HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY
5:40 P.M.
CHAIR
Suzanne Lohnes-Croft
THE CHAIR: The Committee of the Whole on Supply will come to order.
The honourable Government House Leader.
HON. GEOFF MACLELLAN: Madam Chair, would you please call Resolution No. E15.
Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $78,215,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Lands and Forestry, pursuant to the Estimate.
THE CHAIR: I now invite the Minister of Lands and Forestry to make some opening comments, should he wish, and also to introduce his staff.
HON. IAIN RANKIN: Madam Chair, I’m pleased to begin the Budget Estimates Debate for the Department of Lands and Forestry for the 2020-21 fiscal year. I’d like to introduce two people by my side: Deputy Minister Julie Towers on my right; and Remi MacDonell, Director of Financial Services, on my left.
Our department has a broad mandate: the stewardship, management, and conservation of Nova Scotia’s biodiversity, forest and park resources, and the administration of Crown land. Through this mandate, the work of our department touches the lives of all Nova Scotians in one way or another, whether it’s through the thousands of jobs across the province connected both directly and indirectly to the forestry sector, through the trails that connect communities and promote healthy active lifestyles in the beautiful parks that draw thousands of visitors from home and away each year, through the timber products that build our homes and the paper products that we use every day, or though the important role healthy forests play in our planet’s overall climate.
I know that our dedicated staff feel the weight of this responsibility in everything they do and they consider it in each and every decision they make. Indeed, the decisions we make today can have implications for future generations to come. Government’s role is to value both the ecological and economical aspects of our natural resources to ensure future generations have access to the same abundant forests and biodiversity that we have today. We are doing this through the investments that you see laid out before you in this year’s budget.
There’s no doubt that we are in a time of change and transition for the forestry sector. Each of us here is keenly aware of the uncertainty and anxiety many in this sector are currently feeling. We had already been looking to the future through our implantation of ecological forestry recommended by Professor Lahey and his review for forestry practices. Recommendations from the independent report show us how we can achieve an ecological forestry model here in Nova Scotia, one that will focus on protecting our forests’ biodiversity alongside a sustainable forestry sector.
However, the loss of a major link of the supply chain has also shifted government’s focus to the immediate needs of the present. Our forestry sector is a complex supply chain, made up of many interdependent businesses and facilities across the province. The loss of one market can ripple out and greatly affect the viability of sawmills, woodlot owners, harvesters, truckers, equipment dealers, and so on down the line.
[5:45 p.m.]
For example, a stud used to build your house uses only a portion of a tree, with only certain trees being the right size and species able to produce it. For the supply chain to be economically viable, the rest of the materials from that tree are used for other products such as pulp and paper, often shipped and processed at different destinations, into catalogues or tissue paper with little going to waste. As such, the disruption to one aspect of this can threaten the economic viability of the entire supply chain.
Knowing this, government acted quickly following the hibernation of Northern Pulp. On December 20th, Premier McNeil made a commitment to the people who worked in the sector that he would support them through this adjustment and transition to a strong and sustainable sector, which is an important economic driver across rural Nova Scotia.
THE CHAIR: I’ll just remind . . .
IAIN RANKIN: Yes, I got that.
THE CHAIIR: Okay, thank you.
IAIN RANKIN: I didn’t write the speech, I just edited it. (Laughter)
That day, he committed to a $50 million transition fund and announced his intention to create a transition team led by the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Kelliann Dean. This created a forum where the best ideas can be brought forward with a variety of voices and perspectives. With a significant initial investment and collaboration across government, programs have been developed, funded, and accessed quickly by those who need it the most.
We know that each aspect of the sector has its own unique challenges and needs in times like this. Not only does the team have representation from both government and the sector, it has also invited those with experience and expertise in a variety of areas to help feed into discussions and development of the programs.
Since its first meeting on January 9th, the team has met almost weekly - nine times, as of today - and they have gathered at NSCC Institute of Technology campus, at Ledwidge Lumber in Enfield, and here in Halifax. Transition team members have also been out to communities to hear directly from people on the ground through the regional meetings that have been organized. They attended Forest Nova Scotia’s annual general meeting to take questions and hear directly from the members. All of this has fed into the decision making and programs that have been rolled out, and that work continues.
One area we are seeing immediate impact in has been the $7 million invested in roads and silviculture work. With well over 500 applications already in the additional roadwork and hundreds in for silviculture, these contracts will keep many of our skilled workers here in Nova Scotia working in the woods. This immediate support is critical to maintain this valuable aspect of the supply chain, keeping loggers in the woods and truckers moving wood along our highways.
We have the $5 million to provide guarantees with the new financing program through our credit unions to forestry contractors across the province. Both of these incentives help keep the capacity in the supply chain in the short term. It helps make sure contractors can continue to make payments on the equipment they have invested in. We have heard from businesses that have accessed this program already to help them during this period of uncertainty.
There is also $1.5 million put into retraining options for mill and forestry workers and other jobs connected to the sector, if they choose to consider other skilled trades. The transition team continues to look at other short-term solutions, such as ensuring that we have markets for some of the low-value pulpwood that comes off private land, and on how we’re dealing with our Crown land operations and ensuring that contractors are working on both of those areas.
While these programs are designed to meet the immediate needs, this is also a time of great innovation across the world with regards to forestry products, especially in the area of a low carbon bioeconomy. For example, not only are we seeing innovation in traditional wood products like biofuels, wood pellets in energy production, we are also seeing plant fibre used for animal feed and even supplements for humans. These renewable materials can often replace imported petroleum-based products.
Every day, new markets across the world are being developed and Nova Scotia’s forests hold new opportunities that didn’t exist in past decades and the potential for future innovations that we haven’t even seen yet. As such, government has made the recent commitment for $10 million over the next two years to provide an innovation rebate for companies that want to look at capital investments.
While we are moving quickly to help those in need, we are also mindful of the exemptions in place through our softwood lumber agreement. Each program, and decision, is viewed through a trade lens to ensure we are not jeopardizing that in any way. As I said before, this work is ongoing. To make sure it continues, we are setting aside $50 million in a separate trust fund. This will allow the important work of the transition team to continue regardless of the budget cycle that often represents a significant consideration. It will allow us to continue to take action on the ideas brought to the transition team and develop them into new programs based on the needs of the sector.
There are still significant challenges, and these are certainly difficult times for many families who rely on our forestry sector. We have made a commitment to stand with the sector. The work of the transition team has shown that we are willing to hear from all groups, as innovation and new solutions come from discussions born from diverse points of view.
As I referenced earlier, our department was already looking to the future. To access those innovative, diverse, and emerging markets, we need to ensure we have diverse and healthy forests to draw upon for years to come. Through the adoption of ecological forestry, we are moving toward a historical shift in how we manage our forests, and while the transition team is looking to meet the immediate needs of the sector, our department remains committed to implementing the recommendations of Professor Lahey’s forest practices review and shifting it to the triad model of ecological forestry on Crown land.
This shift will allow our forests to continue to thrive. It will also allow industry to continue to access best quality wood for commercial purposes well into the future. We will meet this goal to the triad model made up of three distinct areas of focus - matrix zones, high-production forestry zones, and conservation zones.
The matrix zones are areas where mostly selective silviculture and harvesting will ensure those trees can continue to grow as they would naturally, with a mix of ages of species. This will result in more reliable and ongoing access to high quality and diverse lumber. These zones will represent the largest percentage of public lands in the triad.
High production forestry will see targeted areas designated for growing and harvesting trees, with sites picked for the highest possible output. Trees will be grown and cut like crops on a field. This will help fill the gaps and ensure a steady supply of wood to offset the other two zones. These zones will represent the smallest percentage of the triad.
Conservation zones round out the model, where the sole focus is protecting certain areas for their ecological and biodiversity values. All three legs of the triad need to move forward together in order to ensure we have a steady availability and diversity in our timber supply, which in turn will help lead to even more diverse markets and opportunities. As you can image, adopting ecological forestry touches many programs and policies across the department. We are working hard to ensure these changes are not done in isolation, that each piece is moving forward in a coordinated fashion.
We have been working closely with external experts on our project teams and we have been engaged with our partners and stakeholders every step of the way, listening to their feedback and incorporating it into our decisions. To put it another way, we are taking the time to get this right as the implications of these changes will be felt both ecologically and economically for generations to come.
One key area of this work is the development of a new forest management guide. The guide relates to the management of mixed-use or matrix zones. We had a very productive meeting with our stakeholders last June at Dalhousie University - Agriculture Campus in Truro. I was pleased to see the engagement from that audience, and those discussions were the foundation for where we are today and where we are heading tomorrow.
Following that meeting in Truro, the project team held targeted stakeholder meetings in August to further inform the development of the draft guide. From there, the team developed a working draft of a new guide last year, and the targeted stakeholder consultations continued to help refine this draft. Once that phase concludes, we’ll be ready to bring it to the public for a broader consultation that will allow anyone interested to review the draft guide and provide their feedback.
Another important project under way for our department relates to the development of the criteria for the high-production forestry zone leg of the triad. We recently kicked off public consultations through the release of a discussion paper. Feedback from this consultation will help us develop criteria which we will then present to a targeted stakeholder group for their input. Once the criteria are finalized later this year, a process for selecting sites will follow.
Another important recommendation relates to the renewal of our Species at Risk program. Recovery plans have been drafted for the various recovery teams and we are currently holding working meetings over the next two weeks to bring together teams and scientists in the field to collaborate. These meetings are being held in our three districts across the province. Each meeting also includes a public information session in the evening.
The first meeting has already taken place in Port Hawkesbury, where attendees heard from experts about the recovery of species at risk - specifically Canada lynx, American marten, bumblebees, monarch butterflies, piping plovers, and freshwater mussels. I look forward to hearing about the meeting this week, March 4th in Truro, and the one next week on March 11th in White Point.
Work is also under way on several other recommendations from Professor Lahey. Staff have drafted a scientific paper on natural disturbance agents - these would be things like wildfire and pests that can affect the health of our forests. This paper has been submitted to a scientific journal for peer review and publication. Planning for the next phase of research is under way. This highlights the close collaboration our department often does with academia.
Our department has issued a request for proposals in January to hire a consultant to develop a guide for the preparation of longer-term harvest agreements. This will provide more clarity for the sector and increase transparency for the public in how these plans are developed and approved, similar to the Class 2 environmental assessment process.
We have also filled a new position, dedicated to stakeholder relations, with a specialist now in place with the department. The focus of this position is to enhance communication and engagement with our stakeholders, making it easier for people and groups to access information from our department.
Another important recommendation from Professor Lahey ties into the need to find markets for low-value wood products. This is a small-scale wood energy project. This initiative will help us replace imported fossil fuels with a locally sourced renewable resource, while at the same time creating a new market for lower-grade forest fibre and reducing the carbon footprint of public buildings. This project is a collaboration across several departments, and we recently announced the first six sites: Hants East Rural High School, Perennia Park Atlantic Centre for Agri-Innovation, Bridgewater Provincial Park, the Centre of Geographic Sciences, Memorial High School, and Riverview High School.
A tender is out now to pre-qualify bidders that will see them move away from older fossil-fuel heating systems to new efficient wood-chip heating systems. These systems will use locally sourced wood chips from private land, creating a long-term market for that lower-grade wood. We anticipate that these systems will be in place and operational by next heating season.
We based this initiative on the successful model already in place in P.E.I. While these six sites are the first to be converted, there are opportunities for other facilities, and even potential district heating systems in the future. This will help create even more new markets and options in the supply chain for woodlot owners.
Progress in other recommendations include improving the State of the Forest report, reviewing and revising the old forest policy, and developing an outcomes-based approach to forest management. Planning for new areas of project work such as a silviculture review and accelerated landscape level planning is under way.
Another important initiative was the formation of a minister’s advisory committee. That will help bring together the best available science and perspectives from people and organizations from across the province. This committee is made up of 14 members from environmental, non-government organizations, industry, the Confederation of Mainland Mi’kmaq, and academia. They met for the first time on February 18th, and I had the pleasure of speaking with this group along with Professor Lahey, who also attended.
The rest of the meeting was focused on ensuring a shared understanding of its mandate, roles, and responsibilities, and the skills, knowledge, and abilities each member brings to the table. I look forward to hearing from this committee on a range of programs and policies in our department, especially during this time of transition as we adopt ecological forestry.
