[Page 185]
HALIFAX, MONDAY JULY 10, 2006
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
12:46 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Alfred MacLeod
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call this meeting to order. We will turn the questioning back over to the NDP.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham. You have 41 minutes left in your time. It is now 12:46 p.m.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, welcome to the Chair. I want to start by congratulating the minister on his appointment. I know, from what I read, he was very excited to get the portfolio. I must say, sitting here last week, listening to the minister answer questions on the environment, it was clear that he has an appetite for this area and shows a lot of interest, and that he's a quick study. That's always a welcome sign.
Myself, I'm a new critic in this area. I have big shoes to fill as the Labour Critic for the NDP. My colleague, the member for Cape Breton Centre, has carried the ball for us for a long time. I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to represent my Party as the Labour Critic. It's an area where I have a lot to learn, but have a great personal interest. So I welcome this opportunity to talk a bit about the initiatives in the department, and to follow up on some of the issues that certainly the member for Cape Breton Centre has been working on advancing over the past number of years that we've been here.
It's interesting, as Nova Scotians, I think the first thing people often ask us when we're introduced in a social setting is, what's your father's name, but generally speaking the second question is, what do you do, meaning where do you work or where are you employed? What we do in terms of our work and employment often defines who we are and how we identify and what have you. It's a very important part of our human identity.
[Page 186]
I want to start by asking the minister a few general questions around his priorities as a new minister in the Environment and Labour portfolio. I've had an opportunity to look at the business plan for the department. Under the Labour part, it seemed to be quite skimpy, really, in terms of any initiatives. I'm wondering, does the minister have any particular vision or priorities for the Labour portfolio in the coming months and years?
HON. MARK PARENT: Welcome to your new critic position. I suspect you have far more experience in labour. I understand you're doing your Ph.D. or have done your Ph.D. on labour issues. Is that not part of it?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I'm having a hard time, I can't hear you.
MR. PARENT: Have you not done your Ph.D. or are doing it on labour issues? Someone told me, but perhaps I'm wrong.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: My Ph.D. is in sociology, the sociology of work and employment.
MR. PARENT: I look forward to the questions and to your comments and observations in regard to this. One of the things that the department is putting extra money in, and you'll see that in the estimates, that we're looking forward to is as a result of Bill No. 219. So this is certainly something, expedited arbitration and grievances in regard to union members who grieve their own union. The expedited arbitration in particular is something that I've sat around at the Law Amendments Committee, when there were many people who came forward in regard to arbitration, talking about the length of time it took them to work through that process. I forget what bill we were debating at the time; you might be able to refresh my memory, what piece of legislation.
It wasn't just one person, there were several workers, union workers who came forward - this was some years ago now, I guess - and, really, it was a real hardship, the length of time it took to move through arbitration. There were three or four who told rather heart-rending stories at that time, that I remember, about the delays and how difficult it is to get on with their life when the arbitration - I think it was up to two years or something. It was something that I found bothersome. This is certainly something that we have extra money in the budget for now, and we're pleased to be going ahead with that.
Violence in the workplace is another issue that we want to be able to deal with. It's difficult to legislate that totally out of existence. Certainly one of the things I've been pleased with is that the direction of the department has moved to compliance, and that's our end goal, and how we get to that end goal, it could be legislation, it could be education, but ultimately we want to get to compliance on these matters. We want to work at that, and I want to work at that. I know, particularly in the educational field, this becomes an issue where teachers feel
[Page 187]
that they need protection from violence in their workplace, but it doesn't just apply to that. That would be another priority that I have on my plate.
In terms of when complaints come to Labour Standards, we have certain legislative periods we have to meet, but we want to make sure that everyone is treated with dignity and that their requests are met in a timely fashion. I've been pleased to see that the department, if you visit the department, you'll find - and this is on a blackboard - that the call comes in and then they have listed when the call is responded to, and we've improved on that. I think that is so important, when someone is in some sort of process of grieving something they think is unfair, that they be treated with dignity. I know that happens now. I'm very pleased with what is going on in the department, but that would be a priority for me, as well.
These are the three immediate priorities. One of the things that I mentioned several times that I was really pleased about was in order to put compliance as the number one sort of priority, to reach that process, we have to have proper relationships and ongoing discussion with all the stakeholders, and to treat everyone as a valuable partner. There are different viewpoints, of course, that are going to come up between the workers and the employers, et cetera, but we've moved very far down the road, before we make any sort of changes we consult with stakeholders, we bring them together, if possible, around the table, and we intend to continue doing that.
I think that, perhaps, ultimately may be the most effective change and the biggest change that we make, although we're well on the way to doing that. That's something that we've been doing recently. I want to move away from any sort of confrontational perspective that we have, and we're going to depend, as we have in the recent past few years, even more so on consultation and on getting all the stakeholders involved. Those are some of the priorities that I'll be bringing; many of them, of course, the department has been working at already.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister. I want to follow up on a few things that occurred to me that probably need some following up on from last year's estimates when the minister, in his opening statement - one of the things he talked about was that the Public Prosecution Service had dedicated a Crown Attorney exclusively to the prosecution of provincial regulatory offences, beginning with a focus on OHS. So I'm wondering, one year later, can the minister tell us how many cases have been investigated and how many have proceeded to the stage of charges being laid? I'm trying to get a sense of how this has actually worked out in practice, in terms of trying to make sure that Occupational Health and Safety Regulations are being enforced. It's a question around enforcement.
MR. PARENT: You're asking about figures and as of April 1st we have 17 prosecutions before the court, in 2003-04 we had 45 prosecutions and in 2004-05 we had 37 long form and 23 summary offence ones. Our dedicated enforcement officer is also working
[Page 188]
with companies on the educational side so that hopefully we don't have violations, because we all want prevention rather than dealing after the fact, but also working very hard to make sure that when we take someone to court we win the battle. Those are the figures. I can table this if you would like to have a copy of it. Does that answer your question?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Not really, but thank you for the information, because as I've said I have a lot to learn so any information is very helpful. I'm really trying to get a clearer picture of this particular initiative around assigning a dedicated Crown Attorney. I don't know, can the minister tell me who that individual is by the way, who is dedicated to do this work?
MR. PARENT: The name is Peter Craig and he does the serious prosecutions himself and turns over other ones to other people to help out. The training that I mentioned, he is doing it with our enforcement officers so they enforce on a uniform basis with various companies, and they're the ones who would be helping companies to make sure they do the OHS Regulations properly and know what they have to conform to. So Peter Craig is his name and, as I say, he doesn't do them all but he handles the more serious cases.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. Does this table that you've given me indicate the specific caseload that this individual has handled in the last year? Do we have that here?
MR. PARENT: No, you don't have that. We could get you that information if you wanted. He doesn't do all the cases himself, he does the more important ones because some of the cases are very complex and take a lot of time. If you need that breakdown of which cases he's handling himself versus which he's getting assistance on from someone else, we could provide that information but we don't have that with us right now.
[1:00 p.m.]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Okay. I'm trying to understand why the minister, last year in his opening statement, said this is a real achievement. We're doing this, we have a person who is going to be dedicated exclusively, and I'm trying to figure out what the benchmarks are, I guess you would say, in terms of knowing whether or not that is going to make a significant difference in the occupational health and safety enforcement for workers in the province. Really, that's what I'm trying to understand.
MR. PARENT: Our feeling is that it has, but we're also looking at the benchmarks to make sure because we want to do our job as well as possible, so we will be continuing the follow-up on that. It has already, in our opinion, made a difference and we hope that and anticipate that it can make even more of a difference, but we need to get those standards in place as well and analyze it.
[Page 189]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. That also is what I'm trying to get at, how we know that it has already made a difference. Where are the comparative kinds of numbers that show us okay, generally speaking, there have been this many prosecutions annually, this many investigations annually but now given that we had this position, this is where you see a change?
MR. PARENT: We could also add into that - and we could probably get you that data - not just the number of prosecutions, but the number of successful prosecutions.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: The number of?
MR. PARENT: The number of successful prosecutions, because that would be another factor that would be important. I mean you can have lots of prosecutions but if they get tossed out of court, what have you accomplished? So that's probably the more important number and we can get you that information and we'll get that for you.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Last week when we were here in estimates, I think at the beginning of estimates, the minister announced that Mr. Comeau is leaving the Workers' Compensation Board. So I'd like to ask the minister, could he provide us with a bit of information about why Mr. Comeau has decided to leave the board?
MR. PARENT: I chatted with Mr. Comeau when I first took over the file. There were some key stakeholders that I wanted to touch base with, including Louis Comeau. My understanding is simply it is just a question of him wanting to have more time, personally. He's what, 67? He's 67 years old, and I guess he had come to a place where he has handled a couple of very difficult issues with WCB and improved in many ways, as I outlined in the statements, and there was no issue other than that. He felt that he had gotten things established, felt good about it, it was time to leave. He was at the age where he wanted to spend some time on other things.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: In reviewing and preparing for today, I was trying to establish, what has been accomplished by the board since the Dorsey report? When you look at the recommendations in the Dorsey report it's not clear to me how many of those recommendations have, in fact, been implemented. I'd like to have some sense from the minister and his staff on how many of the numerous recommendations in the Dorsey report have been implemented and then, perhaps in a general way, the minister can tell me that and we can look at some of the recommendations in more detail.
MR. PARENT: Just before I consult with the staff on that specifically, I did refer to many of the accomplishments that I felt Mr. Comeau had accomplished in his tenure as Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think those are on public record, I can review those if you want. Your question is specifically in regard to the Dorsey report, so I will check with staff.
[Page 190]
I'm just checking, because I knew some of the things that Mr. Comeau accomplished, I'm just checking to see how they're related to the Dorsey report. One of the high-level things we wanted to work out first was governance and accountability - a more stakeholder-driven board, and that has been accomplished. So I'm looking forward to what the stakeholders have to say, and that will come into play, one of the key things that will come into play now is in the choosing of a new chairman for the committee, which is a key position. It's a stakeholder-driven process now, and I think everyone would agree that's better.
The key thing that came out of the Dorsey report that we've accomplished is the supplementary benefits. I guess it was in Chapter 9 of the Dorsey report, is what they're telling me, that was accomplished. The chronic pain, I was going to boast about, because that happened, but that wasn't part of the Dorsey report, that was something that came out later but it was still, nonetheless, an achievement. In my remarks about Mr. Comeau, I wanted to mention that chronic pain has been recognized and that many employees and former employees have received benefits under that.
Basically, the things that have been achieved are governance and accountability structures, the involvement of the stakeholders in a way that never happened before, and we'll see that tested out with the choice of a chairman for Mr. Comeau, and the supplementary benefits. The chronic pain was outside the Dorsey report, but nonetheless I do want to mention it again.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: In reading the executive summary of the Dorsey report, I've more or less counted approximately - and this could be broken down in different ways - 18 recommendations in that report. I'd like to talk to you about different aspects because I think, for example, Dorsey did deal with chronic pain and talked very specifically about things that needed to be done with respect to claimants around chronic pain, and there has been very little progress in this regard. I want to do this in a more systematic way.
