areas where medical staff are using this type of product.
MR. MCNEIL: That begs the question then, if there is a DHA in our province presently using those needles, and they're doing that, assuming they believe it is in the safety of their employees, that's the rationale for using it, because they believe the use of safety needles is in the best interest of their employees, why then wouldn't every other DHA that is not doing that be in violation of the labour code, saying they're not doing what's in the best interests of their employees, they're not protecting their employees to the very best of their abilities?
MR. MORASH: They may have a procedure in place. They may have some other type of administrative control or collection control. I guess you could name many things that they may have in place to look at that hazard and to try to reduce the hazard, just different ways to get to the same results. That's also information that we're gathering currently to try to get the maximum amount of information before we make any decisions.
MR. MCNEIL: Last year, as we remembered last Thursday, 27 people lost their lives in workplace accidents in Nova Scotia. I believe it has been averaging around 24 for some time, or in the low 20s. I'm just wondering what your department is doing to ensure that that number gets to zero, and working towards making sure that that number gets to zero? Do you have a specific plan? Have you put a plan in place around that?
MR. MORASH: There certainly is a plan in place with regard to prevention. It's being spearheaded currently by the Workers' Compensation Board. It's certainly being supported by the Occupational Health and Safety division of the Department of Environment and Labour. It's a fairly aggressive plan, and there will be additional information that will continue to come out as we move forward. They have spent considerable money on ads in the Workers' Compensation Board, some that have been particularly moving. I can say that some of my family members have watched the ads and thought they were particularly good. The only criticism that I have heard is that the fine print was a little too fine, so it was kind of a touching ad, and people appreciated that people are getting hurt. The sponsor of the ad was possibly not getting the kind of recognition that they should just because of the size of the font or the print that was on there.
[Page 97]
They've had a poster campaign that is out for high schools and other areas, because Workers' Compensation is targetting young workers. Certainly when we look at statistics, young workers are always at more risk than workers who have additional experience. So we want to make sure that our young workers are adequately protected and that they are aware of the hazards that are out there. A lot of us have children who will be entering the workforce at some point in time in the future. As parents, as citizens, as representatives, we certainly want to make sure that we have everybody up to date to the level that they can go to work and work safely, and that they can come home at night.
So there is a prevention program out there. There's no question that everybody you talk to agrees that we've had too many lost-time accidents, too many fatalities, certainly in this province. We had the Day of Mourning last week, which brought to the attention of a lot of media who were there, how significant the issue is. Today marks the beginning of Occupational Health and Safety Week, the North American Occupational Health and Safety Week. The goal is to promote safety in North America to make sure that everybody is on board, to make sure that we communicate, educate and get involved, and do everything we possibly can to assist with the prevention of accidents.
MR. MCNEIL: Thank you for that. One of the other issues that your department is going to be faced with over the next five years - I think the number, as we've calculated them - is 38 per cent of your overall staff and 47 per cent of your management staff will be eligible to retire. Everybody you brought here with you today, obviously, is not, because they're all young looking, but the numbers say that. So I'm just wondering, do you have a human resource strategy? Really, roughly 50 per cent of your management staff is an alarming number.
MR. MORASH: I didn't realize they were that old. (Laughter) Yes, we do have a management staff. It's something that has been recognized, government-wide. It's not just isolated in our department. It's something we have certainly talked to Minister Bolivar-Getson about. It's something that the deputy and I have had discussions about, and we appreciate that we are going to have a great deal of experience and talent and just great people who are going to decide that they may appreciate retirement more than working with me. I can understand that and would certainly wish them well as they go into retirement. But you lose a lot every time you have someone with years of experience and ability . . .
MR. MCNEIL: Not that your staff should be alarmed, but we're going to try to correct that and see if we can give them someone else they may want to work with for the next three or four years. (Laughter) Anyway, sorry.
MR. MORASH: Well, I'll limit that to people who are working with me maybe in the next three weeks or so. We do have workplace planning and development. We're looking at implementing components of an ongoing workforce planning and development program designed to provide more detailed information on future staffing requirements, and
[Page 98]
systematic processes for employee development to meet our organizational requirements and the career development needs of the employees. We also have a learning strategy to develop a continuous learning strategy to upgrade and maintain our core competencies.