We know that many groups view and value different aspects of our forests. We need to make sure we are hearing from a diverse collection of voices. Whether it’s recreation, conservation, or commercial interest, we all benefit from a healthy and sustainable forest. Implementing the forest practices review is laying the groundwork for healthier, more diverse forests with greater emphasis on biodiversity and ecosystem protection.
This year, we will continue work to pass and implement the Biodiversity Act. The Act will help us address emerging challenges and opportunities facing biodiversities.
[6:00 p.m.]
My department is building on the progress made last year and we have had useful meetings with stakeholders and gathered their thoughts on legislation. I look forward to bringing this Act forward once we have fully considered feedback we’ve received and have made necessary amendments.
From there, the implementation of the Act will continue to be supported by the Biodiversity Council. In May 2018, the department appointed independent experts to provide advice on the legislation, work with stakeholders to craft new regulations starting with invasive species and recommend new actions that promote biodiversity in Nova Scotia. The department will continue to provide outreach and education on the Biodiversity Act to support its effective implementation.
Our role is to ensure public lands are managed for the maximum benefit of Nova Scotians. We are reviewing the Crown Lands Act to improve efficiency in the administration of Crown lands. We made this commitment in our response to the Independent Review of Forest Practices. This work will entail a review of the department’s business processes, like the application for the use of Crown lands, to support consistent operational and service excellence. This will include public and stakeholder consultation.
We are targeting amendments to the Act in a future session. These amendments will help lead to a more efficient and effective Act, while ensuring decisions are made in the best interests of the public and long-term stewardship of our natural resources. As we previously announced, we have set aside $48 million to begin to address a long-standing, historic issue related to abandoned mines on public land. Government does not record liabilities from contaminated sites until there is a reasonable estimate. The $48 million estimate was determined following an in-depth analysis of priority sites: Montague Mine for $24.5 million, and Goldenville for $23.5 million.
The Department of Lands and Forestry is now working with our partners at Nova Scotia Lands, and the Departments of Energy and Mines, Environment, and Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal to systematically evaluate all 69 abandoned mines on Crown lands to develop a comprehensive plan to address them. This work will allow us to identify contaminates, potential risks both human and ecological, and prioritize required remediation activities. There is much work to be done on this, but we have made a significant investment to finally address an issue that has been around for decades.
Government continues to support residents of North Preston, East Preston, Cherry Brook, Lincolnville, and Sunnyville to get clear legal title to their land. Clarifying land title can be an expensive legal process. Under the land titles initiative, most fees are covered at no cost. While this work crosses several departments, all survey work for the land title clarification applications are conducted by the department and they have been completed.
In the year ahead, the Department of Lands and Forestry will continue to support the implementation of this important initiative by providing additional survey work by our dedicated survey team and by processing applications under the Land Titles Clarification Act.
Provincial parks are spaces where Nova Scotians and visitors can live active, healthy lives and appreciate nature. They also drive tourism and economic development in rural areas of our province. Nova Scotia is a destination for outdoor adventure and demand continues to grow for our campgrounds. Camping park attendance continues to grow each year and is up 30 per cent in the past five years.
We will continue to invest to meet the growing needs of our province. This year the department will advance its multi-year plan by identifying initiatives for park system improvements that reflect current operational needs and renewing aging infrastructure. We are committed to promoting accessible and inclusive facilities and experiences that draw our residents and tourists to all corners of our province.
We will continue to promote and support accessibility, inclusiveness and sustainable public use of our parks. This work aligns with the province’s Access by Design 2030 strategy. The department started accessibility audits in 2019 at camping parks and district offices and will continue in 2020.
Our investments are working. Capital improvements have demonstrated higher attendance and satisfaction. Reservations for our next camping season begins in April with many of our campgrounds opening in May and June. I’m looking forward to another record-breaking year. In the past year, the land area for Dollar Lake and Crystal Crescent Beach parks were expanded and protected.
Cape Split is one of Nova Scotia’s famous coastal hikes with an important ecological and cultural value. The department officially designated it last year to protect these features. Phased improvements to Cape Split will include a new looped trail system, coastal viewing platforms and new signage, and the tender is open now for this work. We’re expanding the trail system. We’ll make the overall trail system better for hikers and enhance opportunities for recreation, tourism and economic growth around the Bay of Fundy.
Last summer I had the pleasure of delivering a platform commitment with the launch of Nova Scotia’s first Trails Strategy.
THE CHAIR: Order. There’s been an ask that the chatter in the gallery, in the House, be lowered because staff of the minister cannot hear what he is saying.
The honourable Minister of Lands and Forestry.
IAIN RANKIN: Part of my mandate is to connect more Nova Scotians to their communities and local environment by expanding trail access. Trails provide social, cultural, recreational and economic benefits. The Trails Strategy is a shared effort with the Nova Scotia Trails Federation. Together, we will reach our shared goal of a healthier and better-connected province by improving how we plan, develop and maintain the provincial trails system.
Another important achievement was the launch of the Mi’kmaw Forestry Initiative in March of 2019. This pilot project was designed to increase Mi’kmaw capacity in the forestry sector and to explore the viability of Mi’kmaq-led forestry as an alternative means of forest management on Crown land. The initiative gives the Mi’kmaq forest planning and management responsibility on two blocks of Crown land, one in St. Croix in Hants County, and another between Digby and Annapolis Counties, totalling about 20,000 hectares.
The Mi’kmaq are in the process of creating forest management plans and will be playing a larger role in the forest sector. This pilot project provides opportunities for jobs, training in businesses and silviculture, and harvesting while following Mi’kmaw principles of stewardship and sustainability. We share a common goal of ecological forestry, and it is long overdue for our Mi’kmaw partners to have a greater role in the health of our forests.
Our government’s transition to ecological forestry parallels the Mi’kmaw approach of listening to our forests. The pilot project is for a period of three years, and the experience gained during this time is intended to inform the development of a longer-term agreement. Professor Lahey was very supportive of this initiative and recommended that the Mi’kmaw Forestry Initiative should proceed as quickly as possible. He knew that the initiative had been in the works, and I’m happy that we’re fulfilling this goal. The Province is contributing $600,000 to the initiative over three years of the pilot project. The provincial lands and funds are also leveraging significant federal dollars.
Last September, Hurricane Dorian caused widespread damage across Nova Scotia. The effects were felt from Yarmouth to Sydney. The Department of Lands and Forestry was a critical part of the public sector response. Our employees worked at the command centre, cared for animals at the wildlife park, surveyed damage at parks and trails and other sites afterward, and completed immediate repairs to keep people and our natural resources as safe as possible. I’m extremely proud of the leadership shown by the department during this time, and I want to express my thanks to staff for all the hard work and long hours associated with the preparation and immediate aftermath. Nova Scotians are lucky to have such dedicated and professional people working on their behalf.
Wildfire season will soon be here, and I want to use this opportunity to update members on the department’s preparations and partnerships that protect our communities in force. We have a great time of pilots, mechanics and wildfire fighters ready to respond at a moment’s notice. They work alongside volunteer firefighters, search and rescue, and police agencies to keep us safe in an emergency. Our province has had an exceptional public safety record because of these combined efforts. Our wildfire crews are known for their abilities, not just at home, but across the country.
Nova Scotia is part of a network where provinces can call on one another to help when wildfires become too big to handle alone. Last year, Nova Scotia answered the call and sent aid to Alberta and Ontario to help with control of their forest fires. Sometimes help is even further away. Last Fall, the world watched as Australia was consumed by brush fires. In January, we sent two teams of fire specialists and wildfire fighters, and one senior agency administrator as part of the Canadian delegation. Our crews are highly skilled, and we’re ready to provide both high-level incident command and front-line action.
The Premier previously honoured one of those incident commanders, Paul Schnurr, with the Premier’s Award of Excellence, recognizing his key role in managing one of the most demanding wildfire periods in Nova Scotia’s history. I am looking forward to welcoming our second crew home later this month so I can offer my personal thank you to their bravery and dedication.
In closing, my department has broad responsibilities and we’ve touched on some of them here. Our business plan and budget for the coming year outlines the actions we will take to achieve our goals. This budget is an investment in the future. It will help us improve Nova Scotia’s stewardship of natural resources, protect and enhance ecosystems, and implement ecological forestry.
I want to thank the women and men in the department for their incredible commitment to this work. We have remarkable employees and they are found all over the province: in our provincial parks, maintaining over 200 properties and providing visitor experiences; on the ground, fighting wildfires; in the skies, piloting our fleet of helicopters; in the woods, conducting research on trees, plants and animals; and in the field, surveying and managing Crown lands. Every day they are building a stronger province and improving the lives of Nova Scotians. Their work matters. It touches everyone in our province.
Together we will ensure a healthy environment for future generations. We will continue engaging our stakeholders and the public on the management of our natural resources. Our decisions will continue to be guided by the best science and research and best practices. With that, I’ll welcome taking questions.
THE CHAIR: For the PC caucus, the honourable member for Cumberland South, one hour.
TORY RUSHTON: I thank the minister and staff for being here this evening to answer some questions. Rightfully so, the minister stated that the forestry sector of our province is going through a transition and a period of vulnerability and unknown. I just want to take the opportunity right now to reference a few questions to the minister’s opening remarks.
The minister gave an excellent description of the process that a tree is utilized from the time that it’s cut to harvest and made reference to the part of the tree that, at the present time, is not really being utilized. In the sector, they would know that as pulpwood.
My question would be, what is going on with the pulpwood at the current point that six months ago we would have seen going to a pulp and paper mill? What is happening with that pulpwood at the present time? The minister made a statement that little goes to waste, but I feel with the closure that maybe we’re wasting something that we are harvesting.
IAIN RANKIN: It’s a good question to start off. There’s no quick answer to that. Our sector here in the province is very interconnected and there’s no question that Northern Pulp did have a major piece of the supply chain, especially with the chips that come from sawmills. Roughly 95 per cent of the residual products that are cut from sawmills did go to that one business and that poses a challenge for many sawmills.
Some sawmills did have other arrangements or innovations at their own site. I think of Lewis Mouldings in Digby - they create the brick material that’s sold in hardware stores, to use the sawdust in types of residual products that they condense and are used in home heating systems and things like that. I think of Taylor Lumber, which has their own co-generation facility at their own site. Then, of course, depending on the geographic area that each sawmill is in, they look at other opportunities that are around them domestically. Then we have companies that export out some of the pulpwood. I think of Great Northern Timber, a company that mostly exports hardwood-type pulpwood. There are varying arrangements across the province with different sawmills.
The department has always focused on discussions around trying to diversify markets and that is the key word that I would use when looking at how the whole industry is structured across the province, not just focused on one, and of course the challenge with that is the revenue you get back for those and residual or low-value type products. Northern Pulp was providing a significantly higher revenue for those chips to each individual sawmill that they were purchasing those products from.
There really is a continuum of different price levels that you can get for the chips and some of them are going to biomass. That would be on the opposite side of the spectrum, where you’re getting probably the lowest value of revenue back for things like hog fuel. If it’s going to Brooklyn Energy, or if it’s going to Cape Breton, you’re not able to get that type of revenue.
[6:15 p.m.]
The discussion really has to happen now. What is government’s role in assisting in the short term to try to help with discussions with different companies - both domestically and abroad - about where to put those types of products? How can we assist companies? It is their role to find those types of markets for their business, but of course when there’s a market disruption like there is today, how can the government be of assistance in reaching out to organizations or utilities that use biomass as part of their energy compilation?
To the question, some of the pulpwood or low-value product is being used domestically. We do know Port Hawkesbury Paper has taken some of that from some sawmills - I won’t reference which sawmills they are. We do know that some of it is being exported to other provinces. We do know that Shaw Resources is taking some of that product. Again, we can’t really speak to the exact dollar figures that those business arrangements have been able to achieve through their agreements.
I do know that some sawmills were hedging their bets leading up to the time when Northern Pulp did decide to go into hibernation because they didn’t get their approval. We do know that there were talks amongst the sector to see where some of the product could go. I referenced some of those options. Really, that’s where we are today.
Some of the pulpwood remains on Crown land when it’s cut. That’s in an effort to help private woodlot owners so that they can find markets for the limited amount of markets that there are for their pulpwood. Whenever there’s a cut, you do have that product. We are allowing for some pulpwood to stay on the ground on Crown land, which has some biodiversity value. Some of it is going to different domestic markets potentially looking at exports. That’s the status as of today, but that’s an ongoing conversation. That’s one of the prime considerations at the transition team table, looking for markets for that low-value product.