At the outset of the executive summary Dorsey talks about Nova Scotia having the lowest percentage of workforce covered by the public Workers' Compensation Program. At the time of his report, which I think was in 2002, he said that 64.3 per cent of the workforce was covered and there was a recommendation that there be a phased approach adopted to extend coverage to all workers and employers in the province. I want to ask the minister, what percentage of our workforce is now covered and has there been any progress toward the recommendation that there be more workers in this province covered under the Workers' Compensation Act?
MR. PARENT: Essentially, the figure of the workforce that is covered is the same. I guess the key difference is that we've only had the stakeholder-driven board in place for about a year and I haven't had a chance in my new role to get a report back from them yet. That's what we're hoping will make the difference when the stakeholders come up with their own suggestions and recommendations regarding how these things can be implemented
[Page 191]
more. So at present, Dorsey's comment still stands, but there is a key difference; none of the stakeholders are on the WCB. The WCB is a stakeholder-driven board, not appointees from elsewhere. These are stakeholders on it, they are going to come up with recommendations that will improve the protection for workers and help the workers who are injured.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I don't want to be disrespectful but I think that's a bit of a cop-out, frankly. It doesn't give me any comfort, nor should it give any members of this Legislature comfort, to see that we have the lowest coverage for workers' compensation for workers in our province. There are significant sectors in our labour market that have no workers' compensation protection in various industries - the financial services industries, for example. So I think it's important, and I would never say that it's not important to have very rigorous consultation processes with stakeholders, but I think government has to show some leadership and some initiative with respect to providing certain labour protections for members of our province. Certainly, workers' compensation is the oldest program of government in terms of advancing social protections, and this is a really important area that we have neglected, I think, for a considerable period of time.
MR. PARENT: Can I respond or do you want a response?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: My time is so limited, but I will give you some of it.
MR. PARENT: I just wanted to clarify. It's not simply consultation, but stakeholders are members of the board and that's a huge difference.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Pardon me?
MR. PARENT: Stakeholders are on the board, it's not just consultation with the stakeholders. They're actually in the decision-making seat of power now.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think my comment still stands. Government has a very important role to play. Implementing the report's recommendations certainly can't be abdicated entirely by the government by saying, well, we have this group now, and we'll let them worry about it. I think that it's really very important that there be the initiative shown as well by government in where government wants to move in terms of asking for regular updates of where the recommendations stand, a timetable for implementing them, and what have you.
The minister talked about governance and how the achievements under Mr. Comeau are a new governance structure - well, to me, that's important, but it certainly has taken a considerable period of time to try to get this new governance structure in place when you have all these other really significant issues that will make a fundamental difference to people who are working in industries not covered, to people who are waiting for their chronic
[Page 192]
pain claims to be processed and settled in a timely fashion. We can't even pretend to be anywhere close to that. I think these are really important issues, and you can't just abdicate responsibility for them.
MR. PARENT: If my remarks were taken that way, I didn't mean - I meant in the actual details of the working out, I need to hear from stakeholders. But in terms of the overall general direction, I will be insisting that there be movement on this. I don't want to micromanage at that stage how they think they can solve the problems, but in terms of moving forward on some of the key recommendations, yes, certainly. I just wanted to clarify that.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have to share a bit of my time here with my colleague, but we will have time to come back after the Liberal caucus. So at this stage, I'm going to turn it over - I think it's about 12 minutes - to the member for Pictou East.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I have one Labour question before getting into a few Environment questions. As the Natural Resources Critic, I have a fundamental concern about 350 workers, some of whom have been working for two decades and more as seasonal workers. They are not allowed, for some reason, to unionize. They're working alongside counterparts, and they have no benefits, no protection and, most importantly, no wage parity for doing equal work with some of their counterparts. I want to know why these people cannot in fact be unionized.
[1:15 p.m.]
This isn't an election issue - some people say this became an election issue, this is not an election issue - this is a situation that existed last summer, where 70 per cent of these seasonal workers showed interest in unionizing. They are being denied their rights. I'm wondering, under what Statute, or whatever, are these people not allowed to unionize? Other workers who are involved in seasonal work have in fact been able to unionize over the years.
MR. PARENT: All I can do is state that I'll take your question under advisement. I think you asked this of the Natural Resources Minister in the House, and that's really where the authority is vested, not in me. Certainly I will speak to my counterpart on your behalf, as I know you're doing, as you've doing publicly and are doing privately as well.
MR. MACKINNON: I thought maybe the Department of Environment and Labour might have the answer, since the minister wasn't really clear on the questions that I asked.
MR. PARENT: Generally, the Trade Union Act doesn't apply to employees of the Crown, both federally and provincially, but I will speak to the minister, as you'll speak to
[Page 193]
him, because I haven't had a chance to. I know you raised the question in the House, directed towards him, and I guess not getting an answer you feel is satisfactory, now you're directing it to me, so I will have to speak to him.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much. Regarding environmental issues, there is one of fundamental concern to rural areas, it is a rural area problem. I think before 2000, the inspectors in the Department of Environment did the perk tests and so on; they did these for free, as I understand it. I remember years ago having it done myself. Since then there is a need to have a qualified person involved in the process. The department still has to give the approval of the final approval and so on, which is at a cost of $53 or $55 or something like that. Then they have to do an audit of about 50 per cent, I believe, of the sites.
This has added a cost to some rural people of $600 to $800. I think the concern is that some people are now circumventing the system and there is work being done when no one is around, because of the cost. There is some avoiding of the system. Backhoe work is being done and is much inferior to what was done when the department had control over the issue, because of this increased cost. Is, in fact, the department getting feedback in relationship to this issue?
MR. PARENT: The feedback we're getting from the private sector is that they are very happy with the program; not so much on the cost, no one wants to pay costs. What we have managed to do through changes is, the approval rate is becoming very quick. It used to be about 30 to 60 days; now it's down to two weeks and we hope to get it down even less than that so it's almost instantaneous, so there's a bit of a trade-off involved there. This saves them a lot of money, if they get their approvals quickly.
You raise a very interesting, philosophical question, though, one of the questions that I asked at briefings. I think that's the case with any sort of legislation or regulations you bring in, at what point does it become so onerous that people then circumvent the system and so your regulations, in effect, aren't working. That's the thing that all of us, Opposition and government alike, have to struggle with, how do we enforce proper regulations without making it to the place where people are circumventing them and the regulations, although they are in place, aren't really providing the protection they request.
It's a similar philosophical issue to what we're seeing with water treatment in municipalities, for example, where since post-Walkerton, and of course in the new climate where people are very aware of environmental issues and sensitivities, where we are demanding a higher standard for treatment of cleaner drinking water and municipalities are saying, well, that's fine but we can't afford to do it, will Service Nova Scotia help us out?
We have a case with Mahone Bay, for example, in the paper today saying, these new regulations are great, we all agree that the water needs to be safe, etc., people need to be able to drink and to bathe in it without any fear of health issues, but we can't afford these new
[Page 194]
regulations. So it's a philosophical question that's an interesting one, that I have struggled with, how do you balance those two? Both of us come from rural areas where I know people circumvent regulations, because they feel they're either too onerous for red tape or too expensive.
On this particular one, I need to crow about the fact that we've brought the time delay down and that this has actually been a real cost-saver for businesses, from 60 days to two weeks. We're hoping to have it to one day to instantaneous so that there are some real cost savings for businesses, too, so they don't have to have people waiting around for the approvals, because we have the approval rate down substantially - the timeline down.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, what about the fine situation, the penalty situation for some of these late evening operators who may, in fact, be doing backhoe drainage work, instead of putting in a proper bed?
MR. PARENT: The fines are $450 to $675, but if we feel that the person is really deliberately, and in a very serious way, harming the environment, we have the option of taking them to court and then the court will determine the settlement. It could go up to $1 million. So the initial fine is $450 to $675, if someone is doing this work that you suggest. If we find that it's systematic or it's causing major damage to the environment, then we will take them to court and the fines then jump up substantially. But they would be dependent on the court to impose.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I find that really disturbing that we have a situation where the cost is actually, in some cases, greater than the potential fine. That, to me, is quite disturbing.
MR. PARENT: I think I understand what you're saying, that it might be more profitable for the individuals just to circumvent the regulations and pay for the fine if they get caught, is what you're saying?
MR. MACKINNON: I'm not talking about companies here. I'm talking about some rural incidents where backhoe work is done and we're hurting the environment, and no one is aware of it. There are some areas that you can get away with this quite easily, in this province, unfortunately.
MR. PARENT: I mean, when you're talking about compliance, if someone gets away with it, then they've gotten away with it clearly. But if we catch them, there is the fine, but also we would ask them to reverse the work and put in the proper system. So that's a significant cost for them too, and then finally we can take them to court if we want.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. I want to turn attention to one of the environmental issues that's in my constituency. It has been with us for over 40 years and it's a very complex
[Page 195]
problem, and I realize we have to work with of other people, but Boat Harbour has had a number of proposals put forward in recent times and one, in fact, was dredging and getting somewhere between 50 and 80 per cent of the spoils or the deleterious matter out of Boat Harbour and then flushing the system. That proposal, of course, hasn't gone anywhere; there's a great danger in that, because you're leaving 20 per cent to 50 per cent still there, for the actual flushing.
I'm wondering, what is the current approach to dealing with Boat Harbour, and does the department have the wherewithal to try to deal with this issue after so many decades?
MR. PARENT: I guess, currently, the effluent that comes to the Boat Harbour treatment facility meets all provincial and federal regulations, so we're not making the problem worse. That's sort of current good news. You're talking about re-mediating past problems. (Interruption) So I guess the answer to your question is, as I stated, they're in operational compliance now with the effluent that they're discharging. In terms of the matter that you're talking about, the federal Department of Environment is the one who is the lead player on re-mediating that.
MR. MACKINNON: It's my understanding that it's the provincial Public Works that has the entire responsibility or most of the responsibility in addressing this, that this issue is no longer a Neenah Paper issue, it's now a provincial government issue as the owner of Boat Harbour.
MR. PARENT: I mean, TPW presently operates the facility. They meet the guidelines that we recommend, but the remedial work is the federal responsibility.
MR. MACKINNON: I understand I only have one minute left and I do want to mention - I'll deal with Boat Harbour later. In relationship to fly ash, this is a real concern in my area. We have the fly ash from Nova Scotia Power Inc. at Trenton, it's a real problem in Hillside in my area. I hope there are monies available to look at a bit of research in this field and also to pay some attention to the fly ash issue at Trenton. It's a problem more so for Hillside, which is in Pictou East, than it is for the Town of Trenton itself.
MR. PARENT: We talked about this before. Maybe we can come back to this, because I don't want to take time from the other caucus. It's an important issue and we did talk about it - perhaps we can raise it again or we can talk privately about it if you want.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now turn to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the new minister of the Environment Department, and I do appreciate that it's a big jump getting up to speed on all
[Page 196]
the issues. Perhaps most of the ones I do have to ask about are fairly straightforward. I just have a small amount of time, because estimates on Education will be starting shortly.