I guess this is possibly a little larger number of employers who are going to retire, but it is a normal function of any department to look at planning for the future, to determine who's going to retire and at what windows they'll have that opportunity, and to make sure that we have skilled, competent and capable people who can move in. Again, I don't diminish the abilities, the skills and the experience that we have of those who will retire; however, our goal is to make sure that those are passed along to the people who will be replacing them, and that we will have a seamless and effortless transition into new staff who will move into those positions, and also that we continually train any new employees to a level so they can move through the system and provide maximum abilities and maximum efforts to the department.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Minister, I want to shift gears a little bit and ask you a couple of questions around the pits and quarries. First of all, thank you very much for coming to my constituency and meeting with the people of Victoria Beach around the fears they had with the quarry that was going into their community. It was much appreciated. Your staff in the Valley was great for them to deal with, and they spoke very highly of them, I will say that to you. As you're probably well aware, there's a pit in my constituency that has had an alleged blasting complaint against them, and they're in the middle of a court situation.
I know you can't speak on that, but I'm just curious, what is the penalty for an operator of a pit who decides he's going to blast rock? What is the financial penalty for him?
MR. MORASH: Currently it is at the discretion of the judge, if a charge is laid and the individual or proponent is found to be in contravention of the Act. It begins at $750 and can go up to $1 million per infraction.
MR. MCNEIL: Could you give me an idea of what the last number of fines have been that have been levied against pit owners who have been found to have broken the law?
MR. MORASH: I don't have that information at my fingertips. I'm sure that we can look back and get you some information. However, I think it's important to appreciate that it is at the discretion of the judge. A lot would depend on the judiciary and what they see as the severity of the infraction.
MR. MCNEIL: Here's my issue with it. At $750 - and I recognize that the judge has the power to increase that fine - I presently have constituents who live between two pits; quite frankly, a $750 fine for blasting in either one of those pits is about a few loads of the aggregate they're going to take out of there. I guess I'm wondering why the fine would be so low as $750, when I have a quarry. . .
[Page 99]
MR. MORASH: I guess in this particular case, where it is under investigation, where things are taking place or could be taking place in the future, it's kind of a difficult one for me to discuss.
MR. MCNEIL: I don't want you to speak specifically, I certainly don't want you to speak specifically about my constituency. I want you to speak about the issue of any pit in this province. A $750 fine for somebody who decides they're going to blast is a joke. And I recognize you're leaving it to the discretion of a judge. Well, it would be interesting to have a look at what the judges in this province have been levying for fines. I have quarries in my constituency that are posting bonds, that are trying to do everything under the sun to obey the law.
So if you're going to have a difference in regulations between a pit and a quarry, you also need to follow those regulations with a stiff penalty. If you are not going to follow the law, there are consequences. And leaving it to the discretion of, quite frankly, an individual who happens to be a lawyer and got appointed to the bench is not right. It's not in the best interests of protecting the environment, and it's certainly not in the best interests of ensuring that those regulations are followed all over the province.
MR. MORASH: I guess we'll talk about generalities with regard to the fine. One is the $750, and you're looking at the lower limit. From our point of view, we're looking at deterrents, if something occurs in the province and we lay charges against a generic quarry, or a pit that wanted to be a quarry and decided they wanted to dynamite, the maximum fine is $1 million. So if we move to the other end of the scale, if the threat of a fine for $1 million doesn't make one sit up and pay attention to what the outcomes can be, I'm not sure that people who want to remain in business don't take any charge that comes their way very seriously.
The other aspect, from a reality point of view, is that when you look at the costs associated with being charged by the Department of Environment and Labour, certainly you need to represent yourself in some way, shape or form, that service does not come cheap or free by any means, you have to look at the possibility of someone pulling your approval and your not being able to operate. It's not like life goes on while the charges are underway, there are a number of impediments that are there and a number of issues that are there.
MR. MCNEIL: What would be the impediment when the charges are in place for a pit that has blasted? For example, does your department have the ability, let's say for Pit X on Cape Breton Island, to go onto that site and say, well, that aggregate was part of a blasting and that aggregate was not, and so we'll let you move that stuff, but you can't move that. Do you have the ability to know what aggregate was blasted and what wasn't?
[Page 100]
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. MORASH: I anticipate inspectors would be able to appreciate the difference between blasted rock and what comes from a gravel pit. So they would appreciate that. We do have the ability to charge people, and it's significant. Again, when you're looking at something that has up to a maximum fine of $1 million, I believe we, and rightly so, get people's attention so they appreciate that their actions are not adequate, and they do need to follow the rules in the future.