TORY RUSHTON: I just want to dig a little deeper. The minister spoke about sawmills. I want to go directly to where the harvest is taking place as well. Would the minister or staff, or even the transition team know? I’m going to assume because not all the pulpwood is making it to mills or the domestic market, that contractors and woodlot owners are losing some of their revenue because of this effect. Does his department or the team have any estimates or targets of what the economic loss is going to be for those contractors and woodlot owners this year?
IAIN RANKIN: It’s hard to put definitive numbers when this is very much a fluid circumstance that we find ourselves in daily. We do our best to engage with each individual sawmill and help them connect with other end uses, of which I mentioned a couple.
In this budget, we had an economic analysis on the revenue to the province and to the impact to GDP. We know that that had that impact of, I think, 0.9 per cent to GDP - close to $30-something million of tax revenue. That was with the assumption that the approximately 350 jobs that would be lost at Northern Pulp, and then there was an assumption - they used a multiplier of 10. Doing the math, that’s approximately 3,500 jobs associated with the economic analysis, which was verified by the Auditor General as being a very conservative estimate.
This was the best estimate of the impact, but we know that it’s impossible to get a specific impact to each individual sawmill, not knowing business decisions that they had made prior to the decision, decisions that they’re currently making as we speak tonight, decisions that they’ll be making tomorrow, arrangements that we know are in negotiations. We know many different businesses are being brought to us, and none of those assumptions assume that any of the money we’re spending on - whether it’s silviculture, the innovation rebate, the training - all that funding is not considered at all in terms of the impact on the province. That’s a conservative estimate.
We’re hoping that the investments that we’re making, together with the transition team that’s supported by the sector, help to mitigate some of that impact in the budget. Conversely, there could be more impact, but that was the best guess that we know of today. We don’t have - and I don’t think it would be in anyone’s interest to conjecture on a specific amount of number from each individual business, on the impact.
TORY RUSHTON: I wasn’t quite quick enough to write down some numbers that the minister shared in his opening speech about the applicants for the silviculture program and the roadwork. I know the reference was more than 500 combined, and I believe - I don’t have the number right in front of me - but I believe it was $7.5 million that we shared for that project, or that grant process, that’s going to go through.
With that number of applicants, does the department or the team estimate or suspect that everybody that’s applied to that program will be able to continue work once it starts?
IAIN RANKIN: That’s actually the whole idea. That was one of the main programs that our department was very much ready for. There are other departments involved, and the transition team, looking at rebates and retraining, but silviculture is something that we at Lands and Forestry have a lot of expertise around. We knew the investments Northern Pulp was making, so we knew that in order to keep capacity in the supply chain - working in the forests, contractors being able to make payments on their equipment - that we would need to supplement the loss of the investments that Northern Pulp was making.
We focused $7 million total - that includes both private and Crown land - to more than supplement the investments that Northern Pulp was making, with a focus on the Central and Western regions, which we knew would have the greatest impact. That’s above and beyond our increase to this year’s budget and last year’s budget for silviculture funding to help with increased partial harvesting from the Lahey report.
To the member’s exact question, there are 604 applicants to Forest Nova Scotia; they’re the administrator with the road program. We know that there are over 150 applications to the Association for Sustainable Forestry to administer the silviculture program; it’s good to see the uptake. We know that that has been working. On our Crown roads, we know that roads have been built. There are eight contractors that we know of that may not have otherwise had work this Spring, so we were able to keep them working, and we continue to talk to some of the larger companies to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to keep those contractors working in the supply chain.
TORY RUSHTON: I’ll just move on to some more of the comments from the opening remarks. How many years is that $50 million trust going to be locked in for?
IAIN RANKIN: The whole idea with the trust is that there’s no end date, similar to the Internet Trust Fund. That was the whole purpose of putting it over there. To recap, we started with the commitment of $50 million. We committed to about $13.5 million through the previous commitments, and when we had the fiscal capacity to actually put $50 million in the trust fund, the whole purpose was that it wouldn’t be impacted by year-to-year cycles.
That doesn’t preclude other conversations that could happen with other types of investments, so subsequent to that announcement we did make the commitment for the $10 million rebate program through NSBI to rebate 25 per cent of capital investments for the industry. That’s not from the trust fund, so today we still have that $50 million that’s set aside that will be administrated by the trust, which will have three members for the administration of that fund.
TORY RUSHTON: As we move through the evening, I’ll have more questions on the trust. The minister made reference to a tender that was called for the Forestry Stewardship Plan, in January. I’m curious to what the department would be looking for in that report that is different from what Professor Lahey provided to the department.
IAIN RANKIN: I think the Forest Management Guide is really the most foundational recommendation out of the 45 of Professor Lahey’s report, along with a few others that we mentioned in the government’s response in December 2018. That’s where you actually will see immediate operational changes on the ground once it’s implemented.
We knew it would take some time. It’s quite a substantial document that has been drafted and is out with some targeted groups. All the Crown license-holders would have a copy, the non-governmental organizations with interest in environment have that, the Healthy Forest Coalition and those types of groups, as well as the Ministerial Advisory Committee, the 14-member group from across - some of those similar types of groups. They have that now and their targeted consultation has been re-engaged since we met and they’re looking at what we had put together.
There are different staff members, led by Mark Pulsifer. He is the lead, from the staff perspective. We have Bob Seymour as our external expert, who was really a key author of the report that Professor Lahey conducted, and coming out of Maine, really is known as one who coined the term “ecological forestry.” This guide is a focus on that part of the triad that I referenced in my opening remarks. This guide is going to be used for the greatest percentage of the portion of Crown land to look at both the pre-treatment assessment and looking at how each prescription and harvest plan is approved.
To get to the point of what you achieve with this new guide, especially from the public’s interest, it is a reduction of clear-cutting. That’s really the outcome, that’s not the recommendation but when you are focused much more on ecological values, protecting biodiversity, the guide is there to assist in restoring and, to the extent that we can, maintaining the multi-age type of management system and protecting the multi-species, especially when it comes to long-lived, shade-tolerant species.
We’re moving and the paradigm shift is really away from even-age management to multi-age management. The high production leg of the triad won’t be using that guide - they’ll have a different system and they’re more focused on even-age. So, you’ll see relatively higher amounts of clear-cutting in the high-production leg of the triad, whereas once this guide is implemented, you’ll see a reduction of what the public refers to as clear-cutting but really even-age management.
We’ve already seen a reduction in the last year, through the interim retention guidelines, so we now have between 10 per cent and 30 per cent mandatory retention on any clear-cut. With the new guide you are going to see a minimum of 20 per cent retention, so that’s already an improvement, but you’ll also see a drastic reduction in how many times a clear-cut is actually chosen as a prescription.
Not to get too technical, but you won’t see overstory removal at all anymore. This is really a continuum of a paradigm shift away from where we were a few years ago, where clear-cut, or overstory removal, was leaving 2 per cent on the ground. Currently we are leaving 10 per cent to 30 per cent on the ground. With the new guide, we’re going to have a minimum of 20 per cent retention on the ground and vastly reducing the actual prescription keys going to a clear-cut.
It’s hard to get into this without being technical, but the main prescription change is something known as an irregular shelterwood. There are different levels of irregular shelterwood throughout the guide and that’s based on a lot of what Bob Seymour recommended. That’s why he is a key external expert on that team.
TORY RUSHTON: I realized in my notes here, Madam Chair, that I do want to go back to the transition for one quick second. Have the trustees been named for the finances yet? If not, when, and will the sector be hearing from that?
IAIN RANKIN: My understand is that it is imminent. I’m loath to put a specific date, but I would guess that you would see that coming out in the following few weeks. Again, I think it’s one member that government chooses and two members the transition team themselves will choose who those trustees are; just to remind the member, there is representation from the forestry sector both with a sawmill operator and with Forest Nova Scotia, through Jeff Bishop, at that transition table, that will have a say in who those trustees are.
[6:30 p.m.]
TORY RUSHTON: There is agreement here that there are people who are from the sector, but I know I’m copied on letters that the minister gets as well that there are certain people in the sector who don’t feel represented at that table. They just want to hear as well.
I’m going to leave the rest of the comments and go right into our questioning for the department.
With the vulnerability going on within the sector right now - the unknown, quite frankly - many of the people in the forestry sector are scared right now. I read in the CBC news today that the government will be moving forward with the Biodiversity Act whether it’s this sitting or in the Fall sitting.
I want to be very clear that our caucus was not opposed to a Biodiversity Act, but we were certainly opposed to the consultation we heard the sector say they didn’t feel they got. That was why at the Law Amendments Committee, we made a motion. I was glad to hear the department took it back for further consultation. I’ll table this from CBC: “Minister says concerns will be addressed, but bill’s intent won’t change or be weakened.”
I just wonder if the minister and his department feel that the collaboration and full consultation was done with all stakeholders.
IAIN RANKIN: Just to go back to the previous point, I am aware that the transition team had over 26 meetings with different industry groups. All the major different industry groups have been represented, but of course, if there are those who feel like their voice isn’t heard at that transition table, if members want to bring some ideas to me for who they should be listening to who haven’t been met with yet, we can certainly do that.
With respect to the Biodiversity Act, it remains an important piece that the government continues to work on. I was asked if it would be brought forward this session; I wasn’t sure at that time. I’m not trying to be enigmatic, but I want to make sure that we do get it right. Those discussions are very active; they currently are from day to day. We did some consultation recently with an external expert on that consult, she has met with a number of people who presented to the Law Amendments Committee on their concerns about what should be spelled out in the Act.
We don’t want to have any untoward impact to landowners or other Nova Scotians who feel like they could have their rights violated; we’re very cognizant of that when we’re developing legislation. It is the first of its kind in Canada. When you’re the first one out, you don’t have that precedent in other provinces to look to, and other provinces are watching this intently to see where we land on this.
To me it’s not about when it gets through, it’s about what the bill looks like at the end of the day. We did make changes even before introducing the Act - for some NGOs that we have met with; for the Mi’kmaw partners who wanted to make sure that they had their concepts in the Act - we do have some changes in mind. We’re not quite there yet, so subject to when this House sitting concludes, I’ll say what I said to the media, I’m not prepared to make a statement as to whether or not this will continue into this session.
TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate those comments. This is the first Act of its kind. I think the minister and I both commented a year ago, when the bill first landed on the floor here, that we should be leading by example in Canada. We should be doing full consultation. We need to get the Act right. I’m glad to hear the comments tonight from the minister that this bill won’t be rushed through.
I do want to table a letter from Forest Nova Scotia. It references the consultation that took place last Summer. I myself attended that consultation, and during that consultation all the stakeholders were assured that there would be a response by last year. I for one didn’t get a response, and I see from the Forest Nova Scotia letter that they didn’t get a response. I am just curious as to when will we be getting a summary of that stakeholders’ meeting last year?
THE CHAIR: Minister, would you like a copy of that for your records?
IAIN RANKIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. The consultation is still under way, and we had the broad consultation where we had hundreds of people present at three different sessions, I believe it was, across the province.
So we have compiled that information and that’s when we hired our external consultant to actually look at everything that was submitted - look at the Law Amendments Committee submissions, and meet with some key targeted participants who showed up at those meetings - to see if we could find some commonality with those submissions; find out and get to the core of what those concerns are.
Again, I go back to what I had said which is we don’t want to weaken this Act. We want to make sure that it’s something that works for protecting biodiversity, both on Crown and public lands; but consideration that we have to give to landowners, because much of Nova Scotia’s land is privately owned and people make their livelihoods off their land, they have their rights. So, we’re taking our time, we’re going to look at the report that the external consultant has put together and once we have all that compiled, we will be sharing a What We Heard document.
TORY RUSHTON: I thank the minister again. My last question about the letter that Forest Nova Scotia shared, and I really didn’t put it into context, to be very honest, outside of the landowners. They made reference in their letter that they’ve reached out to partners in fisheries, mining, aquaculture, agriculture - agriculture and land development would have been top on my mind - but where Forest Nova Scotia felt the need to make reference to those groups, if you will, has the minister’s department reached out to those groups for stakeholder consultation?
IAIN RANKIN: The answer is yes, and it has been some time since we have. This goes back all the way to 2013, when the department began reaching out, so seven years ago. MANS and some of the other organizations that represent the interests of those sectors, were notified and there were no concerns raised at that time.
I will have an in-depth look at the letter the member is referencing because we do want to make sure there are no unintended consequences when the Act is eventually passed.