During the election, you said publicly that you supported the development of the Digby quarry. I'm wondering if that's your personal position, the position of your government, or are you going to wait for the environmental assessment and let the department dictate what may happen in the future with regard to the Digby quarry?
MR. PARENT: Thank you for the question, because I actually didn't say I supported the Digby quarry at the meeting and the media didn't report that either, but I did get a letter from Pauline Raven which stated that night, and I phoned her back and corrected her on that. What I said is that there is a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment being undertaken at the present time - that assessment was including not just environmental factors, but socio-economic factors as well, so it was at the highest level - and that I would look forward to seeing that report and the recommendations they have.
They are still gathering data at the present time and then they'll be going to public consultation on that. Then I understand the report will be issued to both the federal Minister of Environment and myself. At that stage we'll have a chance to see what the recommendations are. So I thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. Also, when will that federal-provincial report be available?
MR. PARENT: I've been asking about it and the stage that it's at. I think they're fairly close to getting all the information they need, then they go to public consultation and they have certain time limits for that. So I will be going back and encouraging them to get their data, if they haven't got it all. I want them to do a good job, as you do as well. We all want them to do a good job so I don't want to rush them unduly, but I think it's important they move to the consultation stage as soon as they have the information they need to do that.
[1:30 p.m.]
So that's where they are now: the fact-finding with whatever issues they have to get - I know it's a complex issue - and then the public consultation and then it will come as a report, a recommendation to the federal minister and to myself.
MR. GLAVINE: There were a few areas that I was involved in as the Environment Critic, which I was for about a year. I just wanted an update on a few of those, one being Crowdis Mountain. There was an Ombudsman's report there. I'm wondering, was that made public?
MR. PARENT: I can update you on Crowdis Mountain, but let me just get the . . .
[Page 197]
MR. GLAVINE: I want to know first if the Ombudsman's report was made public.
MR. PARENT: There was never an Ombudsman's report on Crowdis Mountain. There was an internal departmental analysis, which we will make public to you if you'd like. We're working at solving that problem - that was one of the first things I was briefed on. So clearly, the concerns you raised as Environment Critic were taken seriously by the department. I think that will be resolved very quickly.
Perhaps for your files or for your colleague's files, if you don't have that audit and would like a copy of it, we'll make sure you get a copy of that audit for your files so you can follow up. But I think there is resolution coming to that issue, one way or the other, that will satisfy both the residents and the facility operators.
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I thought actually both reports. There was an Ombudsman's report, however, done on Baltzer Bog. I'm wondering why that wasn't made public. I know that it can be. I know the Act certainly has certain directions about Ombudsman's reports, but it could have been made public. Could you tell me why that wasn't made public? Part two would be the recommendations in that report, which were enormously strong for future directions for the department, and I'm just wondering, are those being acted upon?
MR. PARENT: I've got a bit of a briefing on Baltzer Bog, and of course it's an issue that, as you know, I'm familiar with, because - well, I guess it's really in Kings South, but it affects all three of our ridings in Kings County. I'm not sure why the report hasn't been made public though and whether it can be. I'll check with the deputy on that one.
The Ombudsman, in terms of making that report public, has the authority to make it public or not. So that's the question, really, and it needs to be directed to the Ombudsman. In his latest report, he commended the department, because we have taken steps on all the recommendations. He commended us for the progress we've made on it. So that's the good news for us as a department, but in terms of making the report public, that's really not within our jurisdiction.
MR. GLAVINE: Are you saying it's the Ombudsman's?
MR. PARENT: It's a confidential report we give to the Ombudsman's Office. He gets data from us and he or she can decide to make it public or not, I presume. You would have to ask the Ombudsman that.
MR. GLAVINE: However, the department has had that report for some time. I'm wondering, have some of the recommendations been put in place and, if you could, actually specifically refer to one of those?
[Page 198]
MR. PARENT: There are quite a few. As I mentioned, the Ombudsman actually commended the department in his latest report for complying with the recommendations. A quality assurance program was implemented, the new wetlands policy is in place, and an alternative dispute process is in place. So those are three that I can mention out of many recommendations. I don't know in the Ombudsman's report where he commends us. I don't think he outlines them all, but commends us, all of them have had some action on. We've complied with all the recommendations that were given and they're at various stages, but these three have been ones that you can check off the list. There are others, and if you want, I can get you that information later. We'll get that back to you, all the recommendations.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the recommendations that was made in the report was about the local group that had incurred considerable expenses to challenge the department and to try to deal with this issue. I'm wondering if they, in fact - which was a recommendation of the Ombudsman - have received some financial compensation support for their investment in trying to get the department and government to respond to their needs?
MR. PARENT: I figure this is the answer, because my aunt was one of those ones involved and she hasn't been phoning me, so I assume that there was some reimbursement provided, yes.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. One of the other areas that certainly, not for developers, but certainly for residents that I've been hearing about locally, as you know, the composition along certain areas of the Valley floor in regard to the quality of the aggregate sand products. There was an Order in Council which permitted two hectares and less to be developed and to be used without environmental assessment - it has to be checked off by the Department of Environment, but truly no assessment being done.
I've had some calls from residents with concerns over that change in policy. I'm wondering if it's one the department is going to review in the short term or once again, will it take pressure from residents, perhaps, to bring this to a greater public light?
MR. PARENT: It's a good question. The problem, of course, is when you get into the smaller pits, that the cost of compliance becomes a factor. This is one thing the department took into account when it set the two-hectare limit. That's something that goes back to the question from our NDP colleague in terms of the costs that we impose through my department, and the fact that we have to make sure that's not causing a boomerang effect.
It's an issue that, as a new minister, I'm willing to take a look at again. I did ask about the two hectares in briefings and the cost is one issue, but I'd be happy to talk to the member about it if you're having specific concerns in your riding. Let's talk about that policy change and see what comes out of those talks. It's not something I've been working on currently. I did ask about it, it's something that really is a factor that we can consider the small pit operators. I think it goes back to a comment from our NDP colleague that's a factor there.
[Page 199]
MR. GLAVINE: I have to watch my time here. A local question that has come up recently is that about a year ago the Department of Environment gave guidelines to small abattoirs who wanted to do a composting pilot program, which certainly is an acceptable practice and one that is used in other jurisdictions. However, the year is now up and there seem to be some other qualifiers put into place which could be costly for these companies. I am wondering if there's also pressure from a company like Rothesay, which is no longer picking up the by-product and taking it to their operation in Truro. Is the department switching gears here? Are they getting so much pressure from Rothesay that they're losing out on a certain amount of product they would like to be processing? I'd just like to know what the direction of the department is with regard to composting as one of the disposal methods of getting rid of animal by-product, especially in the light of the concerns after BSE.
MR. PARENT: We have several pilot sites that are working on composting of animal by-products . . .
MR. GLAVINE: Pardon?
MR. PARENT: Several pilot sites are working and we're ensuring they're in compliance. I was asking for a timeline on it and that's what my smile was because it's another year, but when I expressed surprise it would take so long, I was reminded it takes awhile to compost a cow, so probably a year is not too long. The pilot sites are being tested, they are being monitored, and we will have a full report on it in a year's time as to the success of the pilot sites and the techniques they used.
MR. GLAVINE: So ongoing then will depending on the testing, and so on, that's done.
MR. PARENT: I mean, as it was pointed out to me, I could have added the word "dummy", it takes a long time to compost a cow. It will take some time to get these out.
MR. GLAVINE: I'm aware that it's probably in a four- to five-year range, perhaps.
MR. PARENT: Next year, in a year's time we will have some more results to share.
MR. GLAVINE: In the meantime, will those operators, will it be their expense to do the testing, to make any small on-site adjustments that rightfully, the department should be putting in place, but whose responsibility will it be?
MR. PARENT: It's really on their dime, but they are diverting all their waste, instead of going to Rothesay, it's all going to these sites, so there's a bit of a saving for them there. But it's on their dime, the slight changes needed as the pilot projects go forward.
[Page 200]
MR. GLAVINE: Okay, thank you. Gosh, the response is almost like Question Period. One of the things that all of us, as MLAs, Mr. Minister, deal with on a fairly regular basis is fieldworkers with the department, and certainly with smaller, ongoing kinds of issues. Like in any field of endeavour, we all know there are some who are really capable and time after time, not just to my satisfaction but to everybody's satisfaction, there are great reports done, good action plans put into place.
There are many concerns, sometimes, around department people, and certainly the Kentville office has gone through a number and has had a review in the past, which was questionable at best. I'm just wondering, what is the basic qualification required to be a fieldworker in the Department of Environment and Labour?
MR. PARENT: I was going to say, the wisdom of Solomon, but I'll get you a better answer than that.
[1:45 p.m.]
They have either degrees or certificates in public health or environmental sciences. The degree is not required, but everyone we've hired has consistently had a degree in either public health or environmental sciences.
MR. GLAVINE: Just a couple of other questions. Will the agency Conserve Nova Scotia come under your ministry when it's up and running?
MR. PARENT: I understand that as it evolves, suggestions will come forward of whether it's stand-alone, how it relates to various departments. I would suspect that once you get beyond simply conservation of energy and get into air quality, certainly there would be strong links with the Department of Environment and Labour, but that has yet to unfold and be put in place. That should be forthcoming fairly soon, but I would suspect that there would have to be - it's interesting even in Question Period when you watch the questions, it's pretty hard to talk about conservation of energy without talking about, well, why are we doing this conservation of energy and it's not simply to save money, it does come into air quality and into the fact that we need to reduce harmful emissions into the air and once it does that, it's in the departmental portfolio of the Department of Environment and Labour.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the programs that has been dropped by the federal department, which I find difficult at this point in time to see why it has been dropped, but the One-Tonne Challenge, which was starting to get some traction not just here in Nova Scotia but across the province, I know some of the work that was done in the Valley and they are certainly aware of some of the projects that were ongoing. I'm wondering if the department is going to be proactive in that area and look at putting something forward in terms of a replacement to continue to challenge Nova Scotians to do a better job in that regard, especially with their emissions.
[Page 201]
MR. PARENT: We as a department, which I think I referenced in my opening remarks, participate in the program ourselves, to reduce our emissions as a department. As you referenced, I think it was Kings CED that were one of the leads on this in the Kings County area. We're involved in the Climate Change Atlantic consortium and assist them in ways to help market their climate change expertise on a global change but, when it comes to actually reducing greenhouse gases, the lead agency on that is the Department of Energy, assisted and supported by the Department of Environment. Energy has already come, but it may be a question you want to ask the minister of that department.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Just a couple of others, the other day you brought forward a great topic in late debate on water and the clean water strategy, but you weren't in a position to be able to stay around for most of the remaining debate. One of the topics that I raised was the presence of THMs in community water supply. We know that it's problematic still in some communities and around 2000 there were 18 communities that had unacceptable levels; it was down to 10 communities in 2004. I'm wondering, will there be a comprehensive report for 2006 on the presence of THMs in community water supplies?