MR. MCNEIL: Any idea how long it will take before I can hear back from your department on what the fines are that have been levied in terms of what the penalty has been for illegal blasting?
MR. MORASH: It's certainly something we'll work to get you. I expect that the Justice Department would have that information in some format. I don't know how easy it is for them to extract that information. We'll make a request to the Department of Justice and see if we can get that type of generic information for you.
MR. MCNEIL: I would appreciate that very much. One of the other issues, which I'm sure not only affects my constituency, but affects yours and all other constituencies, is septic systems. Anybody in rural Nova Scotia who thinks they might have a problem with their septic system is scared to death to even encourage the Department of Environment and Labour to enter into a discussion on how they might fix it, because of the cost. It's an all or nothing kind of approach. If there's an issue here, we need it fixed, $15,000 later, as opposed to the part where it says an improvement to the system, and gradually allow that homeowner to improve their system.
There are people in my constituency, and not just in my constituency, all over Nova Scotia, who know they have a malfunctioning system, but they don't want to do anything about it because of the sheer cost of it. If they were in a position to be able to do that in increments over a three- or four-year period, they would do it. In the long run, that would improve the environment of Nova Scotia. But because of the fear that someone is going to arrive and say, here's $15,000 or $20,000 later, we want it now, we want it fixed now, they're ignoring the problem. I'm wondering if there's any move afoot to allow a gradual improvement to some of our septic systems that are in rural Nova Scotia that are old and in need of upgrading?
MR. MORASH: My guess is, as everyone here would know, with regard to the Province of Nova Scotia, something I didn't realize until probably a year and a half or two years ago, we have a significant amount of malfunctioning systems throughout the province, and in some areas, they are affecting safe drinking water supplies and they are causing concerns throughout. Even though the cost of a system is certainly significant, and no one downplays the significance of that, you can also appreciate that when the department or when
[Page 101]
an inspector finds an infraction, they currently don't have the ability to say, well, as long as you start working on it, or if you can do something in three or four years, it will be okay.
The concern is the liability within that period of time. I do appreciate where you're coming from, it's a tremendous cost for a lot of individuals. However, when you find a deficiency, we are a regulator, we have to work within the rules that we have established. We don't have the ability to allow people to do these things over time at this point in time.
MR. MCNEIL: I don't know how many people - well, I guess I do, it's written down here, how many people you have on staff. You don't have enough staff to be able to go and monitor the problems with septic systems in rural Nova Scotia. Would it not be better to be in a proactive position, to say to homeowners, we're going to work with you, you come forward, we will lay out a plan over a period of time, and I recognize what you're talking about with the liability issues, but you're sitting here now and what's happening is people are just, I want to say burying their heads in the sand, but that's probably not good terminology to use because of what we're talking about.
They're just ignoring the problem, they're afraid to come forward to say anything. Where, if you were more proactive and said, we're prepared to do this over a period of time, we'll give you time depending on the circumstances around your issue. We can come in and tell you, this is what you should do first, and work their way through the system. I think you would get more of the community and more homeowners coming forward and saying, we want your help. It's not an adversarial position.
Your employees in the field dealing with homeowners shouldn't feel like they're entering into a war zone when they go on somebody's property to tell them that there's an issue with their septic. They should feel like they have a collaborative approach with that homeowner. Right now the legislation and the law doesn't allow them to do that. They go in and say, here you go. This is what we want done.
MR. MORASH: We've had some success. I think we've had some very good success with some areas where we've had municipalities that have been involved where there is not just one homeowner but a number of homeowners who have had some issues. In some cases they've been very successful in looking at community groups, areas or regions where the municipality has undertaken to possibly pump the septic systems on a regular basis and add that to the tax bill on an ongoing basis to smooth things out with regard to the maintenance. We've also worked very closely with municipalities, and we've had some instances where we've been able to come up with some systems, and design some systems.
However, if you're looking at individuals, and just an individual system, that certainly is more challenging, to try to come up with something that's as cost effective as possible to the homeowner. Those cases are challenging at this point in time. But, again, our job is to regulate and to make sure that people who are installing new systems are putting in
[Page 102]
something that's going to be around and last and function for a long period of time without any malfunctions.