I think what the private woodlot owners are concerned about is their rights being infringed up, so we are sensitive to those. We want to make sure that we are very clear in the Act that we can achieve what we want to achieve but not impacting their rights.
TORY RUSHTON: I want to switch over now to the transition team. I guess it’s top on the mind of many people who are involved with the forestry sector. Some of them are still reaching out, even as late as this afternoon, curious as to how and where the terms of reference were set for the transition team.
IAIN RANKIN: The terms of reference are public, they can be accessed online. They would have originally been drafted by Intergovernmental Affairs as . . .
THE CHAIR: Order, please. There’s too much chatter in the Chamber. There has already been a request that members sitting in the Legislature please keep the conversations low because it is very difficult to hear the minister.
The honourable Minister of Lands and Forestry.
IAIN RANKIN: Yes, the terms of reference are available. They were drafted by IGA, with of course input from the other departments involved in the transition team, then at the first meeting is when the Terms of Reference were reviewed by all members of that team.
TORY RUSHTON: Can the minister please explain who the transition team reports to? Is it the minister himself, the Premier or is it Executive Council?
IAIN RANKIN: The transition team, as the member could probably appreciate, is a lot larger than just the Department of Lands and Forestry. Of course, we are a strong part of that team with our expertise in the sector, so our deputy minister is there; my conduit to the team. The Forestry Transition Team, chaired by Kelliann Dean, would report to the Premier.
TORY RUSHTON: As I said in the floor of this Legislature earlier this session, as Opposition, people do reach out to their critics, to be a voice that they may feel the government may not be listening to.
I asked this prior in Question Period, but time ran out so I’ll ask it here again: Does the minister feel that all areas of this province are being represented to their full capacity on that transition team?
IAIN RANKIN: I think it’s a challenge to put a definitive “everyone’s represented.” I saw that when the advisory committee group for forestry practices and the Lahey committee was put together, and it ended up being quite large because we wanted to make sure we had all those voices, so there are 14 members. The larger it gets, that’s the balance where you can’t get as many conversations and quick actions.
So, we had to balance the size of the group with ensuring that we had quick action, because it meets weekly. We wanted to make sure members were there every week, and as you can see with the initiatives rolling out every single week, we’re able to do quite a bit with that because we have decision makers right at that table vis-à-vis the deputies, the administrative leads of those departments that could take quick action, get analysis done.
We do have Forest Nova Scotia, and they are known as the group that represents the sector - Jeff Bishop is there representing the sector. We also have a sawmill operator there at the table, we have two different representatives from woodlot owners - or large industrial woodlot owners - through Debbie Reeves and Greg Watson. I do feel like we have, in terms of getting for a smaller sized type of committee, I do think we have good representation.
Then again, I go back to all the meetings that we’ve had with a number of different groups, and I think it’s 26 different presentations from forestry companies and academia. They were at community college for their last meeting and at a sawmill for another meeting. They’ll continue to be on the road when they think it’s appropriate, but there are other avenues, too, that the general public and those working in the sector especially can contact the department.
We’ve met with people. I continue to take phone calls and I also encourage those in each individual constituency to reach out to their MLAs. My door remains open, and a lot of MLAs have been contacting me. I encourage that feedback so that we make sure that we get all the ideas from the sector to that table for full consideration.
TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate those comments, that all ideas need to go back to this transition team. We heard that loud and clear from the Premier on December 20th. It sort of goes back to the idea that I shared with many foresters all across the province, from Yarmouth to Cape Breton, in the days between December 20th and New Year’s Day, and the days leading up into 2020 - you’re always taught in school that there’s no such thing as a stupid question. It carried on into statements that I make to the forestry sector, that there’s no such thing as a stupid idea. Every idea needs to be investigated.
We’re past the 11th hour, if you will, with ideas. I could argue improper process on this floor, whether government acted in the proper timely fashion, but that’s for another process of debate. I guess what I’m looking for is, if we were truly open as a Province of Nova Scotia to every idea - I’m not going to bring the names up here on the floor of the Legislature - but somebody had, maybe, an extreme idea and they were fired from that transition team; who got a personal invite from the Premier.
Is there any reason as to, other than that, why that team member was removed, even before the first initial meeting of that transition team?
THE CHAIR: I’d like to remind the member that “stupid” is unparliamentary.
IAIN RANKIN: I should list some of the groups that the transition team actually met with: with Wagner, Forest Nova Scotia board, WestFor, Lewis Moulding, Elmsdale Lumber, Louisiana Pacific Canada, Freeman Lumber, Climate Forest, large landowners, the Innovation Hub, GNTI, NRCan, Atlantic WoodWorks, RD Atlantic, Groupe Savoie, Irving, ACOA, Silviculture working group, Lake City Works, Western Woodlot Services Cooperative, and there are more listed here.
[6:45 p.m.]
What I can say is, out of those meetings, is that our door is open to all industry representatives even though Forest Nova Scotia, the main representative, is at the table each and every meeting.
I don’t make decisions on who does or who doesn’t sit at that table. My conduit is through the deputy of the department that I have the privilege of being at currently. My understanding is that the individual is focused on what happens with Northern Pulp and focused very much on trying to find a solution with Northern Pulp, and not transitioning the sector to other avenues.
TORY RUSHTON: Just for the record, I apologize for that unparliamentary remark. I did catch myself afterwards.
That’s the exact answer I was looking for from the minister, that the door is open for that transition. That’s what the sector needs to hear. The minister may not hear that from us in Opposition all the time, but that’s what the sector does need to hear, that that door is wide open all the time.
In reference to that, we have heard in debate already this session, not just from our caucus but also from other caucuses, that people are reaching out to that transition team. They are reaching out with ideas. The response time coming back to individuals - I can share several stories with the minister afterwards and probably should, to be very honest. I know one of the transition team members reports to the minister, and I’m very glad that she’s here to hear this this evening.
What can his department do to speed up that process in responding back to the people who are reaching out - even if they don’t have an answer - just to acknowledge that that information has been received?
IAIN RANKIN: What we are aware of is that there have been 580 phone calls to that 1-800 number that was put in place, which we monitor it daily. My understanding is that our staff get back to each and every one of them. The ones that are more oriented towards training and looking at different skilled trades are handled by the Department of Labour and Advanced Education. We will check back to see.
If there are specifics around people who aren’t being called back or written back to, then I would like to know that, and we’ll follow up. There is consistency across some of the ideas, so we’re compiling that in a type of spreadsheet to see what opportunities we have, and they are all given full consideration. Of course, everyone wants to see the sector succeed. We are tracking that centrally, and our department is very involved in that.
TORY RUSHTON: I don’t know if there was confusion with the minister about the 1-800 number - people reaching out to the 1-800 number or groups, or individuals reaching out to the transition team. My question was about the transition team and responses coming back, just please to acknowledge, yes, we have received your idea, and we’ll table it for a further meeting.
Since the minister did talk about the 1-800 number, those days that that opened up, there was panic. It is what it is - there was panic. There were certain things that I think the call-takers may not have been prepared for. Credit where credit’s due, things have changed. Yes, I agree with the minister that his department is getting back to the people now.
Could the minister share with us for the benefit of the whole province, what information was collected by those call-takers on that 1-800 number line?
IAIN RANKIN: Again, everything gets responded to whether it’s through the 1-800 number, the website that has been set up, emails, or letters that go to Deputy Minister Dean or me as minister. As the member could probably appreciate, there would be a large volume of inquiries that took place after December 20th with interested Nova Scotians. In any varying departments, it could take a couple of weeks to get back to people. We do our best in both my department and the transition team.
I could speak to the different varying types of ideas that have been brought through the 1-800 number, but the main concern was finding markets. I think the member knows some of those ideas in terms of biomass, pellet plants or things of that nature, government buying and stockpiling some of the material. Those are some of the things that I remember hearing right away, asking for funds for different types of programs: businesses that are both here and abroad that see an opportunity because of that access material, so varying types of business models that use that low-value product. I do remember a number of - 18 different companies - with proposals. We do give them all a look. Some of them have overlap, some of them may have different varying of merits and economic opportunities for the province.
We make sure we are reading that and connecting players because again, our role as government is not to make business decisions for those businesses that have that material; we can help connect different players from different sawmills or forestry operations, but at the end of the day those businesses will make the decisions on their own.
TORY RUSHTON: Just one more question on the foundation of what the transition team was set up on. I get this question almost daily from more than one conversation throughout the daily routine of our jobs as MLAs, and I am sure this has been asked to the minister before.
The main question is: What does the transition team envision for the future of forestry in Nova Scotia and have they come up with a concept, or are they utilizing what the department has already set in their mandate?
IAIN RANKIN: I’ve heard that question many times and it was the question posed to me when I had the opportunity to meet with the transition team, in terms of what the vision is.
It’s an opportunity for the industry, quite frankly, to be involved in reinventing themselves and it has partly to do with the work that is ongoing with the Lahey report: adopting ecological forestry; the climate change emergency that we find ourselves in; the biodiversity loss that we find ourselves in. How we can best use that material that is ultimately always going to be there especially with the increase of partial harvesting, which isn’t always appreciated by some members of the public who don’t agree with using wood for energy or heating, because the more partial harvesting you do, the more material you have from that low-value cohort.
Really, I think the industry - again I’ll go back to us as being there to help. By working to improve forestry practices, by endorsing ecological forestry in the short term, the transition team is very much focused on the immediate needs of the capacity in the supply chain, ensuring that contractors continue to have work. That’s why we have the silviculture investment and that’s why we have the program set up with our credit unions across the province to help guarantee loans in the short term, so they can continue to make payments on their expensive equipment, gives them time to transition into more the partial-type harvesting that ultimately the new guide will be prescribing; so they can make changes to their equipment so that it is not just meant for clear-cutting but more the regular shelterwood and those types of harvest opportunities.
The transition team is very much focused on the immediate needs and keeping the supply chain operating and then moving forward. As you see, the continuum is into investments into the future. The $10 million for the Innovation Rebate Program is about helping potential investments that we’ve heard about, and that goes back to some of the ideas the member references that come into the transition team around. Maybe it is a pellet plant at a specific mill, or a different type of capital investment that we could incentivize to help in the medium term. How we can move towards higher-value products in the supply chain to offset some of the loss of revenue that we know is inevitable when Northern Pulp is no longer paying a premium price for the chips.
If there is a reduction in revenue for those products, the department is very interested in helping and assisting, through the Nova Scotia Innovation Hub, which we’ve been investing in since 2016, to look at the bioeconomy and looking at opportunities to create value-add products at the mill.
We’ve been having discussions with mass timber as an opportunity as there’s no mass timber production east of Quebec, I think. There’s an opportunity to look at other types of products like biochar and carbon black and those types of businesses that are at very infant stages in the Innovation Hub that we helped support.
The vision at the transition table really is helping with the immediate needs and then what the department sees as the opportunities for the forestry sector is to become leaders in sustainability in nurturing a healthy forest, improving value-added products - not as much focused on high volume and low value but looking at opportunities that they have. The bio-economy is growing across the globe, and there are opportunities out there.
Again, businesses are individual entities, and they’ll make decisions along the way. We will be there to help them through it.
TORY RUSHTON: I hear the minister talking about immediate relief for some of the ones in the sector. I’ll share just a quick localized story from Cumberland South. My colleague for Cumberland North and I were with a group in Cumberland County that spearheaded - by no means am I taking the credit for doing this. We’re there as support as the elected officials. There is a group in Cumberland County that are meeting regularly. They have had open conversations and dialogue with the transition team and maybe even directly with the minister’s office.
We certainly hear at that localized Cumberland County level that there are some individual smaller-scale businesses that have not survived this. There are other stories that we’re hearing that those smaller groups could diversify into a different sector that’s even outside of the forestry sector, have reached out for assistance or conversations, and it sort of fell on deaf ears, they felt.
I have committed to them to keep on questioning, and as early as Monday - having had a conversation with one of them - shared the idea that I would bring it to the floor.
Question one - it’s a two-part question that I’ll ask all at once. Has there been anybody who has been assisted by those transition programs as yet who would be - not a larger-scale contractor who would still be working here and there, but a smaller-scale business? Has there been anybody assisted in that way? Is there an avenue for them to jump to the transition team to look for guidance on how to transition to another sector?