MR. PARENT: I noticed you mentioned that and I thank you for allowing me to present the topic and to follow up on the remarks in written form afterwards. The THM issue, I thought you were going to talk about the one with Mahone Bay because that's the ongoing one now, but you want a report on what's happening in 2006 - how many communities? We monitor on a quarterly basis and as of right now, as we're speaking, there are eight communities that have an elevated level.
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I had just seen some yearly report so I didn't realize - thank you for that. The last area that I would like to ask a question about - I've had some calls, not just locally but around the province, the new regulations around the septic pumpers association, and I'm wondering, when will those guidelines have to be followed? Some of the small companies especially are worried about whether or not they will be able to comply and have the resources, and so forth, to be able to do that.
MR. PARENT: The date they have to comply with is 2010, but I'm not sure if you were here when I was talking in response to other questions - I think it was your colleague - to our new septic program which will see up to $100,000 to help companies meet the new requirements. We assume the majority of them will take that or portions of that, whatever is needed, in order to meet the new requirements. There may be some who feel it's just not profitable for them and will go out of business. But they have until 2010 to comply and we're offering assistance to help them comply with the new requirements, and that's one of the budget additions that I think I responded to your colleague about - he was asking before.
MR. GLAVINE: Okay, I'll pass my remaining time over then to my colleague.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: How much time do I have, Madam Chairman?
[Page 202]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's 1:51 p.m., and you have until 2:26 p.m.
The honourable member for Preston.
MR. COLWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask today and when I run out of time, I have a few more when I come back again. I'm looking at the solvency issue of the HRM pension plan in particular. It's an issue that I came across continuously, during the last election campaign, with employees who are very concerned about this and the cost of it.
I see you've struck a committee between the municipality and members of your department, to look at this issue and to see what might be done. What's a timeline in having that report back?
MR. PARENT: They'd have to have it back before January. As you know, Mayor Peter Kelly and myself issued a press release, so I assume that's what you're referring to, that there's a working group looking at this from both the Superintendent of Pensions, our department, and HRM, and any changes to their pension wouldn't take place until January. So we would have to have the results back before then to make some sort of decision on this solvency issue.
It's a very important issue that we're looking at and I don't want to take the member's time, but in my short time in the department it has become clear to me that pension issues are going to be important issues in the future, simply because of the fact that we have an aging workforce and it's important for our department. We have the long-term valuation and the solvency, both of which are important tests to make sure that pension plan is healthy and is there to pay out workers who've contributed in.
We see in California a lot of cases where pensions either are not paid out fully or not paid out at all, and other parts. So I think with an aging workforce and with some of the changes in terms of interest that people earned on investments, this will be an issue that we're looking at. This working group specifically - I think by the end of the year we have to have some decision made, so hopefully we'll hear back from that working group, sometime in November or early December, so we have some time to look at the recommendations and see what comes out of the discussions that they have.
MR. COLWELL: You mentioned, and it was in the press release that the two members from government will be the province's Superintendent of Pensions and the Deputy Minister of Labour. Isn't that a conflict of interest?
MR. PARENT: Excuse me?
MR. COLWELL: In the press release, and you just mentioned a minute ago that the province's Superintendent of Pensions and the department's deputy minister are members
[Page 203]
of this committee, this working group. Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? Wouldn't it have been better to have someone from the department other than the superintendent who has to eventually - and the deputy - sort of evolve a decision?
MR. PARENT: They're not the only ones on the committee, but they are part of the committee, but they're the ones really with the expertise and with the background on it, and I think it's important they be at the table. I see what you're saying in the sense that if HRM says we want this to happen, ultimately it's going to be on my table to decide whether that happens or not and on the table of Cabinet. What you need to understand is that my deputy's counterpart and Nancy McNeill-Smith - the two Nancys and about four Bills that I have to keep - they're working with their counterparts too, and they're working in a very collegial manner in trying to resolve this issue and work it together.
I think that's the best approach, to have a collegial discussion, because they need to know from our counterparts what are some of the issues involved on our side and for us to all work together to try to come to some resolution on this. Ultimately, it won't be the deputy or Nancy making the final decision, it will be the government, so I don't see the conflict there. I think it's important to have them at the table.
MR. COLWELL: Is there a precedent for this ever happening before in the province, where you have the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Pensions being involved in a working group to decide on pensions that are outside of the provincial government, with other people?
MR. PARENT: I can check into that, I'm not sure. There has been - I mean this issue of solvency, as you are probably aware, has been an issue that has arisen in other provinces as well and both at the federal and provincial level. New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador come to mind, provincially, and the federal level has dealt with this in regard to some of their Crown agencies.
In terms of the working groups that help try to come to some sort of consensus, I'm not really sure I can find out for you. But I would like to go back to what I think is an important governance priority in our department, and that is to try to work collegially and co-operatively with all the stakeholders and with everyone who really has some input, so we can come up with some form of consensus, so it's not winners and losers but all of them are winners.
I can check and get back to you, because we know that this issue has come up in New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are very close provinces. I can check to see what the composition was of their working groups and get back to you on that. I don't really know the answer to that right now.
[Page 204]
MR. COLWELL: Yes, and as well as that, I would like to get the answer back if this has ever been done by a deputy minister and Superintendent of Insurance, definitively, with an outside group. Internally, it's a different thing but outside, if you're dealing outside of the provincial government, has there ever been a precedent for this happening in the past? Again, I still think that part of it is a potential conflict of interest.
MR. PARENT: Yes, you're really asking in terms of the working group, because the Superintendent of Pensions is in constant contact with the pension plans of various pensions, so you're really asking about the working group. I will find out for you how those two different provinces, at least, handled this issue and get you that information back. She is constantly in touch with the pension groups. It's about the working groups, specifically, that you're asking a question. I realize that, so I will get you that information.
MR. COLWELL: Yes. Being in touch with a working group is a different thing than serving with the working group on a committee that's put together to resolve the problem. I would think it would take away some of the independence that the Superintendent of Insurance must have with any pension plan, so he can look at it more objectively.
[2:00 p.m.]
Not that your staff member wouldn't do that, I'm not saying that at all. It may put that individual or the deputy minister in a very uncomfortable situation that I'm sure the people in the pension plan and the department and the rest of us wouldn't like to see, because all kinds of things can happen at these working groups.
MR. PARENT: The Superintendent of Pensions, it has been very clear to me that she has - well, she has legislative authority that there really are issues. Her concern, I think - and I really hesitate to speak for someone else here, but I think the health of the pension plans is ultimately a concern for her, as it is for the government, and as I think it is for the companies and the businesses as well. That's what we need to keep in mind, as a government, that those plans are healthy, because the very last thing any one of us around this table wants to have happen is for pensioners who have contributed over their lifetime and when it's time to collect the pension, it's not there, or they're getting 50 cents on the dollar, so your comments are well taken.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, and I appreciate that. The point I'm trying to make is that I totally agree, you have to make sure that these pension funds are in place and with the case of HRM, they're not going to go anyplace and they're probably more solid than the province is right now, financially, and will continue to be that way under the legislation they have to work under, the global legislation under the Municipal Government Act. As long as we don't do anything foolish like change that too badly, that should continue.
[Page 205]
It's a big expense for the stakeholders in the pension plan and HRM and the property taxpayers in the municipality, so a positive solution to this thing would be very positive. That's not what I'm getting at here.
MR. PARENT: No, I understand the point you're making. Be assured that as the minister, the last thing I want to see is a pension plan get in trouble. The solvency test is an important test to help make sure the plan is healthy.
MR. COLWELL: The only issue I have with the Superintendent of Pensions again, who is a very capable individual, and the deputy minister, a very capable individual - that's not the issue here. The issue is what happens if some big company comes to the province and says look, we weren't dealt with fairly in this whole process, because the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Pensions were involved in this decision-making process by the working group and we want them to be here, too, or we're going to appeal this thing or take it to court, or whatever the case may be at the time, when this all goes through. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that they might have a case and, if they do have a case, then we have a problem in the province.
MR. PARENT: I'm not sure that I follow exactly. If you're saying that a private company makes some sort of petition to have changes to their solvency and we didn't respond in terms of setting up the same sort of process of looking at that issue as we have done with HRM, that they would have a case to take us to court - is that really your point?
MR. COLWELL: Well basically, what I'm saying is, I wouldn't like somebody - and I'll use as an example, and I don't like to use a company name, but say if Michelin was a very solid . . .
MR. PARENT: Let's use one that already came to the floor of the Legislature, Neenah Paper Company, that was already asked by the member for Pictou West, so that's already in the public. They've asked questions about the solvency of their pensions, so we can use that company, how's that?
MR. COLWELL: Maybe I'm not making my point clear enough. What I'm saying is, if there's a company, whatever the company may be - it's very difficult to hear in here, maybe we could ask them to turn the volume up a little bit on their speaker system here.
The point is, where you have the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Insurance serving on a working group with the Halifax Regional Municipality, that may not be a problem. Again, when you're going to have to make a decision on this issue and decide that, indeed, at the end of the day if it's just even perceived - and, of course, people can perceive things in all different ways - that they have some kind of special arrangement that could wipe that arrangement out, number one, because I think we have to do something, as provincial
[Page 206]
legislators, to ensure that the municipality doesn't have an unnecessary financial burden, both on the payers and the program.
If you come to some kind of arrangement and then some big company comes to you and says look, you made a special deal with HRM on this thing and you had the deputy minister in that process and you had the Superintendent of Insurance, who aren't independent parties to this - a staff member would be an independent party who does not actually make the decision or recommendation to Cabinet - we feel it's unfair, now we're going to want ours changed and we're going to sue the province.
MR. PARENT: I think the top-level issue that you're asking about is the issue of precedence, and what we do with HRM is going to be looked at very closely by other municipalities and other companies. That's certainly a warning that I have taken seriously and one I have echoed myself.
In part, one of the issues, one of the reasons why we're having so many questions on solvency, because I've been approached, not just on HRM but other companies that I can't really divulge at this stage - the only one I could divulge was Neenah Paper, because it came to the floor of the Legislature - was because of changes we made to help the universities with some of their shortfalls in their pension plans. So I think that's a very salutary warning that we have to be very careful that whatever precedence, as government, we set with HRM is a precedence that we can live up to with other municipalities and other companies.
As a bottom line, while we want the companies or the municipalities not to be under due financial hardship, a bottom line, from where I sit as the Minister of Environment and Labour, is to protect those pension plans for the workers who paid in, so they can collect when they retire. Fortunately I have asked the superintendent on various pension plans that have come up that have been in the news, some with departments other than my own, is that they're in healthy shape and by and large, the HRM pension is a large pension, somewhere around $1 billion, so it's not a huge problem that we're talking about at this stage.
The precedence issue is a very important issue that you raise. So whatever decision is made, and I'm not sure the process is important at this stage as that the issue could be taken as precedence, I don't think other companies would come and say, listen, you have to do the same process with us, but they would certainly take the end decision that came out of the HRM request and they would use that as precedence.