MR. MCNEIL: I appreciate where you're at. I guess you look at a situation where a system that was put in years and years ago, all the rules around that system have changed, from the tank all the way out to the field. Even allowing them or giving them the option of being able to say, this year we expect you to have the tank portion of your system upgraded, and next year we expect you to continue on, that's one thing. But to go in and say the entire thing has to be done, well, I don't have to tell you.
It's a huge cost, and they are just not coming forward, and they won't come forward, and you don't have enough people to enforce it. You don't have enough people in your department to go around and actually, quite frankly, improve the environment. Your employees are going around, dealing with the issues, from a neighbour squealing on a neighbour as opposed to the homeowner coming to you and saying, listen, I have a problem, I need your help, how can we work through this, so you don't force me to end up - and quite frankly, $15,000 in my constituency would force some people to have to move out of their house.
MR. MORASH: I think that's consistent with all constituencies throughout the province from everything that I hear. We are talking about something that's fairly significant. There have been some moves made to try to reduce the cost of beds, and there has been some new technology with regard to a sand bed for a small lot, there are also some peat beds and things like this which reduce the amount of money. But it's still significant from a homeowner's point of view, as something they haven't planned and haven't expected to do. I guess I'd be interested in hearing what kind of a solution you'd propose with regard to looking at the issue.
MR. MCNEIL: This is not the way this works, Kerry, you don't get to ask me for the answers, I get to ask you for the answers. I'm just kidding you now. I just gave you one, for example, working with your department in the Valley, we ended up moving forward on this, there are places in my constituency that say, this year we'll put a holding tank in, we'll put the proper tanks in and we can afford to do it, and we'll have it pumped. Next year we can afford to put a field in, or begin to put that field in, but we can pump the tank and then we can plug into that tank later. Well, that's not an option.
I have community halls, it's the same thing, it shouldn't have to be jumping through hoops to make that happen, it only makes common sense. Right now some of the halls - not only in my constituency - are dumping stuff into the ground but they're not going to come forward and tell you that because you're going to tell them to put an entire system in if they have the right sized lot. It just defies common sense, quite frankly. You are better off to have them come forward and say, okay, we'll put a holding tank in and we'll pump that tank and next year or the year after, when we've raised enough money to put that in, or as a family you
[Page 103]
come in and say, we'll pump that tank this year but we'll do the field and the improvements to the field the following year, it only makes sense. Otherwise you could be 15 years later before you ever find a problem and the only way you'll find a problem is if something gets bad enough that they need to call a plumber or need a backhoe. That's the issue around it for me, and I would throw back to you, why wouldn't that be an approach? Why wouldn't that be a sensible way to attack this problem, which is becoming an increasingly larger problem when you start looking at some of the rural areas?
MR. MORASH: I know you would appreciate that the majority of rural constituencies have similar issues that you're bringing up here. We've had a number of letters that have come into the department and to me, with regard to halls. There have been some for churches that are used only in the Summer. I remember one that was brought to my attention with a congregation of 12, and they really had no way of financially doing anything, but they were looking at installing, it wasn't like it was an existing one.
Our goal is to try to make things better in the easiest possible way for individuals; however, sometimes there are restraints on that. We will continue to look at ways we may be able to improve the service that we provide and work through this. Again, we do have a lot of concerns and complaints that will come into the department on this but at the present time there isn't the option out there that inspectors have to phase something in, so we'll continue to look at this.
MR. MCNEIL: I thank you for that and would say that I would think one of the roles of the department is to protect the environment to the best of your ability and I sense - and this is just my opinion - if you have homeowners who are actually willing to call you and do gradual improvements, it has to be an improvement to the environment, it has to be. You just don't have the people - let's be honest about it - you don't have the people to be out there checking the systems that are in my constituency alone, or in your constituency, that are malfunctioning, you just don't have the people. I guess from a resource situation I would much rather see them working in consultation with the community than be out there chasing around looking for an issue. I understand it's a difficult one and I do appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask these questions. Mr. Chairman, I will share my time with my colleague, the honourable member for Kings West.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: I'm certainly pleased to have the opportunity to ask the minister a few questions. I am just a short time in the role of the Environment Critic, but it is an area of deep interest, that I have a deep concern for and have had a number of dealings with the department. I have certainly appreciated the co-operative spirit with the department and the minister, we don't necessarily always agree with how things unfold, but I guess that's the way we work to make things better.