IAIN RANKIN: There was a large volume of people who took advantage of emergency funding, which was open to all who were impacted, not just contractors, through Access Nova Scotia. The number I have is 821 people were actually able to access emergency assistance totalling $800,000 and some invested in those people. Again, retraining opportunities are there for people directly and indirectly involved in the supply chain through the investment in trade and counselling and things through the Department of Labour and Advanced Education.
Of course, I go back to the door being open. I was present at the Forest Nova Scotia AGM, as were many MLAs from all three recognized Parties, to have those conversations. Deputy Dean and Deputy Towers were there for a three-hour session for question and answer around that. Ideas have always been brought up from colleagues on all sides of the House - particularly, the member for Lunenburg West and the member for Lunenburg continue to bring up conversations around what’s happening in the western region. Members from the member’s caucus are also bringing things forward.
The group that the member references that he’s part of, I have spoken to via Ian Ripley. He gave me a call at the department and I called him back that day. He wanted to have a staff member connected to him, so our executive director, Jon Porter, reached out. They had a lengthy conversation on how the department can get that information back that that group is working on.
Again, there is likely overlap in all this in terms of finding markets, retraining, vision for the future, and higher value. Those types of things have overlaps, and that’s why it’s critical to have that central depot of analysis looking at it all. It limits duplication throughout that process.
We continue to look for more avenues, and the transition team is very keen to work with all groups, including that group. I believe that group met with the transition team yesterday, and Greg Watson, a member of the transition team, has always been going to those meetings.
TORY RUSHTON: I just want to make sure that I’m clear, so I can go back to this local constituent, if you will. That local constituent - that very small-scale contractor who has had to move away from forestry - should he be reaching out to the minister’s department, or should he be reaching directly to the transition team? I don’t want to name a name here.
[7:00 p.m.]
IAIN RANKIN: Anyone can reach out to me, and we’ll find the appropriate person depending on the nature of the work that they’re doing. We will get our staff to talk to them and see what we can do to help.
We know that there’s been 53 applications to that LAE program I referenced, and 22 assessments have been completed. Three are actually going through the Red Seal exam, one is now a registered apprentice, and two more are going through some training currently. There is work happening at an immediate pace, I would say. Those programs remain available and we’ll look to help with more.
TORY RUSHTON: Not a question, but sort of a comment back to the minister. The person’s a very quiet person, I did not want his name shared on the floor. I’ll certainly share the name with the minister following this.
For my remaining 11 minutes, I’m going to turn it over to the member for Cape Breton-Richmond. I’ll be back in the next hour.
THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cape Breton-Richmond.
ALANA PAON: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could start with, it’s a pleasure to be able to ask some questions to the minister.
I know that it’s been a very difficult time here in our province. There are many people in the forest industry who are feeling very vulnerable right now. There are a lot of unknowns, a lot of variables to deal with, and I can appreciate that it’s a complicated situation that I think we all would have liked to have perhaps seen managed in a little bit of a different way. We’re here now, we’re having to deal with it, with the situation as it is.
In my constituency, many of you of course know that we now have the last mill standing with Port Hawkesbury Paper. I’m very proud of the work that they do. There are many people in my constituency that rely on the employment in the forestry industry, but also specifically at Port Hawkesbury Paper.
In speaking with a lot of folks in the forestry industry around home, as well as across the province, one of the things that is of concern to me and some other folks, especially in Cape Breton, is that most of the wood product that comes from Cape Breton forests goes to Port Hawkesbury Paper. Now that we don’t, a lot of the sawmills are not able to send off their chips to Northern Pulp any longer, I’m really concerned, and they’re concerned as well, that there’s probably a possibility of a glutton in market.
It’s a lot cheaper obviously to utilize wood chips; it’s already debarked, as I understand. I’ve been through both mills myself on a couple of occasions, it’s an amazing process. The bottom line is, if you can acquire product for cheaper, you can obviously produce your product for cheaper, and you’re probably going to go in that direction.
So I’d ask the minister to please comment on whether he has a concern moving forward that the pulp that’s coming in to Pork Hawkesbury Paper from the Cape Breton area - is there a possibility that there’s going to be a decline simply because of an increased use of chips from other areas?
IAIN RANKIN: I thank the member for the question. It’s never ideal to have one major pulp mill in the province, but they have been working very cooperatively, and have actually been very supportive through the transition.
They have a bit of a different system, and I did have an opportunity to tour that mill as well. It’s a very efficient system, but they do require the chips to be fresh, very different. They usually use round wood and debark it, so it’s not that they can take 100 per cent chips, and shift to the way that Northern Pulp was accepting that type of product. We do know that they have been taking some of that product from mills that are in closer proximity, so somewhat central-east. There have been a couple of mills that have been able to do that; I think those discussions started before the December 20th decision was made.
Of course because they have that different system, if they were to completely transfer over to the system that Northern Pulp had, that would be a capital cost they would have to take on. There is just a different arrangement in terms of how they take the chips in. Yes, they have been taking more. The power arrangement they have with Nova Scotia Power is at the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board currently, so they are going through that to figure out their preferred rate.
There are a lot of moving parts with their operation, but they are in constant contact with us, as they always have been. They do use Crown land primarily for their fibre and they’ll continue to do that. We’ll be monitoring how they operate and how they can potentially assist us.
Bevan Lock is one of their staff members. He actually sits at our ministry advisory committee for the independent review on forestry practices and has been participating at that table. Beyond that, we’ll continue to speak with them and if the member has any specifics around helping out or connecting us with any ideas she may have, then that we’d be open to that.
ALANA PAON: Thank you, minister, for your response. Again, I’m extraordinarily proud of how the pulp and paper industry in my constituency has really reinvented itself. All of us on this room are well aware that there was a crisis point not that long ago where a massive transition was taking place. Truly it’s extraordinary, of course with the help of government investment, that that mill has really gone on to be a leader in what it does. We should be extremely proud of what they do and the environmental practices they have in place.
If the minister could please kind of shift focus here, just a little bit, I want to talk about the transition team that is in place. We hear a lot with regard to the folks in the forestry industry who are in Cumberland, the folks who are going to be affected in Pictou, in Antigonish, all the places that are near proximity to Northern Pulp. Of course, we also know that we have a vibrant forest sector in Cape Breton.
With regard to what’s happening with the foresters on Cape Breton Island, does the minister foresee any issues that will be a fallout of what has happened with Northern Pulp?
IAIN RANKIN: Again, I think that Port Hawkesbury Paper has been very cooperative and a key partner as we look forward to the future of the sector. Again, the department is very much forward-looking in adopting the forestry recommendations of the review there; we have two-thirds of the recommendations underway. It’s very important for that entity to be involved in the discussions.
We talked a little bit tonight about the Forest Management Guide - also, the High Production Forestry, Phase 1 - Discussion Paper that is out for consultation. We very much need that feedback - looking at the natural disturbance regime that is currently being peer-reviewed at the scientific journal we submitted to.
We do need that feedback from a major player like Port Hawkesbury Paper. We continuously talk to them about how their markets are going, particularly in the United States, which are strong for their supercalender product that they make and export out. They did have some challenges around shipping through CN during some of the blockage activity, which I think has been resolved. That’s just how much we talk to them about their day-to-day operations, because we want to know what is happening.
They’re also a member of the Nova Scotia Innovation Hub that I referenced earlier. We’re really looking at expanding that biocircular economy and making sure that we’re looking at all opportunities to use the low value product. I think the future looks good for that mill. They’re currently looking at their power rate structure and once they get through that, we’ll continue to talk to them about how to implement the forestry review, which is very much forward looking.
As Professor Lahey said to the committee, the soonest we’ll actually start to see changes on the ground is approximately 15 years from now - even though we’re implementing now.
With respect to the member’s comments about just looking in the immediate term - the transition team is focused on the immediate term. I would submit that the foundational work that this department is doing now - around the Lahey report, around the transition, around the bioeconomy - is very much forward looking into the future.
ALANA PAON: I’m conscientious of the time. I believe my colleagues in the NDP will have to stand up and cede their time to me, so I’ll try to make this quick.
I’d like to ask the minister with regard to the transition team, we obviously have a variety of different representatives that are sitting on the team. I’m going to try to make this fast and get in underneath the time.
Could the minister please tell me what percentage of representation, how many people are actually on the transition team in representation of foresters on Cape Breton Island?
IAIN RANKIN: There is no specific member from Cape Breton. There is Forest Nova Scotia’s representative at that table through Jeff Bishop, who is the representative for the sector provincially.
THE CHAIR: Order, the time has expired for the member.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
LISA ROBERTS: I will allot my first 10 minutes to the member for Cape Breton-Richmond to continue with her questioning.
THE CHAIR: Do you wish for me to call order when that 10 minutes is up? Okay, great.
The honourable member for Cape Breton-Richmond.
ALANA PAON: Thank you to my colleague from the NDP caucus, as I continue on with this.
With regard to the road programs, it’s great to see that there’s continued investment, obviously, in that type of infrastructure. I believe that the minister earlier said that there were 604 applications for the road program, 150 applications to the silviculture program.
Again, specifically, I’m a Cape Bretoner and I like to know what’s going on in Cape Breton Island. How many applications within those would be from forestry members from Cape Breton Island?
IAIN RANKIN: We do get a weekly report that we can endeavour to share with the member. Again, the focus of the $7 million silviculture and road investment was focused on central and western which needed to be supplemented from the investment that Northern Pulp was making. They were spending, my recollection is $4 million, on silviculture. Without that funding, we had an immediate need in order to keep contractors working in the supply chain in the western and central ends.
The eastern end in Cape Breton continues to get the ordinary funding, but there is an increase provincially in this budget before the House of $1 million, as there was last year, to help facilitate the implementation of the Lahey report with the increase of partial harvesting. Those type of silviculture treatments, like commercial thinning, would be eligible. For more detail, we can get the eastern ends numbers to the member.
ALANA PAON: Again, I guess I just want to reiterate that it’s wonderful to hear that the forestry sector is obviously banding together in a time of great uncertainties and doing the best that they can, many of them. Many people are struggling right now in the central and western zones. I’m very concerned about what’s going to be happening to those families and to those businesses. I think we all are, as fellow Nova Scotians. I’m just concerned looking forward, that I just don’t want to see a crisis point that comes down the pipe to those who are in the forestry industry in Cape Breton Island.
[7:15 p.m.]
I appreciate that Forest Nova Scotia is working on behalf of all people involved in the forestry industry in Nova Scotia. I feel very assured that Port Hawkesbury Paper is always cognizant and working on behalf of those foresters who provide them with raw material. Looking forward, is there an overall plan other than the Lahey report, is there a focus at all in looking at the forestry sector, in particular on Cape Breton Island?
Excuse me if I’m getting this incorrect but I’m fairly certain that there hasn’t been very much of a focus on stud wood, for example. It has been mostly pulpwood on Cape Breton Island because we have had a place to sell it. When you have a ready-made pulp mill available, you’re obviously going to provide that product to that facility.
Can the minister explain to me if there has been any kind of progress or plan moving forward? I know we have a silviculture program. Is there any plan in place to try to do any diversification, not just product-wise but perhaps in raw material as well, on Cape Breton Island?
IAIN RANKIN: The key word there is diversification. That’s the whole intent behind what the department has been working on pre- and post-Lahey report. It is about trying to find ways to have opportunities for more higher value type products. That mill creates a product, and they have exchange agreements with the various sawmills. The stud wood they would get off the cuts would actually be traded with various sawmills that are in close proximity, whether it’s Williams or Scotsburn Lumber or even Groupe Savoie for hardwood exchanges. Then they would take the other type of wood that would be fed into making the pulp and paper, that low value.
The industry really is at a juncture. They have opportunities to expand in the bioeconomy and look at other avenues to grow that higher value. The way that they are going to be able to do that is through diversification.
We continue to talk to Port Hawkesbury Paper about their market opportunities, which are strong today. They are a major player, and they’re important to the economy of not only Cape Breton but Nova Scotia. We’ll take the member’s comments and ensure that we’re continuing to do that.
ALANA PAON: I wanted to ask the minister - and he mentioned it earlier - with regard to the program that’s available through NSBI. I’m not sure that there are a lot of people in my area who are familiar with how that program could be integrated within the forestry industry, into their business.
To have it on record, I would ask the minister if he could please clarify how the program through NSBI would assist all levels within the forestry industry - from someone who’s working in the woods harvesting, all the way up to a major producer like Port Hawkesbury Paper.