MR. COLWELL: I can see your thought pattern around that, but, again, I'm concerned. What's to prevent every large organization in the province or every municipality from coming and saying, we want the same arrangement as HRM, we want the deputy minister and Superintendent of Insurance to serve on a working committee? It would just be impossible, absolutely impossible to do that. It always appears - and I'm a former HRM councillor, so don't get me wrong when I say this comment here, at all, because
[Page 207]
(Interruption) Every other municipality always looks at HRM and says, they're the big guys, they get everything, they sort of run over and do what they want to do.
I wouldn't want to see any other municipality feel like they've been neglected or slighted in any way, when it's impossible for the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Insurance to meet on a working group with them, and in which case their municipality may not be in as good and solid financial shape as HRM is because of their tax base. Then you're going to have a real problem, if you don't have this organized properly to ensure that you're viewed and the municipalities are viewed as on an equal playing field when it comes to this topic.
MR. PARENT: And your warnings are taken very seriously. As I mentioned at the start, solvency issues - I've already realized in a week and a half - there are four requests that have been made directly or indirectly to me on solvency issues from various municipalities or private companies. This, as I've flagged, is an issue that we have to be very careful of in government. So your comments are taken with great seriousness here.
MR. COLWELL: I'll just ask one final question about this topic. The final one is, if anyone else comes, are you going to do the same thing with any other organization that comes forward, and put the Superintendent of Insurance and the deputy minister on a working group or a committee to work directly with any other organization, or is it just going to be HRM?
MR. PARENT: There are classes of organizations. Municipalities, although they differ, there are certain commonalities, and there are certain commonalities with private companies. There are certain commonalities with universities. I think, where necessary, when you've got those large sort of classes, although it may be one company or one municipality you're dealing with, those decisions have some reverberation on, in HRM's case - for example, HRM is asking for the solvency test to be taken off because of certain abilities they have as a municipality. So that would apply to all municipalities.
Now, I'm not sure what's going to come out of the working group discussions, and I don't want to prejudice those in any way. The point I'm trying to make is that when there are various classes that come, then it might be wise if we follow the same process, but I don't think we would have to follow it for every specific company or every specific municipality, because we would have some sort of general guidelines that would have come out of those discussions that, of course, would need to be tweaked, if Lockport or Kentville came forward for example, but we would have had some discussions that would be similar to what all municipalities would be raising. I think the same obviously would happen with universities, although there are differences in universities, too, but there are similarities there.
I hope I'm making myself clear on this point, that with large classes it might be a process but not with every company.
[Page 208]
MR. COLWELL: I just want to finally state that I'm glad you're going through a process to resolve this problem, especially with HRM, because it is a big-ticket item for the municipality and for the taxpayers. We're already overburdened with property taxes in Halifax Regional Municipality.
The next issue - and I've been aware from the Environment Department as critic for awhile - what's the status on the plant in Truro, with biosolids? What's going on with that at the present time?
MR. PARENT: As I mentioned before, Rothesay is not taking biosolids now, it takes industrial waste, and that's no longer being shipped to Inglewood Farms. So there has been a moratorium on that, if you will. It's an issue that, as I think I mentioned before, we're going to have to deal with more and more, because in the old days a lot of biosolid human waste was just flushed into the ocean and as we get better at caring for the environment, this isn't happening. So this is an issue that we have to deal with, but right now there are no biosolids going to Rothesay. They're not processing any.
MR. COLWELL: Okay. I have another question on another topic. How do you monitor the construction and demolition organizations that take the C&D material and bury it? What provisions are put in place by the Department of Environment and Labour to ensure that they're not burying garbage?
MR. PARENT: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry, there was a truck that went by.
MR. COLWELL: The C&D sites, the construction and demolition debris outfits that actually take private contractors that take that material - some of it they recycle, some of it they bury - what safeguards does the Department of Environment and Labour have in place for the materials that are being buried?
MR. PARENT: There are a number of conditions that those companies have to meet, construction companies, and they're subject to auditing . I guess we've got the same sort of situation; I mean the audit picks up 99 per cent of the problems where someone might be just burying that debris somewhere illegally. There are always going to be some cases - well, not always, but there are going to be cases where certain companies may not be complying with the requirements and where the audit doesn't serve the purpose. So we're going to have some of that, but 99 per cent of the companies are complying with the conditions and then the audit is picking up any problems after that. And the monitoring, of course, picks up if there's any impact on the environment, which then lead us to do the investigation.
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. COLWELL: How much of the tonnage that they receive - specifically, I'd like to know them specifically for each organization - how much, and each location in the
[Page 209]
province. I know it's not information you may be able to supply today, individually, but how much of the material is actually recycled and how much is buried?
MR. PARENT: I'll have to get back to you on that, because I don't have that information right now. Do you want it specifically for each company involved? I mean, that would be . . .
MR. COLWELL: Yes, there aren't a lot of companies in the province that do this, and I just want to see what the percentage of buried material is compared to what's recycled.
MR. PARENT: Would you like to see how that has changed over time, too?
MR. COLWELL: That would be beneficial if that's available.
MR. PARENT: Because progress would be shown if we can move toward recycling, so we'll get you those figures.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I'd like to see that, because I know I dumped some stuff off there and it seems like the big machine comes in and shovels it all into a big truck and it's gone. You have aluminum and glass, wood and all kinds of different things, and some of them, I realize, can't be recycled because it's contaminated with - when I say contaminated, like anything that's painted or anything like that, but the other wood maybe. I just wondered how they're really stacking up, because I think it's a wonderful program. But if it's not providing the environmental advantage we're looking for, maybe we should look at a better way to do this, or improve on the service over time.
One other thing with garbage is, it's my understanding - I could be wrong with this - that the diversion rate with HRM has gone down very slightly compared to what it was, or is that incorrect information?
MR. PARENT: Are you asking specifically about HRM?
MR. COLWELL: Yes.
MR. PARENT: The provincial rate has gone down slightly and I knew that. I wasn't aware of HRM's rate, it has gone down slightly too and that's why they're working on new programs. Part of the reason for that is when you have a boom economic time, people are buying more products, and of course then you have more waste on the other side, so we need to work harder at making sure that recycling message gets out. It is slightly down in the province, it is slightly down in HRM, and that's why they're instituting new programs to handle that. It's sort of, I guess, interesting that as the economy heats up, you have to worry about more waste and encourage people to make sure that as they buy more products and build more homes, they don't lose sight of the need to recycle.
[Page 210]
MR. COLWELL: That all depends on how you do the diversion rates. If you do the diversion rates as a percentage of the total amount of garbage total, if the rate goes down, the percentage shouldn't go down with it. It should be going up or staying stable or go down based on axial tonnage. So if the economy is doing really well and you do 10,000 tons and you get 50 per cent diverted and then if you go down to 5,000 tons and you still get 50 per cent diverted, you haven't really lost ground. But if you go down to 45 per cent diverted, you're losing ground.
MR. PARENT: That's an important point, how we actually measure it. It reminds me of the book The Mouse that Roared - there's lies, damned lies and statistics - we don't want our statistics to hide, we want to know exactly what's being measured so that we progress, that we're not just measuring in ways that make us look good. The benchmark is 1989 and we want to divert 50 per cent of what was put out as garbage in 1989. So that's the benchmark. It's a little different than what you were suggesting in terms of how we measure it, which is why it's down a little bit. Is that clear? Am I as clear as mud on this one?
MR. COLWELL: You use a benchmark rather than the percentage of the total tonnage each year.
MR. PARENT: Maybe we should be looking at the other, because if we looked at the other we'd probably look okay, but because we're using a benchmark and measuring against that and saying we want 50 per cent of that to be recycled and then we have more items going into recycling, then it hurts us on the benchmark. But that's how we're doing it now.
MR. COLWELL: My only concern with it is, I'm really pleased with the level we have and hopefully it will go to a higher and higher diversion. I know your department is pushing for that as well, so that's not the issue. But I want to make sure we're not losing ground now and we're improving on that number instead of it sliding.
MR. PARENT: That's really important and if we measured it a different way it may show that we're actually continuing to gain ground. Our waste management recycling program is one of the envies in North American and beyond. In fact, I just received news that Jacques Whitford received some contract with California to give them some expertise in waste management, because they had two employees who had been working down here in Nova Scotia and were familiar with our program - I think they had worked on it at one stage - so they were leading experts in the world to provide expertise to California. Simply because we are one of the best doesn't mean we can't become even better, and that's what's behind your point.
MR. COLWELL: That's good and I'm aware of that and I think that's excellent. Sometimes with technology in Nova Scotia we can make some money out of it for a change, instead of it costing us money.
[Page 211]
MR. PARENT: When you talk about that, the department is very eager, I'm very eager to do that too, and I really think there are real opportunities to marry concern and care for the environment along with attraction of companies producing environmentally-friendly techniques or expertise, such as in the case of waste management. They can then be exported and leveraged on both sides. I think there are some real opportunities that we have here.
I go back to the Premier's Advisory Council on Innovation that a neighbour and a friend of mine, Kelvin Ogilvie, was chair of. If you read that report, I think by 2020, that Nova Scotia would be the leading environmental province in Canada, but that would be married too, that we would become a place that would be attractive for companies to work in on environmentally friendly technologies and processes that could then be exported.
That may be somewhat idealistic, but I think it's an ideal well worth pursuing, and that's exactly what you're talking about. So I just want to commend you on your comments.
MR. COLWELL: The next one I have is, what you see on these sites in the province. I know when I was on council, I pushed hard for council to get the government to change their mind and let you take paint. I think that was a very, very positive move on the part of the province. Indeed, I think it has diverted a lot of material that would have gone into a dump or been dumped on the side of the road or down the drain - all kinds of nasty places that you definitely don't want paint or paint products.
There are other issues too. Is the department looking forward to taking things like propane tanks that are expired, and other items such as that, that would make it easy for people to get rid of these things? I recently had my propane tank filled at one of the suppliers and I dropped off an old tank, and they told me at that time that these ones are selling off again to another country that allows them to go for 20 years, instead of 10 like we do.
I'm not saying we should go to 20 years without retesting them, but I think if it were allowed to go to the C&D sites, indeed with the proper process in place and proper safety precautions and all the things would have to be with that, it may be another revenue stream for them and a convenience for individuals who want to get rid of these things and don't want them hanging around their property or their yards or dumped in the woods somewhere, which is even worse and does happen.
MR. PARENT: The good news is that we're looking at that issue and hope to have talks with industry about it and involving them in this question of the disposal of propane tanks, both large and the individual barbecue sizes. We're making progress. We should have something to report back within four or five months, six months, maybe a bit longer than that. But there is progress being made on it.
I'm not sure, at the individual level, how deeply that impacts the individual. I know with my own propane, for example, when the tank runs out, I take it back and I get given a
[Page 212]
new filled tank. I think that has become sort of common practice. Rather than filling my own tank, they just give me another tank. That's the practice that I've noticed in my area and it's becoming a common area, but that still means those tanks that are expired need to be taken care of properly. So we should have something to report on that, and discussions on that have been ongoing.
MR. COLWELL: Is there another list of items that they're looking at the Enviro-Depots taking besides possibly propane tanks? There are issues like in HRM, for instance, if they could take refrigerators, appliances, things like that, that the HRM comes around and picks up anyway. In the case of refrigerators or freezers, they have to take the refrigerants out to make them safe to handle. It's quite expensive for . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Time has elapsed.