[Page 104]
[5:45 p.m.]
One of the areas that I will start out with is the biosolids issue. I know it's one that is going to perhaps gain even greater magnitude as we go forward, because it's one that we absolutely have to deal with and we have to deal with it in the proper way.
I read your press release today about the upcoming forum that will be held in Truro, and I do applaud you for that. However, I would like just a bit of an overview of where the department currently stands with regard to this issue.
MR. MORASH: Just a general overview?
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, where are you now in the process?
MR. MORASH: As you know, we came up with new regulations some time ago to take a look at the land application of biosolids. What we did would be considered almost a North American search of information and regulation to try to upgrade to be sure that we were at the forefront with regard to this. One significant thing that we've discussed and are looking at now is the science forum which you just referred to.
We appreciate that this is not something that is easy, or that you can pull a solution off the shelf, even if other jurisdictions have had success, and it's something that we're going to have to work on and come up with a Nova Scotia strategy, a Nova Scotia plan, and a Nova Scotia solution. We have had staff visit other facilities, I've visited some facilities to try to acquaint myself with the technology that is out there and what we can do in the future.
We are at a significant point in the province now with the work taking place in the HRM and will continue to take place in the HRM, which will basically amount to additional materials that will need to be used. I think I've attended a couple of seminars, one of which one of my colleagues was at in Truro. We went to the installers annual meeting and certainly, it's an issue from the septic installer's point of view. They are trying to put in the best possible system that will function and work well, but one of the only ways that this will function and work well is if these tanks are pumped on a regular basis. When you pump the tank, something has to be done with that material.
We have looked at the composting issue, we've looked at many, many other issues and at this point in time, we're taking a considerable step forward with regard to the science forum. I'm hoping that we have many people attend this and that we can bring some of the latest and greatest technology to the forefront, although I believe most people are aware of what is there now. It's certainly a challenge to make sure that you have the type of involvement that we need to move forward. We've recently taken a representative from the community group from Truro, where there has been one of the largest areas that has had issues, and accompanied them to a conference that is dealing and looking at what has to be
[Page 105]
done in the future. We're making steps and we're progressing but I think everyone appreciates, it's going to be a topic of discussion for some time to come as we move forward.
MR. GLAVINE: At this point, has your department initiated tests on the sludge to determine the actual chemical composition, what metals are there, for example, what percentages are in the sludge? Has your department started to move in that direction? I know the forum that will bring the experts together is certainly going to be a great opportunity to explore further the possibilities of where policy will take the province and your department in the future. Currently, do you have a handle on what has been spread, what is in the tanks, for example, at Inglewood, and what is coming out of the HRM?
MR. MORASH: During the process, we've sent away some material and had it tested for persistent, organic pollutants, which would be issues like DDT, or something that doesn't break down in the environment. Those tests came back, as would be expected, with the levels and limits comparable to background levels throughout the province. With regard to the heavy metals, I don't believe we have tested the material from Truro extensively; however, we have done research from other jurisdictions. We anticipate or realize what the ballpark numbers are going to be for heavy metals.
Another issue that has come up has been pharmaceuticals and that is where there is a lot of science currently done. We can appreciate that because of the background of the material, ours is going to be similar. Ongoing testing will have to take place. The one thing that seems to be the only constant in this is that scientific information needs to continue to be gathered and shared, so we can look at what we're going to do as we move forward.
MR. GLAVINE: Relating to this, as you're well aware, are the SRMs, a big question now that even the small killing plants, abattoirs, are faced with. Are you looking at any kinds of pilot projects where they can possibly, on-site, deal with those materials? Are you working with those plants so that we don't reach a point where they're not able to deal with the by-product properly? I'm just wondering, what kind of direction are they receiving since there's a bit of a holding pattern now as to how the province is going to be dealing with it?
MR. MORASH: We have had discussions with a number of those industries. We are also currently working with the Department of Agriculture to come up with a code of practice. We appreciate we need to make sure that Agriculture is extensively involved in anything that we've done or that we do in the future and also, there are facilities elsewhere that have looked at other ways of ensuring that they could dispose of their product in a cost-effective and scientifically-safe way. So there have been discussions, I haven't been directly involved with them, and a lot of people are looking at what is going to happen 10 years from now, and to make sure that we will be positioned properly to be able to move forward.