IAIN RANKIN: That question probably would be best posed to the Department of Business, which has NSBI under their auspices. If it’s the Innovation Rebate Program the member references, that is very much for large-scale capital projects in the order of magnitude of $1 to $25 million. We know that there is interest around that.
It took some time with trade lawyers and staff to find a way that we could help induce investment without violating our exemption with the Softwood Lumber Agreement. That’s why it’s more of an incentive on the investment. Everything we do has to go through that lens of our trade agreements, to ensure that we keep that protection, so we’re limited financially on how we can assist.
We can’t provide grants because that would be seen as a subsidy, so we have to be creative when we’re looking at how we assist workers and contractors. The varying programs that are out there today are eligible for different types of projects, but the specifics around eligibility for that program would be best posed to the Department of Business.
ALANA PAON: With regard to the $7 million program for roads and silviculture - I’m cognizant that there’s very little time left - I believe that it’s only open to second-year members to access that fund.
I’m wondering if that information is, in fact, correct? If so, is there anybody being left out of accessing the fund year and potentially being kind of put in a bit more of a precarious situation?
IAIN RANKIN: That’s the first I heard of people not being eligible if they are in a separate year. We do have huge interests actually. I referenced the hundreds of applications that have gone to Forest Nova Scotia for roads and the 150 who have gone through the ASF for our silviculture treatments. It is a focus on the western and central region, to remind the member - that is the $7 million - but there are our existing programs in the eastern region.
I would point out that we are reviewing our silviculture programs as part of the recommendations in the Lahey report, to look at how we can best help private woodlot owners; how we can make sure that they are looking at opportunities to practice for ecological forestry in the future.
One thing I’ll point out, on the committee that we have for the ministerial advisory committee for the work on the Lahey recommendations, we have representation from both Bevan Lock from Port Hawkesbury Paper; and also Mary Tulle, who represents Tourism Nova Scotia with interest in Cape Breton.
THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
LISA ROBERTS: I am going to start with a quick request. I’m wondering if the minister could share a copy of his opening remarks and also a list of who the transition team has met with so far because it’s hard for our research staff to hear that in the gallery.
IAIN RANKIN: Yes, that’s no problem, we can share.
THE CHAIR: There isn’t a Clerk here right now but . . .
IAIN RANKIN: We have a copy of the speech here. That’s the speech and then we’ll have to get you a better compilation of the people we have met with at the transition team.
LISA ROBERTS: Thank you very much, I appreciate that.
Starting with a question about the budget, the department’s budget has increased only 2 per cent. Given the remarkable challenge that lies ahead of us, in terms of the forestry sector’s transition after the closure of Northern Pulp, do you agree that your department does not need an increase in resources?
IAIN RANKIN: Our focus really is around, in terms of the transition currently - I did reference the challenges around the Softwood Lumber Agreement and our limitation in actually expending money to companies that may need assistance.
Our direct investment that took place immediately is the $7 million around silviculture. Other programming fits more under different departments so when it’s retraining people, that’s very much in the Labour and Advanced Education. If it’s about incentivising capital projects, that falls under the NSBI and the Department of Business. If we’re talking about policy around energy, that fits under the Department of Energy and Mines, which is why the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines sits at the transition table.
We as a department don’t typically fund directly in terms of support, but we do continue to support the Innovation Hub. We may look at opportunities, if there is an opportunity for expending more funds, we would look at potential assistance in helping develop the bioeconomy which we have been doing since 2016, as I said.
Right now, $7 million was a significant investment that actually wasn’t part of this budget - I think it was the prior budget - we split it up between last year’s and this year’s budgets, so we found a way to do that.
I’ll remind the member that we increased our budget a million dollars for silviculture for 2018-19, and then there was $1.713 million increase for 2019-20. So, we have investments around the silviculture.
We have $533,000 going for LiDAR acquisition that will help us make a complete scan across the whole province; we’re currently at 88 per cent for the province. So we’ll be able to complete that this year with those funds.
Then, again - I referenced this last year - that we had an allocation for $180,000 for two new wildlife biologists who can help us with both more focus on biodiversity through species at risk, but also provide more streamlined approvals for business: win-win there for that investment. We continue to work with the funding that we have, and if there are opportunities in the future, we’ll look at those.
LISA ROBERTS: I think that helps me to understand why the forecast for 2019-20 is approximately $3 million over budget - that would reflect part of that silviculture funding. Okay.
I’d like to ask some questions about the $50 million fund, and I guess specifically about the $7 million which, maybe I heard that the $7 million doesn’t come from the $50 million, so forgive me if I’ve got that wrong. In terms of the $7 million for silviculture and road work, does the minister have a sense of how that money is being divided between Crown land and private land work?
IAIN RANKIN: The breakdown is: $3.5 million went into the private silviculture investment; $1 million went into the private roads; $1.5 million went for Crown roads; and then $1 million for silviculture on Crown.
LISA ROBERTS: Thank you very much for that. Is it possible to break down the silviculture funding further into activities that maintain or restore our multi-aged forests, and what proportion goes to planting or thinning that produces even-aged stands?
IAIN RANKIN: What I can provide the member, and it takes time to get the information - this is 2018, so I wouldn’t really have what the member exactly is looking for - once the ASF delivers their programs, we’ll get that. Anecdotally we know that around 30 of the money that goes out falls under the Category 6 and 7 - that’s commercial thinning which is in line with partial harvesting, and selection management is Category 7.
What I have here is the total area of the hectares that actually went through each category for 2018, and then I’ll endeavour to get the member the 2019 numbers. I’ll table that.
[7:30 p.m.]
LISA ROBERTS: I’m collecting documents. I appreciate the sharing of information.
The gist of my question is, while we understand that this a moment when there’s great need and interest in maintaining the supply chain and keeping people working, we’re also at the same time trying to incentivize and support a change towards more ecological practices. How is the department sort of managing that dual focus in terms of the silviculture funding?
IAIN RANKIN: That’s really an excellent question. Silviculture is one of the levers we can use to ensure that we have investment in helping incentivize that type of forestry practices - that’s in line with the Lahey report - which is selection harvesting, which is pre-commercial thinning and commercial thinning.
Again, that brings us back to previous discussion around trying to find markets for all these products. One of the ways we do that is through the agreements that we’ve signed with the Association for Sustainable Forestry, to ensure that that happens.
LISA ROBERTS: Another part of the transition fund is $5 million for a forestry contractor financing program. Is the minister able to share how much of that $5 million for forestry contractors has been used? Has the response to that program been very positive?
IAIN RANKIN: There have been 14 loans with a total of $426,000 that’s been tapped into so far.
LISA ROBERTS: Do you have a sense at this point if that funding will be renewed or if the pot, I guess, will be expanded to make more money available, or is the money that’s been allocated adequate? I’m also interested to hear how the success of that program will be measured.
IAIN RANKIN: We’ve committed to evaluating that program at the three-month mark to see what uptake there is. I think by those numbers already that we’re seeing after just a month and a little bit after that came out, we’ve seen interest. We’ll look to make sure that the contractors are being able to utilize that guarantee. That coincides with keeping that capacity in the supply chain so that when the markets are found for those products that they continue to stay in the industry.
Then we also have the re-training program for those that are choosing to look at other careers, for career counselling and apprenticeship opportunities, and I referenced those numbers.
There’s no one silver bullet that fixes or helps with the challenges that the industry is facing in each individual contractor. We have been successful in varying ways with this program, and other programs, ensuring that contractors are continuing to work in the forest. We know that some of them have been picked up by other major employers that worked for Northern Pulp directly; some of them are contracting directly with the sawmills now at the sawmill level. We’re encouraged by that.
We continue to see other opportunities at the table, but that’s one program that has shown some success.
LISA ROBERTS: I’m sorry, I’m not sure if I’m hearing things correctly, but I thought I heard that there’s only a 10 per cent uptake on the program. Have I got that wrong?
IAIN RANKIN: That would be correct so far. It’s a new program. We could have that program going on for many more months; there’s obviously 90 per cent capacity left in it. We put it out there for contractors that wanted to make that type of commitment to continue to be able to utilize a guarantee on a loan modelled off of the small business-type of program that our credit unions offer.
Again, I go back to limitations on the Softwood Lumber Agreement, not being in a position to offer direct grants, so this was one opportunity that we were able to look at in terms of not providing that direct grant, but providing the guaranty from the province’s level.
We are encouraged that there is some uptake. Again, when you put that in the basket with some of the other funding mechanisms that we’re being able to use - whether it silviculture, retraining, or rebate programs - we continue to look at other opportunities to help. That’s only one of the programs.
LISA ROBERTS: Could you provide some similar analysis or an update on how much demand there has been for the $1.5 million for workers to connect with training programs in the skilled trades?
IAIN RANKIN: We have 53 applications through that program: 22 assessments have been completed, and three are going through a Red Seal exam currently; we have one new registered apprentice with another two training for that. This is the number we have today, but again, this is a fluid number. We’re only a month and a little bit in, so we expect we could get more.
LISA ROBERTS: Can you share how much of the fund has been used and whether more money will be made available if it runs out?
IAIN RANKIN: I don’t have those numbers in front of me. That would probably be a good question for the Department of Labour and Advanced Education when they’re up.
LISA ROBERTS: How is the department supporting private woodlot owners through this transition? Even more specifically, how are you supporting private woodlot owners to practise ecological forestry through the transition?
IAIN RANKIN: We do have good representation at the transition table with Debbie Reeves from the Large Private Non-Industrial Landowners of Nova Scotia as well as Greg Watson from a woodlot owner association. We also have good representation from both of those individuals at our minister’s advisory committee with the Lahey review.
We made a commitment when we responded to the Lahey report to primarily focus on Crown land, as the report also did. We are moving through with those recommendations that focus mostly on Crown land with the idea that we can encourage private landowners and operators to emulate some of the work that has been under way to create the new Forest Management Guide and some of the other recommendations.
A key recommendation that private woodlot owners have been advocating some years for, as well as some members in the House actually - the member for Clare-Digby and the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley and I’m sure members from other Parties have been advocating for looking at the wood heating projects. That is in line with a recommendation in the Lahey report that does specifically help woodlot owners find markets if they have challenges finding markets.
Today there are six public buildings on the tender that’s closing tomorrow - I believe that’s when the first phase closes - with the idea that we’ll be looking to expand more once we evaluate the success of that program. That helps reduce the greenhouse gas emission footprint from our public buildings that were using archaic type of boiler systems from decades back, using imported oil from overseas to use some of the more locally-sourced wood chips, the waste wood or other type of wood that is not primary wood that’s for cutting but the wood that has that challenge.
We also support small woodlot owners with our silviculture programs and help them manage their woodlots - including our road programs, we referenced that increase previously. We also have $1.1 million that is set aside for outreach for funding for forestry-related organizations, so they are eligible for that. We support through the Association for Sustainable Forestry, again the department supports, private woodland owners and the budget for these funds is approximately $4.1 million as a base, annually.
LISA ROBERTS: I will ask some more questions about the new wood burners in a moment. First, during the transition after Northern Pulp’s closure, there is a concerted effort to look for new markets for the province’s chips and waste woods from sawmills. Is increasing biomass use for electricity being considered?
IAIN RANKIN: What we’re looking at today are the heating systems of public building. These are very efficient, modern heating systems that are similar to what takes place in P.E.I. The opportunity in the long-term could involve energy, similar to the way we’ve had opportunities like at the Université Sainte-Anne, that combines their use of solar and biomass. They are able to reduce their footprint and at the same time they were able to save costs because of the capital being offset by government.
The way we set up the program for wood heating is an arrangement with the private sector. They would be maintaining and own that asset through the lifespan of the agreement - I think it is 20 years. It’s similar to the way that you would purchase oil off an oil truck - that entity would own the oil truck. They would pull up, deliver the oil, maintain that truck and then leave the site. We’re purchasing the heat from that entity.
In the future, we could be looking at district energy opportunities from either the municipal level - we do know there is some interest, Annapolis comes to mind, CBRM could be interested. A start is the wood heating at specific individual buildings, but if you have a critical mass in an area then you do have opportunities.
P.E.I. was able to connect multiple buildings with their system, so it’s really the economic opportunity, the proximity of that low-value product that is already being cut. I want to reiterate that, it’s not purpose-cutting for energy; this is coming from woodlot owners who would be cutting, using that primary wood, sending it to sawmills for lumber and then finding a market for the lower-value type of wood and being used for these types of systems.