MR. PARENT: Along with the disposing of propane tanks, the one that I mentioned and talked about yesterday with the critic from the NDP, I believe, that we're working hard on, is the disposal of used electronic equipment. That's a growing issue that we're facing as a society. Some of these, I mentioned this the other day, but printers, for example, have become almost throw-away items because the cost of buying a new printer is cheaper than buying the ink. I find that somewhat distressing. I tried to see what I could do about it when I was an MLA.
Clearly there's a growing recognition of this problem and that, along with propane tanks, is the main thing that we're talking about now in terms of disposal of electronic items. That's the growing area problem that we have as a society and as a province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, before I turn the time over to my colleague that was left in the NDP portion, we were talking about the Workers' Compensation Board. I'd like to return to this for a brief period of time before I move on to other things. Probably we could use all of our time talking about workers' compensation, but there are many important issues.
One of the things you indicated was that there had been a change in governance of the board, which certainly was one of the recommendations in Dorsey. I'd like if you could speak to how this reconstituted board is accountable to you, the minister. What are the mechanisms for accountability of the new board to you?
MR. PARENT: I have contact with the chair, as already mentioned. One of the first calls I made was to Louis Comeau and once his replacement is in place, I'll be meeting with that replacement. I think the more important thing is that the board has to report two times to its stakeholders, versus vis-à-vis a strategic plan that has been accepted and then progress
[Page 213]
has to be measured against that strategic plan. We have goals set out that are agreed upon, and then the board has to report twice a year as to the progress made to the stakeholders on those goals.
I mean, as minister, I have an interest and will certainly exercise the responsibility I have with the chair, but I think even more significant than the relationship I have with the chair, or just as significant, is this change in governance. They have to set a strategic plan with definable goals and they have to report twice a year as to the progress made towards those goals.
[2:30 p.m.]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: And this is being done? Right now? We have a strategic plan, we have defined goals, the regular reporting in place?
One of the changes, I believe - and I might be wrong on this, but I'm trying to learn my way through - is that included now are injured worker representatives, or a representative on the board. I'm wondering, could the minister elaborate on how the compensation, or the honorarium, for injured workers is being dealt with?
It's my understanding that the people or persons who come from these groups are often, understandably, in receipt of some form of benefit. I'm wondering, what is the minister's position on policy that would treat honorarium to somebody serving on the board as income and having it deducted from their benefits, rather than seeing that as an honorarium to compensate for the time, the expertise and other incidentals that go with serving in that capacity?
MR. PARENT: It's an interesting question you raise, because I've dealt with it in other issues as MLA that I was just thinking of when you were raising the question of honorarium, particularly with the KCATS - the Kings County Alternative Transportation System - back in Kings County. There was this whole issue of board members receiving an honorarium and how that affected their income tax on a federal level. So that's what was going through my mind when you were asking the question.
The stakeholders all agreed that the honorarium would not affect their income, but the difference, I guess, with benefits - which is specifically what you're questioning about - is that they're not treated as income. That's really the focus of your question.
So the honorarium would affect their benefits because benefits aren't classified as income, which is an important issue that you bring to my attention right now. I don't want any one group of stakeholders on that board to be disadvantaged. However, there are a lot of things beyond my responsibility as Minister of Environment and Labour in terms of
[Page 214]
income tax regulations on the federal level, et cetera, that are really beyond me. But it's a point that you've put on the public record and worth hearing.
I was surprised just talking about the honorarium, if I can just very quickly . . .
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Excuse me, for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I'm having a hard time hearing the minister. I'm wondering if Hansard can do something to improve the level.
MR. PARENT: Sure, I'm trying to - is that better?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Yes.
MR. PARENT: Okay. The stakeholders all agreed that any honorarium would not affect income. So that was all agreed to. The problem that we're having, which I think you've highlighted with your question, that benefits for injured workers are not treated as income, and therefore the honorarium does affect that. That's an important point that you're putting on the record. I was just stating that there are certain legislation requirements that I, we all, work under in terms of income tax that are set federally.
The comment that you made is an important one and I'm certainly willing to take a look at it. I'm not sure if there's much that I can do in regard to that because, unfortunately, benefits are treated not as income, but separately from income.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, maybe if you would move your mic a little closer too. Apparently, the 12-inch thing does work.
MR. PARENT: The 12 inches isn't working - we're up to three now.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I'm not sure of what the problem is, precisely, but I'm aware the Legislature doesn't have the power to amend the Income Tax Act. I would think that we would have the power in legislation to define certain aspects around honorariums with respect to serving on boards and commissions, particularly with respect to members of injured workers' groups sitting on the board.
Anyway, this is a discussion that I'm sure we can, and should, have because it's important to have injured workers represented. I think that was something that was recognized by everybody in the Legislature. The composition of the governance bodies was adjusted accordingly, but it wouldn't be a good thing if people were financially penalized and they couldn't go to the table like everybody else. I think that's one of the things we need to ensure those individuals who are giving of their time and their expertise from the various vantage points that they bring - be it business, labour, injured worker, whatever - that we
[Page 215]
don't create some kind of two-tier participation level in these processes because some group is being financially penalized or treated in an unfair way.
MR. PARENT: They're not, at the present time, being financially penalized, if that's your concern. They may not be financially rewarded.
Two things, just for the public record. This is the first time injured workers have had representation on the Workers' Compensation Board, which is a major improvement. The result of the stakeholders' discussion and the agreement that was reached was that the honorarium would not affect the benefits such that the combination of honorariums and benefits meant that they were making less money with the honorarium than they would have if on their benefits. So no one is being penalized for being on the board. There may be cases on the board where a person is making more money through the honorarium than they would if they weren't serving on the board and others are making the same as they would have, but no one is being penalized.
If that was the focus of your question, then that problem is solved. There's still the fairness question, on the other issue, but no one is being penalized for serving on the board. It's no financial cost to them. It's taken care of one way or the other.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Okay, as I said, the fairness question is really pretty important . . .
MR. PARENT: Can I just add one quick comment, would that be okay? I was really surprised, I asked to look at the list of honorariums for the WCB and I was very surprised how low they were. I had some sort of perception that they're very high, particularly the chair, and that's not the case. So I guess the comment that I've observed with other agencies, boards and commissions at the provincial level, is that people are really doing their civic duty on provincial committees. Now none of them are being penalized for serving on those committees, but we have a lot of public-spirited citizens who give of their time, without much finance in the way of remuneration and I just wanted to add that, and I know you'd agree with that too.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I also think though that why the board - there was re-compensation in terms of bringing injured workers in as a recognition that they have a particular vantage point or perspective that's important to have represented. So this, in some ways, isn't like, you know, the Natal Day Commission that's looking at organizing Natal Day, this has a different dimension to it. Honorariums are a way to make a financial gesture to the expertise that people are bringing and the amount of time that they are prepared to put in. It is an important question.
I have people in my constituency, Mr. Minister, as probably most members here, who have chronic pain, who fall outside of the 1985 Supreme Court decision, and who are more
[Page 216]
than patient. I can't believe some of the people who have had to wait and wait for a processing of their claims, and I understand that, yet again, there has been another postponement and another delay in processing appeals for this group. I have, and I can table, a letter from Nancy MacCready-Williams to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Centre, with respect to the latest, I think, the most recent decision of the chair, of the board, to postpone appeals. This goes back to my question to you before, how is the board accountable to you, the minister, and what do you plan to do about this ongoing problem of postponing these appeals? These appeals have been waiting for many, many years and I think it's about time that we just get on with it and deal with these problems.
MR. PARENT: You raise an important point and, as an MLA, certainly I'm well aware of having dealt with quite a few WCB concerns of chronic pain and other issues as well. You're aware that in the Supreme Court, October 2003 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said that every claimant had to be assessed individually, and today there are 6,000 workers who have contacted the WCB asking for individual assessments, putting forward a claim. So that means 6,000 cases have to be individually assessed.
Part of the slowness has been lack of staff. WCB has added, I understand, 70 staff since last April 2005, to help expedite the process. So as the staff came on stream, and they've been on stream for a little while, I have noticed, as an MLA, that there has been progress at the ground level with this extra staff. So in terms of staffing, there has been some progress made, and I myself have seen that progress at the MLA level. Hopefully it has also happened with the constituents you deal with.
The former Deputy Minister of Environment and Labour has written to the Chair of the WCB about chronic pain regulations that the workers who are eligible for those chronic pain injuries, are those who develop chronic pain in relation to an injury on or after April 17, 1985. So that's the time limit that we're working in, if that was part of your question as well.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I want to thank the minister and I think there are essentially two issues here. First of all, you have an additional $10 million having been allocated in the previous year. The board had additional staff, 22. This is the information that I have that comes out of a report from the board, to process claims. I understand that 70 additional people have also been hired to process the chronic claims, in April 2005. Is that accurate?
MR. PARENT: Yes. That's what I mentioned.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: So the problem is not the resources to manage the claims. It is a problem around deciding the policy and interpretation of policy, versus the regulations and the decision that was made by the Supreme Court, as I understand. So as this debate rages on, people languish, waiting for their claim to be settled. I guess my question is, as the minister who is accountable to the public for that situation, how are you going to
[Page 217]
make this board accountable for the ongoing delays in the processing of these complaints? The money and the resources are there, but where is the action to see these claims settled? All I see when I look at numbers, are growing numbers of claims for chronic pain, not a reduction?
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. PARENT: I guess the question you're asking me is how, as minister, will I ensure the WCB fulfill the requirements that we have asked of them as government? Certainly I haven't had time yet, in my portfolio, to speak with them about the chronic pain issue. Chronic pain is a very difficult condition that has to be assessed, not only in terms of its existence but in terms of its effect upon work, its effect upon earnings. So I am aware that since each case has to be assessed individually, and almost every case is a case that's complex in assessing what the benefits should be, that it's going to be difficult, even with the extra staff, to meet the expectations. But certainly we'll be asking of them to do that.
I have had - and I can only go back at this stage to my work as MLA - I have had constituents come back to me and report that their claim has been settled. I've had two cases just recently. So, at the MLA level, I've seen some progress. If that's not the case with your constituents, I'd be happy to talk about it with you personally, but certainly it's conversations I'll be having with the WCB, with the Chair of the WCB.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. Do you have any idea how long the postponement of appeals is planned for, as they attempt to sort out what their understanding is with respect to the regulations and board policy. How long - I think maybe even more appropriately the question might be put as, how long are you, as minister, prepared to allow that decision-making process to take?
MR. PARENT: I suspect you know the answer to the question already. It has been a one-year extension, but the board is grappling with this Supreme Court decision and one of the stakeholders on the board was from the Injured Workers Association, and my understanding of it is there was agreement because of the complexity of the issue for this extension, but I'll certainly check and verify that.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. I would very much appreciate having a better understanding of the time frame, so I can tell people in my riding what the time frame is and what the delay is.