[Page 106]
MR. GLAVINE: You haven't worked on any agreements at this stage, have you? I'm sure there are some who are willing, as I said, to provide a pilot and look at possible on-site ways. As you know, trucking these materials has become extremely costly and I hear whether it's Armstrong's, Bowlby's, or Lamb's in the Valley, are you prepared to offer them something very concrete, if you wish, in dealing with this issue?
MR. MORASH: There has been some movement made in the province where manufacturers of the product or people in the kill plants, or whatever, have taken their own initiative and looked at some new types of equipment, I guess it would be mostly in the de- watering phase, and Larsen's would be one that have been pretty aggressive at looking to the future. We've been very pleased to assist in any way that we could, so we've been aware of what they've been doing and we've monitored the results that they have had. At the end of the day, they appreciate and so does the department, that they're going to have to work together on any of these kinds of solutions as they move into the future.
MR. GLAVINE: The next growing issue - and it's one, really, involved in the Department of Health as well - is the problem around medical waste. I was wondering if you could provide some explanation about the $10 million conditional contract. What are a few of the details around that contract?
MR. MORASH: As you said, Health is responsible for the process of disposing of their biomedical waste and we are the regulators, so whatever they propose and come up with will come to the department for assessment and approval of how this takes place, in our point of view, to ensure that it's done in a way that is scientifically proven and acceptable. We will look at other areas to see what is done there, but at this point in time, we haven't really had anyone come to us with a proposed list of what exactly the details are of what they are proposing.
There's discussion out there now that the proponent's job is to come up with a solution or situation that they see to move forward and when they get that information, they would bring it to the department and we would assess it to see if it meets our criteria.
MR. GLAVINE: I guess what is perplexing to me is the current guidelines from the department call for incineration of medical waste. How is this company, who has been given the contract, gotten around the guidelines?
MR. MORASH: To clarify, there has been a tender put out, I understand, from the Department of Health to, rather than incinerate this material, to dispose of it in a scientifically approved manner. The tender has been awarded to the proponent who now has to come up with a plan as to how they're going to do this properly, what methods they're going to use. They certainly have provided some information in the past. They're looking at, as I understand it, shredding the material and treating it with a strong disinfectant or bleach-type material and then landfilling it.
[Page 107]
Currently, the discussions are ongoing as to where that facility would be located, what type of process they would use, and how they would accomplish the goals they plan to set out. When they get that information in a package, they would submit it to the Department of Environment, where our environmental assessment people would take a look at whether it meets our guidelines, and they will be looking, at this point in time, at new technologies to dispose of this material in a safe way, and that's something that - where we're the regulators - we sit back and wait for someone to put together a proposal and send it to us and we'll have discussions back and forth with the proponent to determine whether it was adequate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We've run out of time for the Liberal caucus.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Tory caucus have any questions? We are going to move to the independent member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: My first question to the minister is with regard to the Supplementary Detail of the estimates, with regard to the Workers' Advisers Program. As we know, with regard to the issue of chronic pain, I believe the minister indicated that perhaps the Workers' Compensation Board will be commissioning upwards of 70 new employees. Am I correct in that?
[6:00 p.m.]
MR. MORASH: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: I noticed, as well, there's no intent to commission additional staff within the Workers' Advisers Program to complement any issues that may go to an appeal or requiring representation. Is there any particular reason for that?
MR. MORASH: The reason at this time would be that those may be resources that are required at some point in time in the future, but at this point in time there's not a need to ramp up in that area. We do have the 70 people who we're looking to have employed at Workers' Compensation to go through claims. As that process goes through, there may be a need, but at this point in time it's not identified as an issue.
MR. MACKINNON: How many claims are we talking, potentially, altogether? Somewhere around 6,000?
MR. MORASH: I have information that says we're looking at 4,700, and I have heard the possibility of going higher than that. I'm not sure exactly how high, but to date there have been 4,700 workers who have contacted Workers' Compensation, asking that their claims be reviewed for chronic pain benefits.