We do know there is success in different countries. Copenhagen is one of those countries that uses district energy systems and they’re going to be the first city in the world to be carbon neutral by 2025, primarily from that. There are many opportunities with the bioeconomy and using it for energy is one of them.
I think the main part, from my perspective and the government’s perspective, is that we are using it mostly from waste wood, not primary wood. That’s where I think the environmental outcomes are much stronger and that it is from a more modern type system. So, we’re looking at efficiencies of 90 per cent or above, that’s what we’re looking at with these new systems in the six buildings. We’ll evaluate that and see how the first phase goes with the idea to be able to do more.
LISA ROBERTS: The six projects are in different parts of the province. I have heard concerns that as a result, it will be difficult to serve those projects and respond to the RFP at a reasonable cost because there isn’t an economy of scale. Like building out, for example, from the Université Sainte-Anne project where there is already some scale and some supply chains built around that.
Is that something you are aware of and kind of ready to respond to, depending on how things come back on the RFP?
[7:45 p.m.]
IAIN RANKIN: By the interest of the Requests for Supplier Qualifications, we’ve had more than 10 different companies interested in this - I don’t remember the exact number. The limitation did not present itself yet in terms of being in different regions.
We purposely chose different regions of the province so that we could have an objective analysis - if it’s viable on its own with one building - with the opportunity to go out and potentially be a larger project. We wanted to make sure that we were giving regional fairness across the board and to see if the projects were viable on their own.
LISA ROBERTS: Who in these contracts will be assessing or appraising whether those stipulations that the minister mentioned are in fact being fulfilled, in terms of the supply of wood not coming from whole tree harvesting but from partial harvesting, silviculture aimed at producing multi-aged forests?
IAIN RANKIN: That would fall to us. We monitor and evaluate, and we are the regulator in terms of what type of wood is being used for these types of projects - our project team in the Department of Lands and Forestry.
LISA ROBERTS: Does that mean that the department is actually going to be assessing cuts on both private and public land in that case, because this was done to fulfill the Lahey report where this was envisioned as a way of supporting small woodlot owners, I understood.
IAIN RANKIN: Correct. This is coming off of private land, to be clear. We would review what they’re proposing and then we monitor to make sure that they’re adhering to that proposal.
LISA ROBERTS: Can you speak specifically about the greenhouse gas emissions accounting that will take place? Maybe this is a little bit less relevant to this project, but I think people are also curious about it in the case of this project: What sort of greenhouse gas accounting will be done to distinguish between wood heat projects that enable the creation of carbon sinks in our forests and enable us to meet climate goals, and those that do not?
IAIN RANKIN: That’s why this is an inter-departmental team that is going through this process. The Department of Environment is the department at the table that would be involved in the life cycle assessments of these projects. That’s really where the value is in using these locally sourced wood chips because it’s an incremental improvement when it’s compared to imported oil.
I know there is literature on both sides of this argument of whether using wood for heat or energy is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. It’s looking at what’s currently being used: inefficient systems that are older, imported from mostly the Middle East, and the energy that’s being used when that’s extracted and transported. Transportation is really a key part of this, when you have a locally sourced woodlot that is within kilometres of some of these buildings providing that material.
It’s important to note that if they’re already being cut - if you are commercially thinning a lot - that carbon in these trees will be released anyway because the carbon in the trees is what has been sequestered out of the atmosphere. It’s a matter of either letting it essentially rot and release that carbon, or utilizing that as a resource locally in some of these systems.
Again, the Department of Environment will be looking at the life cycle. I think the key around this really is where is the material coming from and ensuring that it is coming off of ecological practices as the report that member references.
LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to ask this again, just so that I’m clear. Is the proponent who is responding to the RFP also responsible for the harvesting and the condition of the woodlot where the wood is coming from? Is that part of the proposal?
IAIN RANKIN: They wouldn’t necessarily be cutting; they wouldn’t be the landowners involved. These would be companies that would have their own arrangements with different woodlot owners - I know that there are companies in P.E.I. that do this, for example. They could be sawmills, but sawmills would have to make sure that the chips would be of the quality that these types of systems require. It is designed to help woodlot owners, but they would be that private entity that would do the arrangements with one, or it could be a multitude of different, private woodlot owners that they would be sourcing material from.
LISA ROBERTS: As you know, our party has raised some concerns about the P3 model, and I understand that there are some particularities about the heating systems. Am I correct to think that we are using a broader P3 model than what is used in Prince Edward Island? Am I correct that in Prince Edward Island, the actual facilities are publicly owned, but then they’re privately operated within the contract?
IAIN RANKIN: We’ve modeled ours exactly after the way P.E.I. is operating. The public buildings themselves are still government owned; we still own the building. It’s the infrastructure that the company would go in and install. In terms of the boiler system that they would be installing, that would be owned by that company and they would maintain it over the span of the contract. That’s why I compare it to, say, an oil truck - we’re basically purchasing the heat from that company. They just own the infrastructure that’s inside the public building rather than owning the oil truck that pulls up and delivers oil to the public building.
LISA ROBERTS: We’re looking forward to seeing these projects roll out. It’s great to see us learning from P.E.I., and hopefully then we learn from these six projects and we see more of them across the province with very local supply chains.
We do distinguish between bio - well, wood for heat and wood for energy - but I am going to ask a wood for energy question. Is the department doing any greenhouse gas emission analysis on our biomass plants now at Point Tupper? There are some globally agreed-to carbon calculations that seem to have been widely discounted but are still in effect. I’m wondering if we’re doing any life cycle assessment of those.
IAIN RANKIN: Heat is a form of energy - I think the member is meaning electricity when she’s speaking to the challenges about providing from locally-sourced wood. That work is ongoing. We know there’s significant public interest in the use of biomass to provide for electricity. That came out in the electricity plan and consultation, and we subsequently adopted that. That’s why we ended the must run at the Point Tupper facility that the previous NDP government instituted there. That is a drastically lower efficiency than the type of systems that I’m referring to that we’re rolling out across the province. I would encourage all members of the House to go to Prince Edward Island and see some of these systems if they have an opportunity. It’s pretty good work - over 90 per cent efficiency using that heat energy.
There are future opportunities that could actually have a combination of heat and electricity at the same time, so we’ll make sure that we do the full life cycle analysis. That’s a cross-departmental work between us, Department of Energy and Mines, and the Department of Environment. That work is ongoing.
LISA ROBERTS: Can the minister provide any timeline in terms of when there might be a publicly available assessment of the total carbon calculation of using the biomass plant at Point Tupper, for example?
IAIN RANKIN: I can’t give a timeline. This involves three departments, of which I am only a member of one. We do have a dedicated staff member who looks at climate modelling in our department. We continue to work with the Department of Environment and the Department of Energy and Mines on these matters. We do know that after taking off the must run, there’s less primary wood going into that facility, which I think is a good thing. Again, this is about trying to utilize a resource that is being cut anyway. So, rather than letting it sit in the woods, and there is value to that from a biodiversity perspective, we’re actually able to harness some of that energy and at the same time replace the use of fossil fuels.
LISA ROBERTS: I have lost track of the timeline a little bit, but I think it might have been more than a year ago when there was a cut in Guysborough County that was intended for that biomass plant in Point Tupper, which was in fact a primary cut. Can you report back on the investigation that happened around that?
IAIN RANKIN: That was at least two years ago because it was prior to my time at the department. Lessons were learned and the analysis did show that some of the area was indeed old growth and some of it wasn’t. We can provide that analysis from the department to the member. I don’t have it in front of me.
Through the Pre-Treatment Assessment, we have improved a flag to look for old growth specifically through a GIS system, making sure that we have more avenues to find if it is indeed old growth before it gets to that point. I could say that there have been improvements, and we have been adding to our old forest inventory across the province. We have a targeted 8 per cent in each eco-district. We continue to look at that.
We have now over 430,000 hectares of forest representing 24 per cent of forested Crown lands identified under our old forest policy; of that, 400,000 are in protected areas. Beyond the areas that are protected, there’s 30,000 hectares that are set aside for no harvesting under that policy.
LISA ROBERTS: One of the myriad dynamics in the fallout from the closure of Northern Pulp is not just the workers employed at the pulp mill, but also the question of the Crown land leases held by the company. People are asking about Northern Pulp’s licences and questioning whether and where they will be transferred. Can you update me on that?
IAIN RANKIN: There were a number of proposals brought forward for the area in Central. Under the Scott Maritimes Limited Agreement (1965) Act, Northern Pulp did have and does have access to the fibre because that Act remains today. The proposal they brought forward was one that was most advantageous for the public interest because it keeps the contractors that were working for Northern Pulp continuing to work. How the arrangement will change is that rather than working for Northern Pulp, the contractors will work for the sawmills.
This is very much an active agreement that we have just sent to them, which sawmills support. Northern Pulp works as the administrator for the lands that they have in central, but the contractors that used to work for Northern Pulp are actually going to be working for the sawmill. The distribution of that volume is spread based on the historical - was it three years - five years. We looked at the historical percentage of the mills across Central. I guess I should name them, but there’s percentages for each sawmill that we get their appropriate percentage of logs from those contractors, and Northern Pulp acts as the administrator. So Northern Pulp is still the woodland manager, but the sawmills will continue to get the volumes that they’re used to getting. We still have the challenge of finding markets for the low-value chips after they’re sawing the lumber, but those sawmills will be able to continue to get the volume that they’ve been getting. Northern Pulp is going to be able to administer that and the contractors can keep working.
LISA ROBERTS: I wonder, Madam Chair, if we could again kind of quiet the chatter in the Chamber.
THE CHAIR: I’m asking members in the House here to cut down the chatter, please? It’s getting very difficult for people to hear the minister’s responses.
LISA ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair. There were questions in some quarters about whether any of those leases might be transferred either to forestry co-ops or any other - I know that at least one mill was interested in perhaps having direct access to management of some of that Crown land. Basically, you’re saying status quo?
IAIN RANKIN: It does get a little complicated because there’s different arrangements in different regions. What I was speaking to was the central region. The best way to compare it - right now, WestFor acts in the western region as the administrator. Northern Pulp would take on a similar role in central, whereas they are essentially working as that. They already right now have plans out there approved. They already know our regulations and how to monitor to ensure that those are being followed.
That’s their role in it. It is status quo from a contractor perspective. They’re going to continue to go out and harvest, and the sawmills will continue to get theirs. The western region is a little bit different. Whereas Northern Pulp has a certain allocation - it was 100,000. I think it was reduced to 93,000, give or take. We aren’t at the expiry date yet of the western allocation. That won’t be until, I think it’s around July.
We extended the western region from year to year, so when we get to that point, then we have some decisions to make in terms of where does the volume that Northern Pulp was used to getting go because, of that volume, around - at least 50 per cent of their volume would go to the western mills and they would make their lumber and then, say, 30 per cent to 40 per cent plus of the pulp wood would go to Northern Pulp. We have decisions to make and we’ll monitor to see how those mills are operating in the next few months, what kind of volume they’re expecting beyond July.
The easier decision was central for us, and you are correct. Some other mills would have asked to have access to that, but I think the decision we landed on in central was for the overall public interest because the central mills were able to keep the supply that they were used to getting historically in the last five years.
LISA ROBERTS: Northern Pulp has leases on Crown land. One of the concerns or tensions that exists in this sector can be private woodlot owners feeling like they are undercut by harvesting on Crown land. Is the department paying attention to that?
IAIN RANKIN: Northern Pulp doesn’t actually have a lease on Crown lands. They have an agreement through the Scott Maritimes Limited Agreement (1965) Act to a certain amount of fibre off the central region. They have approvals that could go out a year plus. They can harvest off that land, they have a right to that, and then the arrangement on WestFor is also for a certain allocation.
We’re in a period of transition, so decisions need to be made with full thought to what’s in the best interest of the contractors and the mills. If there is an opportunity to talk to other groups that are looking for more land, like the Medway Community Forest Co-op, we need to make sure that we have advancement of our priorities from the Lahey report, which land is going to fall under the high production leg of the triad, which land is going to fall under the matrix, and then which appropriation would go under either the Medway co-op or potentially the Mi’kmaw Forestry Initiative, which now has 20,000 hectares.
Really, there’s a lot of work happening in parallel. We have to be prudent when we made decisions on land, but Northern Pulp specifically would be more based on the volume of fibre that they were able to get. That expires in September.