I'd like to move now and talk a bit about occupational health and safety. Specifically, when we started talking earlier today and I had asked you about your priorities, you talked about violence in the workplace and you made reference to the business plan where this is mentioned. You talked about how difficult it is to legislate violence in the workplace out of existence. I think it's important that the record reflect that I don't think any members of the
[Page 218]
Legislature think that government has some magic power to make violence in our workplaces go away, especially, I think, in this day and age, where unfortunately it appears that violence is on the increase in the home, in the community and at work. We do expect, I think, that government will use its considerable power as lawmaker to make sure that workers aren't left on their own to deal with violence at work. Violence, in its ultimate form, can result - or its worst form - can result in death and maybe permanent disability.
I think about the young man in Antigonish at the corner store, working alone at night, who was the victim of violence and was murdered in this situation, and I often think about the number of young people, in particular, who are alone quite often, working in gas bars and various places, alone at night. Additionally, we've seen a number of very serious attacks on taxi drivers here in the metro area.
There are many, many places where people work alone, where they are vulnerable. To me, it's incumbent on government as we observe these situations, to look at ways to try to make workplaces safer. I understand that there was a working group of stakeholders, as you like to say, who have been working on regulatory changes that would put in place some greater requirements for employers to take steps, to protect their employees in situations where they may be subjected to violence in the workplace. Yet, these regulations have not been implemented. They haven't proceeded through the Order in Council process that would, in fact, make them the law of the land, if you will.
I would like to know, why is it, after all the work that has gone into the development of such regulations, and of the growing number of workplace incidents that we've seen that have resulted in serious loss of life, disability and what have you, why is it that this government seems so reluctant to give those regulations the force that is required to protect workers in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. PARENT: One of the things that we've done that I've seen a booklet of, and I could get the member, we've published a book of educational material that would help companies determine and identify, and employees and employers identify potential problems, and certainly I can give the material to the member. The only commitment I can make to you is that it's in our business plan for 2006-07 that this is a priority for us. A lot of consultation has been done, more consultation will take place, and we will come forward with appropriate mechanisms and ways to help mitigate the problem.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, my perception is that there has been a lot of work done, that there has been consultation done, that the regulation, in fact, has been drafted, re-drafted, reworked, fine-tuned for the wording. So to put off until some future date in the business plan seems to me to be delaying a measure that we could have used maybe two years ago, three years ago. How many more people have to be injured at work? How much more loss of life will it take to get this government to act in terms of enforcing
[Page 219]
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations and standards particularly around violence in the workplace?
It's very, very difficult, as you know, for any of us as members to have people, families in our ridings, in situations where we have to go to a visitation, to a hospital, or what have you, to meet with people. What are we going to say to people about how long it's taking to provide a regulatory framework to protect people who are subjected to violence in their workplace?
MR. PARENT: Certainly the answer I gave before in terms of, this is in our business plan, this is a priority. This is a priority, when you asked me in my opening comments, that I have as a minister. The important thing I think is that we deliver in this business plan in this business year, as we've indicated we will. There are when you set out regulations, you want to make sure you do them properly and allow for flexibility. Some of the cases that you've talked about might not have been covered under regulation, so the regulations have to be written and done in such a way that we can help not only with the present incidence of violence in the workplace, but to mitigate in the future as well. So all I can promise you is that this is in the business plan of the department for 2006-07 and I intend to act on it.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister and certainly this will be an issue that I will commit to following up on as often as I can because I feel very strongly about this. I think, probably, I feel strongly about it as someone who has worked in the social service field. I know that the minister will be aware that much of the research, including research from our own province, will indicate that people who work in health and social services are often in situations where they are subjected to a fair amount of difficulties at work in terms of assaults and sometimes a lot of verbal abuse. I think you know, Mr. Minister, we have to start someplace.
I understand what you're saying that, you know, you want to set comprehensive regulations, but to me it would be very important to at least start someplace. For example, looking at the example of young people who are working alone at night at gas bars and corner stores, looking at particular industries like the taxi industry where - I mean, it's not like we don't have examples of what can happen to people. We can look at the statistics and we can see where the incidence of workplace violence is the most extreme with the most horrendous outcomes and, to me, that would be a very good place to start.
You don't have to have it all done in one day. This can be developed over time, and the consultation can occur over time. There are people in our province who are working in sectors where they are extremely vulnerable, and it's incumbent upon us, I think, and it's particularly incumbent on the government, people with the reins of power and the tools, to make the changes that are required to do that and not to be complacent. This is not an area for complacency.
[Page 220]
MR. PARENT: A point well taken.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would like to ask a few questions around labour standards. Labour standards is sometimes, sadly, I think, the poor sister, as they say, for industrial relations and matters that fall under the Trade Union Act. That is puzzling when you consider that the vast majority of workers, in fact, are workers for whom the labour standards apply, much more so than people for whom labour relations and labour relations Acts are relevant.
We have a growing number of workers in our province who are immigrants and newcomers. I would say that, just judging from the casework I get in my office that would have a labour standards component, the two groups that tend to come to me for some assistance around labour standards would be immigrants, newcomers and young people, and probably young people in the Mc-jobs-kind of sector.
I'm wondering if you can help me understand a bit more about the numbers of calls your office gets, what that looks like in terms of who are the people who are running into difficulty, what programs do you have specifically to assist and support newcomers who sometimes may be in situations where they, too, are vulnerable for language reasons, or just because they really don't have that extended network and a lot of choices, and as well for younger workers. I notice I do have from your Web site the self-audit work that's going on, which I think is commendable, and certainly if it cuts down on abuses in the workplace of workers, or exploitation of workers, then this is a very good thing. What are you doing to protect workers who are newcomers and young workers with respect to labour standards?
MR. PARENT: It's a good question you ask. The self-audit program - I asked about that - we've been very pleased, and I'm glad that you commended it because we found most of the companies want to meet the standards, and once they do this self-audit, find the areas that they need to improve on. So thank you for your commendation because the word that the department is getting back on that self-audit is that it has been a very helpful tool for businesses that at times weren't aware what the standards were, and when they do the audit they're able to find out what the standards are.
In terms of immigrants, there is another class of workers that I was just approached on over the weekend, which was interesting, that we could add to that sort of an extension of immigrants, and that's offshore workers and what protections they have under labour standards. This is one of the things I intended to do. Of course, having an interest in immigration, having been born in Port Williams - well, born in Halifax and adopted into Port Williams, to be very honest, but having been raised overseas in South America and seeing the need for immigration into Nova Scotia, the importance of immigration to Nova Scotia not only in terms of our population base but also in terms of our skills base, this is one of the conversations that I wanted to have with the Minister of Immigration, that I intend to have,
[Page 221]
because immigrants are overwhelmed by so many things, as you say, and oftentimes the language barrier is a bit of a hurdle as well.
It's important, and one of the things the province does as well is we attract immigrants, but then they move to the larger centres, and one of the reasons for that of course is there's a larger community of people from the same culture and language background. So we need to do all we can to help those immigrants feel comfortable in Nova Scotia, and I think this is what lies behind your question. So one of the reasons I want to have this conversation - I haven't had a chance to do it yet - with the Minister of Immigration is to make sure that my department assists her department in offering these services to new immigrants, that immigrants be very aware of the labour standards here in Nova Scotia and the rights, as workers, that they have. So I'll be having that conversation and perhaps I can report back to you at a future time about that.
In terms of young people, this is a concern that I've had myself with all my three children working - one working at a restaurant now - and there are concerns that I have that I'll be asking the department about as well. Now we've made some progress on support in labour standards for young people, but can I ask a question? Have you seen - because I can get the information which is what I will get back to you on - do you want to see the complaints that have come in, do you want to see if we can break them down as much as we can? But have you seen any change - are both immigrants and young people on the increase or have concerns from young people plateaued and concerns for immigrants continuing to increase?
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think mostly I just think about who I do see in my office with labour standards issues - they tend to be young people or people who are newcomers.
MR. PARENT: Yes, and they continue to appear in your office. Well, certainly I'll get you that information, which is what you're looking for, insofar as we're able to break it down with privacy concerns. I'm not sure how far I can break it down for you, but I'll break it down as far as I can. (Interruption) I'm informed that it will be hard to get the precise data. We'll get you the data we can because of privacy concerns, but the Labour Standards Division has been working very hard at education programs with these two groups that you mentioned to help educate both them and the employers of the standards for immigrants and young people. So that's in the business plan as well, and I'll report back to you on how progress is made on that.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: How many cases does the tribunal hear annually and what has been the trajectory around tribunal cases?
MR. PARENT: The trajectory in terms of the timelines or in terms of whether they're increasing or decreasing?
[Page 222]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Yes, the latter.
MR. PARENT: I saw that number and it totally slipped my mind, so I'm going to have to get some consultation on it. I think it was around 40-ish, but (Interruption) Yes, I was briefed on that, and I didn't want to say the 40, but it is 40, and it has been pretty stable - it has not been going down and it has not been going up.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Could you tell us how that compares to other provinces?
MR. PARENT: I asked that question and, again, this was in a very early briefing and I'm not sure. I don't think it's very different from other similar-sized provinces in Atlantic Canada, and we always compare ourselves to the other Atlantic Canadian Provinces and then, beyond that, if there's another benchmark, to Manitoba and Saskatchewan because of their size, and there's not much difference. But I guess the point is it's not going up, but it's not going down either. With our emphasis on prevention, on involvement of stakeholders, on discussion, we would like to see it begin to go down, because then that would mean we've been doing a better job at the prevention, at educating people so that they didn't have to get to that stage.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Your business plan talks about some changes with respect to labour relations, I believe, and I was looking at talking about expedited arbitration, but also some comments around a duty to represent. Can you be a little more specific about what that means? What you are planning - are you planning legislative change? Are you planning regulatory change? Are you planning public education for trade unions, since you seem to be quite big on public education rather than regulation - what exactly are you planning?
MR. PARENT: I'm not saying I'm big on public education versus regulation, they both have their place. I simply tried to say that compliance is our end goal and how we achieve it, sometimes we need education - I mean certainly regulations will always be a part because you need, in some sense, the stick, if I can put it that way, and it's not to be taken away and I don't intend to. Certainly if my comments were taken that way, I apologize for that.
I'm big on education because it's preventative, but that doesn't mean that regulations are going to be watered down in any way, shape or form. We transferred $400,000 for the implementation of Bill No. 219 for labour services, and that's the bill you're talking about, with expedited arbitration and with the other.
We are staffing up the Labour Relations Board to handle it because our experience in other jurisdictions is that once this is allowed, and Bill No. 219 gives the legislative power for it, that there is a rise in the number of complaints from union members. So that's part of
[Page 223]
the $400,000, to help staff that up. The process is the same process that anyone would have in terms of if they feel there has been some wrongdoing done to them in work and they have access to the Labour Standards, they would make their appeal to Labour Standards, and they would assess their case and, if they felt there was some justification for it, would go to bat for them. So that process would be the same.
The experience the department studied of the jurisdictions is that when this right was given to union workers - the right of fair representation - that it was used, so that's why we felt we had to staff up the department, to meet those concerns coming in, but the process after that is similar to processes that are already ongoing.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: How many additional staff are you planning for that?