[Page 108]
MR. MACKINNON: You can appreciate my dilemma, if you hire 70 in one division to do the assessment, to expedite the process, and you don't complement to a certain extent or at least prepare for the eventuality that there will be need for appeals, statistically out of the 4,700 there will be a certain percentage that will be appealed, but yet there's no increase in staffing. If anything, there's one person less in the Workers' Advisers Program contemplated for the upcoming fiscal year than last year. Do you think that perhaps consideration should be given to budget for that? I realize it's all going to come out of the Workers' Compensation budget and it will only require an OIC, but in terms of expediency and efficiency and symmetry and making sure that these cases are settled as quickly and expeditiously as possible, consideration should be given to that. Maybe the minister would examine it.
MR. MORASH: I guess on that, we'll certainly monitor that situation. If the need arises, we certainly would request that responses were made. At this point in time, the request hasn't been made or the need hasn't been identified. Certainly if it is, we would seriously look into that.
MR. MACKINNON: That won't take months or years?
MR. MORASH: No.
MR. MACKINNON: Also, I'm looking at the expenses within the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister. The total overall administration cost is going from a forecast of $1.012 million up to $1.675 million. Legal Services costs have gone from $311,100 down to zero. Of course there's a reduction in Communications from $294,100 down to $292,300. The increase, the rather significant increase, from $406,800 up to $1.382 million is for the minister and the deputy minister. Perhaps the minister could explain what those costs are for?
MR. MORASH: There has been a significant increase in the budget of this office. It has grown considerably, and I'll make an effort to outline some of the reasons for the growth. Approximately $300,000 of this increase is simply, as you've mentioned, a change in how we show the Legal Services budget for the department. This used to be a separate item in the administrative budget for the department, and in 2005-06 we showed this expenditure to Justice for Legal Services as being within the Office of the Minister and the Deputy Minister. That would account for the $300,000 that has taken a different way of doing our accounting.
Also, as the Minister of Finance announced, the department is launching a $500,000 initiative in 2005-06 to establish a Competitiveness and Compliance Office, which will work across the department to ensure a balanced approach that will safeguard and improve public protection while enhancing the competitiveness of the Nova Scotia economy. This is the beginning of a multi-year effort that will build on the work of the Red Tape Reduction Task Force and respond directly to recommendations of that committee to build regulatory reform.
[Page 109]
We'll be working closely with other departments and governments to harmonize regulations and remove unnecessary duplication of regulations that present a burden to businesses and individuals without offering any added value in terms of our objectives, from the safety of the public and the environment. We'll be working closely with the business community, particularly with small business across the province, to make it easier for them to comply with provincial regulations by providing easier access through single business windows, such as Nova Scotia Business Registry, and by providing plain-language brochures and workshops so that business owners can easily understand what they need to do. We'll be reviewing some of the procedures to look at how we can streamline the approval process for our clients in areas such as on-site septic systems.
So that accounts for about $500,000, and another $100,000 is an increased expenditure within the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister to improve the capacity of the office to provide advice and support on many external regulatory boards that report to Environment and Labour. The boards are pretty well equipped to manage their own operations and to meet their legislative responsibilities. So it's important that there's the appropriate linkage between the external boards, such as Workers' Compensation, Securities Commission, Utility and Review Board, and the Minister's Office. So approximately $100,000 will be spent to provide support staff and professional advice to reinforce department responsibilities with respect to the agencies, boards and commissions that report. That's an update.
MR. MACKINNON: Let's kind of make it simple. How many additional staff are going to be hired in the Minister and Deputy Minister's Office to achieve this?
MR. MORASH: Three.
MR. MACKINNON: So that would account for the extra $675,000.
MR. MORASH: That would account for approximately $192,000.
MR. MACKINNON: I don't want to go back and ask about the $400,000, because that was as clear as mud to me, to be honest. I'll fast-forward over to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council. I notice that there's a rather significant reduction in what you're estimating for that particular council. Of course we all know, in the absence of some of the other regulations, whether it be the ones re the fire regulations, confined spaces, the violence in the workplace regs and so on, there's a lot of pressure on the general Act itself. I know the minister appreciates that, but I think that would require the need for this particular board even more so.
[Page 110]
Is there a reduction in the number of meetings or activities within that contemplated for the upcoming year? What would make you have an estimate from $2.5 million down to $1.9 million? You must have had a very busy year, because you're forecasting $6.2 million, even though you budgeted $2.5 million.
MR. MORASH: I understand on the net, the reduction is $600. I apologize for the way it appears, because I didn't