MR. PARENT: A total of three - three FTE positions . . .
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: What will their classification or titles be?
MR. PARENT: . . . plus additional vice-chairmen. Their titles are a review officer, a program officer and two administrative clerks. The two administrative clerks would equal the FTEs, so you have three FTE positions, plus additional vice-chairmen.
I can give you the breakdown - it's in the Estimates Book - if you want that broken down, the salaries for the - that's not your question, I don't think, but if you want it we can give you that information.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think some of your documentation indicates that you are going to be establishing a new arbitration advisory committee. Has that been done already, or is that in the planning stage? I'm not really clear on where that is. If it's in the planning stages, I wonder, will there be an advertisement in the agencies, boards and commissions kinds of things, or is there going to be another process for that?
MR. PARENT: The positions have already been advertised and we received applications, so it will be in place October 1, 2006.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: But people haven't been named yet to that committee.
MR. PARENT: No, it will be October 1st, but we have had applications in already. It has been advertised, we have had applications in, and October 1st is the date when all those will be finalized and we will have the board in place.
[Page 224]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. I want to ask you a few questions around the role of your department with respect to labour market planning. I know that primarily the role of the department is with respect to statutory requirements - mostly monitoring, enforcement, education, what have you - but I think any member of this House who isn't profoundly concerned about the loss of members of our workforce to other provinces, particularly Alberta, should pack their bags and leave as well.
I think one of the things that struck me the most in the last election was the number of people I met, especially young people and skilled tradespeople, who were in the process of leaving to go to Alberta. It was astronomical, really, and it makes me wonder about the future of various skilled tradespeople and our own labour market - what is the outlook for our own labour force, and labour market, given the highly competitive nature of the labour markets elsewhere, particularly in Alberta?
So first of all, just because I really don't understand what the role of your department is with respect to labour market planning, I would like first if you could tell me what, if any, role you exactly play, or your staff plays, and who . . .
MR. PARENT: We don't have a direct responsibility, that's really through the Departments of Education and Community Services. We provide them with any sort of statistical information or other information that we can provide to them for help. So, as minister, that would be my response.
As a member of the government side, certainly this is an issue that I think is a big concern. Just anecdotally, since we all serve as MLAs here as well, at an event at my house yesterday two friends of ours - he is an addictions counsellor and she received her Ph.D. in counselling from the University of Toronto, and because of professional designations which are unavailable here in Nova Scotia, which are available in other provinces, they are going to be moving to B.C. - the very sort of thing you're talking about.
My wife's son, for example, is working in B.C. because of the income - and teachers who graduate - to pay off student loans. This is something that's an issue. It's not one that our department deals with directly. We will provide whatever help we can provide to help with the planning.
[3:15 p.m.]
On the Economic Development Committee that I used to sit on, Stuart Gourley came - Stuart is in the Skills Division branch of the Department of Education. Certainly this was flagged as a problem there, particularly with the economy in Alberta heating up. One of the things they are doing at that level, whether it will be effective or not, is they are keeping tabs on skilled workers who may be moving to other provinces to work, so that if the economy heats up in the sector here or takes a downturn in a sector there, we are able to contact them
[Page 225]
quickly and offer them opportunities to come back. But in terms of the department itself, the mandate rests with Education and with Community Services, and we form a support basis for that.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have probably very limited time left and I have two or three sort of short snappers. One question that I have - and again this speaks to Occupational Health and Safety Regulations - is the indoor air quality regulations. I also understand that a fair amount of work has been done with respect to indoor air quality regs, but yet nothing has happened in terms of moving these regulations beyond draft and to actually making them regulations. We were talking earlier about violence in the workplace regulations. You were saying that this is part of your intention to move forward in the next year or so on these. What about the indoor air quality regulations - where are they sitting right now, and when will they see the light of day as regulations?
MR. PARENT: We are following a similar pattern with this as we followed with the diving regulations. It is too bad that the member for Preston is not here, because we had quite a discussion about the diving regulations, and he commended the department on those, although he still had some concerns with some exemptions we made that were commendations to Nova Scotia's unique industry, but certainly that was a success insofar as the process was involved.
Now that takes a longer process and it takes a lot of staff so, at the present time, I can't give you an answer as to when we will be able to come up with the sort of regulations that we are able to with the offshore diving. It is certainly on the department's radar, but it is just a question of resources and of doing the job properly.
These are the OHS questions you are asking. I thought you were going to ask about radon in homes, which is another issue on the department's mandate because the federal government has changed the requirements there. So we have gotten that information out to people on radon in homes and what the new standards are, and we are working at helping people understand those implications and have proper testing in homes. I know yours is related to the workplace, not to homes.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I don't know if the minister will be able to answer this one or not. I was looking at the quarterly report from the Workers' Advisers Program. On Page 7 of that report - I probably should have made a copy of this beforehand - I noticed that there is a schedule in here of expenditures from their program and there is quite a significant change from year to year in certain areas. In salaries and benefits, between 2006 and 2004, fairly stable. (Interruption)
No, I am not looking at the estimates, I am looking at the quarterly report of the Workers' Advisers Program, which is why I say you might not be able to answer this question, but it is something I would like an answer for eventually.
[Page 226]
The salaries and benefits are relatively stable but the administrative costs are growing at a very high rate. The medical reports and expert fees have dropped substantially between 2005 and 2006. I am wondering what the explanations are for these significant changes from year to year?
MR. PARENT: I have to look at those papers because in the Estimates Book it is fairly stable from estimate to estimate to estimate of 2004 to 2006 for the Workers' Advisers Program, but I don't have it broken down quite that way, so perhaps I could get a photocopy.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would appreciate if you get back to me at some point with an explanation of what is going on there.
I have two other things before my time expires. One is, I would like to raise . . .
MR. PARENT: I have an answer for that, but I know you are running out of time, so we will get that back to you.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I know that my colleague from the Liberal caucus was earlier raising questions about this new working group on HRM's pension plan. As a member who represents a fair number of people in that plan, both retired and employees, it is an important issue. One of the things, and I would think that the scope of this working group will be fairly narrow and limited to the question of solvency. As I understand that, that has more implications for the current employees, in one way, in terms of their concerns are that they are going to be asked to make larger contributions on a regular basis out of their annual pay, their weekly, bi-weekly, whatever, pay. I have people who are retirees who are in that plan and have not had any increases in their pensions, not even indexed to inflation, for years, and so what they're seeing is a significant erosion in the value of their pension, and they have come to look for some assistance and are having a great deal of difficulty trying to find out where the best place would be to take this kind of concern. I want to ask you, as minister, where should they take those concerns?
MR. PARENT: That really should be taken to HRM because the details of the pension plan are worked out between the employees and HRM as to what is covered, what isn't covered, and what levels of coverage. All I can assure you, having talked with the superintendent of pensions, is that the plan is a relatively healthy one and that actually in many ways HRM employee pensioners get better benefits than provincial pensioners do. In terms of what's covered, that really needs to be directed at HRM.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, thank you for that - they and I have both taken these concerns to HRM and they have not been resolved to the satisfaction of my constituents. It's quite complicated because, around the amalgamation of the various entities, amalgamated out of existence was the former Halifax School Board and the Halifax County School Board. Somehow people who, for example, were custodial workers in those boards
[Page 227]
ended up in the HRM plan and they in particular have been placed in this situation where they see absolutely no annual increases in their pensions. It's a concern that they have and that certainly I have - it just doesn't seem to be fair that they're in this situation and HRM doesn't seem to have the ability to deal with - and it may be something that we can talk about further after the estimates.
The other thing I want to raise is on behalf of my colleague, the member for Dartmouth East, Joan Massey- I think we're allowed to say names in committee - she has received from a constituent of hers, Mr. Bob Venus, who has been here to the Legislature various times. He's an advocate on behalf of people with disabilities and a person who is disabled, and he is very concerned about the building codes in the Province of Nova Scotia and the fact that we don't require enough of the new housing to be accessible.
Right now I understand we're looking at maybe 5 per cent of new residential construction in complexes, and what have you, to meet accessibility standards. He's saying - and I think he makes a pretty compelling case - that given the large number of people in the Province of Nova Scotia with disabilities, given the large number of people in this province who are seniors, and the growing segment of our population that are falling into the seniors category, that there is both, right now, a lack of accessible housing for people with disabilities - and this is going to be a growing problem - and our building code requirements are too insignificant to meet what's going to be and what is a growing demand. I'm wondering, as minister are you prepared to review that situation and look at what needs to be probably more accessible housing for people with disabilities?
MR. PARENT: We've got new regulations in the building code going forward, and I don't know if you're referring to those where, for every 20 units, one has to be totally accessible
I asked about why that figure was achieved. There was, of course, push back against it, as one could imagine. I asked if that was adequate to handle those who are differently abled in our population, or the growing number of seniors, and was told, in comparison with other jurisdictions the figure was chosen because it met the needs of Nova Scotians and was slightly higher than other jurisdictions for the very reason that you mentioned - because we have a higher number of people with disabilities who would need that.
So, I was asked the question, and was assured by the staff, but I will ask again to take another look at it to make sure that requirement is statistically, and scientifically, based. I was assured that it was, and not only was it higher than other jurisdictions, it was higher for the very reasons you raised this afternoon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your time is up.
[Page 228]
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Could I thank the minister and his staff for the response to my questions, and just request that in your closing comments you address the fly ash issue that my colleague raised?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll now turn to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello to the minister. I have a number of issues I want to raise this afternoon and they cover quite a gamut of areas, as well. So I'll jump right in, because there are others with questions to follow me. I will be sharing my time.
The first question I'd like to look at is the issue around quarries and quarry blasting. In the Clayton Park riding there is a quarry that's been in existence since the 1970s, and quite some time before there were people living nearby. In the more recent years, Clayton Park West has grown right up to Highway No. 102, and the quarry is right on the other side of the highway. You may remember, Mr. Minister, from three years ago, the incident where the quarry had a major blast and rocks were thrown across the highway, luckily nobody was hurt on the road; and they smashed through apartment buildings, and luckily nobody was injured inside those apartment buildings. It raised a lot of issues and a lot of concerns in my riding, and people are still concerned about it. They worry about the intensity of the blast and they worry about the regulations that quarries are held to.
The question I have for you today is, really, to look and see if you're examining in any way the differences in the allowed intensity of quarry blast as opposed to other blasting. Again, because I was an HRM councillor previously, I understood there was a difference in what is allowed, because quarries are considered more of a mining operation. By the same token, in the same area, we've had a lot of construction for new schools and homes and so on, and the construction companies are not allowed to use the same intensity of blasting, and because they're all in the same proximity to a residential area, I believe we should be looking at a difference in the blasting allowed or the rules under which they are managed because of both damage to homes and disruption to urban life.
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. PARENT: Just to clarify your question, rather than differentiating on the basis of what's a quarry and what's a construction site, you're saying that if they are adjacent to population, whether they are a quarry or construction site, they should have the same stringent standards. Is that