LISA ROBERTS: So far, the transition team has announced short-term steps, but this certainly feels like it’s going to be along transition. As you know, our caucus has been somewhat critical of the transition team for its concentration of government voices and the lack of an independent chair. At the same time, I have heard what the minister has said about the ability to make decisions and operationalize those decisions relatively quickly with a small team and with decision-makers at the table, which I certainly can appreciate.
As we move past this immediate phase of the transition, is there a potential for the transition team transforming itself into one with more community voices, an independent chair, and representatives from municipalities and other sectors?
IAIN RANKIN: It’s a good question. The transition team, which this department is a part of, is very much focused on the immediate concerns: ensuring that the supply chain has that capacity, and the critical mass trying to keep our sawmills protecting what we have today; moving into the long term in the type of capital investments that are required; looking at export opportunities; looking at exhausting all the opportunities that we have domestically; and looking at the bio-economy.
Really, when we get into the discussion around the long term, I think that very much fits into what our department has been working on in the minister’s advisory committee, which is much broader in that it’s not just a discussion about forestry practices, although that’s topical and relates to the Lahey report. It’s a much broader discussion about forests in general. We’re talking about the competing values of the industry - recreation, conservation, and other issue-type management things that may pop up from time to time. It’s a committee that I think will last years and probably decades, hopefully, if future governments are committed to adopting ecological forestry.
That’s a committee that is larger and does have the voices that the member is referencing. We have 14 members that include some of the members that are at the transition table, as I referenced earlier, but we also have the Crown license holders at that table. We have a Mi’kmaw representative. We have someone from the tourist sector. We have the community forest representatives there at the table. We have the member from the Ecology Action Centre at the table. We have other members that have varying interests. The Nova Scotia Woodlot & Operators Association is at that table - I know the member knows that.
I thought we had a good first meeting. It’s gender balanced, as well. It’s good to see that many women at the table discussing the needs of the industry. I think that’s the table where we can have much broader regular discussions. Their next meeting is in April, about looking at the implementation of the report and how they’re sequenced.
We had our response in December of 2018, which laid out the roadmap ahead. We have our evaluation coming up at the end of the fiscal year. At the end of this month, that evaluation will track the progress of the first year. The purpose of Professor Lahey being at that meeting was to go over the terms of reference of that committee and his evaluation plan for looking at the recommendations that we’ve been focused on.
Some of the more major recommendations are what is being worked on now and the consultations are very active around the Forest Management Guide, around the high-production forestry criteria, around natural disturbance regimes and around all the other project teams that we put together at the outset. There are eight project teams with external experts, and this will be very much an iterative exercise moving forward.
As I said earlier, Lahey himself said that the year that we’ll start to see changes in the forest is about 15 years from now, so this is very much a forward-looking paradigm shift in terms of how the industry will be operating.
LISA ROBERTS: The minister has referenced a couple of members who are serving on both this team and also on the transition team. Other than that overlap of individuals, is there a formal mechanism for the transition team interfacing with that review - I’m not sure if I’m getting the name of it right - the Lahey review team I’m calling it.
IAIN RANKIN: As yet, there’s nothing formally put in writing. It is an interest of mine and it is what I talked about when I met with the transition team itself. We are on it, but I’m not the lead on that transition team, nor am I even on it. That really is about dealing with the inevitable outfall of losing a major player in a market.
Again, I think the strength of having industry and our administrative leads at that table is showing fruition now with all these initiatives rolling out that are helping people, helping contractors and all of the initiatives really are coming from the ground up, from the community level, from some MLAs in the Chamber who have been bringing these ideas forward and have been for awhile.
The immediacy of that work can only complement the work of the long-term vision that you see at the minister’s advisory committee, which has been put together through work from the forest review that Lahey put together. He talked about improving transparency, so when we saw that recommendation, we endorsed it. We hired a consultant, DG Communications, that had recommendations. So it’s a recommendation of a recommendation to put that committee together.
It did actually fall in line with the Natural Resources Strategy from the NDP government in 2012 and that was put together that advisory group. We blended those recommendations so we had stakeholders at a table that both the minister and deputy can look to and ensure that we are connecting in a better, more wholesome way with the general public when we’re making decisions.
The immediacy of the transition team - again, we’ll look to see how that translates into the work and to the longer-term vision of what is at the table at the minister’s advisory committee.
LISA ROBERTS: Given that I have 15 seconds, I will thank you very much for those answers thus far and look forward to receiving the couple of documents I requested, and I’ll be back . . .
THE CHAIR: Order. Time has elapsed for the NDP. I’d like to ask the minister if he and his staff would like to have a short break, a recess?
We’ll take a 2-minute recess.
[8:13 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[8:17 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
THE CHAIR: Order. We’ll now turn it over to the PC caucus.
The honourable member for Queens-Shelburne.
KIM MASLAND: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one quick question for the minister. I was wondering if he could provide the plan for 2020 with respect to maintenance and services for Carters Beach in Queens County.
IAIN RANKIN: I don’t have any specifics around individual parks yet. I do know that that beach has not yet been protected as a provincial park. My understanding is that it’s still on the candidate list. I know it’s also a popular place for recreation and we have done some work in my time in both the Department of Environment and now the Department of Lands and Forestry. There were some concerns around pollution and stuff around the dunes that we wanted to make sure didn’t occur. I just don’t recall where the conversation was left with the municipality.
I think what the department was prepared to do was look at providing services around some facilities there for washrooms. We wanted a commitment from the municipality to actually operate those, but I’m not sure if they agreed to that. That’s just my recollection, but that’s over a year ago, so I’m not really sure where that discussion has been left.
KIM MASLAND: Yes, we have had these conversations back and forth from your department and when you were in the Department of Environment and now with the Department of Lands and Forestry.
It’s my understanding that the region of Queens has stated that they would not be servicing those porta-potties there this summer. There is serious concern about people - because a lot of people visit that beautiful, beautiful beach - going through the dunes and trashing them down to find a place to use the washroom. It’s really important that there is a permanent structure.
I know a couple years ago there was a permanent structure at the Lands and Forestry depot in Milton that was going to go out there and it never did get there. Again, just to put on the record: it’s a real concern for people in Queens County. We do want to protect our beach. We know people are coming there, but it’s important that we have the proper facilities and parking, so that when visitors come there that we are protecting the beach. Thanks.
IAIN RANKIN: I would agree that’s a beautiful property that obviously Nova Scotians value and treasure very much. With all these coastline properties, it’s always a challenge for departments to make sure that they’re maintained and that people have facilities there.
I’ve been informed that we do actually maintain the washroom facilities there now. Our limited maintenance of it is related to the washroom and garbage. I can look at seeing what other opportunities are available to do that. What the member’s referencing as an example, I’ll look at that. That’s the challenge, when there are sensitive ecosystems and ensuring that people stay off those sensitive ecosystems. It’s a balance of protection and also ensuring that people can recreate in these types of properties.
KIM MASLAND: I just want to thank the minister for that response and commitment to look into that. I’ll now hand it over to my colleague.
THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
BARBARA ADAMS: I appreciate having this opportunity to meet and speak with the minister. I want to start out - I know we’re not supposed to have favourites, but I certainly want to thank the minister and his department staff because they respond so quickly every time we have a question or send an email or make a phone call. I just want you to know how much I and my constituency assistant Lisa appreciate the quick responses.
I’m just wondering if the minister could update me on what the plans are for the wharf at Fisherman’s Cove. It was a joint funding announcement from the federal government right before the last election, the municipality as well as the provincial government. I’m just wondering if those funding allotments are still in place and secure. If so, when can we expect construction to take place?
IAIN RANKIN: I don’t have any information about any funding commitment around that park, but we’ll endeavour to find out for the member.
BARBARA ADAMS: For the minister’s knowledge, our Speaker of the House was there at that particular announcement, so he would be able to fill you in on that.
I’m going to stick with Fisherman’s Cove for just a minute. I have probably one of the only constituencies that, once it changes in Cole Harbour, is actually not in it. My entire constituency is surrounded by water. Fisherman’s Cove is one of the highlights of our community. I had met with members of his department to ask about paving the Fisherman’s Cove parking lot. It is extremely highly used every day even through the Winter, at night too, and there are a lot of ruts in the parking lot.
When I had a meeting with the department - it was about six months ago when they came to repair the boardwalk that is adjacent to the actual parking lot - they told me that they were going to take out the actual boards and just put gravel down. They ended up getting a 45-minute balance lecture from me on how that was going to negatively impact seniors and people with mobility issues in my community. They said that they couldn’t keep replacing boards all over the province and I said, this is the Fisherman’s Cove boardwalk so maybe you could start somewhere else or perhaps you could pave the parking lot at Fisherman’s Cove.
I have mentioned this in correspondence to your department and I’m just wondering if the minister would commit today to either examining this particular property for paving or if he would be able to commit to that today.
IAIN RANKIN: Just to reference the early question, my understanding is that the applications are going through our standard reviews, which is like the Integrated Resource Management reviews that we undertake. We are also doing coordinated Aboriginal consultation in the process. I think it’s ACOA that could be providing the funding through the federal government.
We are aware that the group that the member referenced submitted an application for a wharf boardwalk, which has since been amended to include dredging. The ACOA funding is for both aspects, and then ACOA advises the group if it should be applying for everything together, which is not what’s done initially. We don’t really have a funding mechanism for Crown and we have limited funds under our parks program. I think it’s $1.5 million per annum in our tangible capital assets.
To be candid, we really have limited funds for our 200-plus parks across the province. It’s $1 million we have annually for our TCA. We have a three-year commitment already in front of us, so it’s not that I wouldn’t like to help. It’s just the limitations of what we have in the budget before us.
BARBARA ADAMS: I understand that there are limited funds, but this was an announcement made by the federal candidate who is now re-elected as our MP. The federal government committed a certain hundreds of thousands of dollars, the province committed several hundred thousand dollars, and the municipality committed funds.
I was at the announcement; there were about 100 of us at the announcement. I just want to clarify when you say that it’s undergoing standard review. When that announcement was made, was that not a guarantee from this province for those funds for the wharf?
IAIN RANKIN: I don’t have any knowledge of that funding commitment, but we’re sending messages now to see if there is any more information I can find. The only information I have before me is that ACOA has made a commitment.
BARBARA ADAMS: I thank the minister for that answer. I’m just going to go back to the paving of the Fisherman’s Cove parking lot. As I say, it’s probably the most visited parking lot in our constituency, save for the Rainbow Haven beach parking lot. Right at the moment, within a few weeks, they’re going to start replacing a bridge that literally leads into Fisherman’s Cove and the municipality is responsible for that funding.
I haven’t had any correspondence back about whether the minister would be willing to pave that parking lot, but I’m wondering if he will entertain that as a possibility.
[8:30 p.m.]
IAIN RANKIN: I believe the funding we were just speaking to could have come from Develop Nova Scotia, so that’s not in Lands and Forestry; that’s not something we would typically do. As well, the paving is not something that we would typically entertain.
BARBARA ADAMS: Great, I appreciate that information. I’m going to travel around a little bit, to our ATV trails. I have two issues I want to bring up. I’ll start with the one closest to where I live, the Cole Harbour Parks and Trails Association. The member or his staff are certainly familiar with the back and forth emails and letters.
The situation for the rest of the members of the House is that the Cole Harbour Parks and Trails Association had a memorandum of agreement between them and the minister’s office to manage our trails. They had attempted to change the Shearwater Flyer Trail from ATV use as it is now, to non-ATV use. Of course, there was a huge outcry from the Eastern Passage residents because the trail is in Eastern Passage, but they were not consulted in the process that they should have been.
We did go back and forth and the minister did take action to stay changing that memorandum of understanding to allow it to be changed from ATV to non-ATV. But in a letter sent by Mike McFadden, who is the chair of the Cole Harbour Parks and Trails Association, he mentioned that your department was opening up a consultative process. I responded back to you, minister, with a letter approximately 10 days ago, asking when that consultative process was going to take place. The issue that happened is that Cole Harbour was aware of the actual vote that was going to take place to make it non-ATV, but the Eastern Passage side was not. They want to be sure they are included in the consultation.
I’m wondering if you can tell me when the consultative process is going to take place and how is it going to be run?
IAIN RANKIN: I don’t have a timeline on that consultation, but I do recall seeing many letters on both sides of this issue, which is not atypical with anything to do with trails and ATVs and active transportation. We, as a department, do our best to have an objective lens on the competing issues in a given community and we will do the same, following our community consultation that takes place.
What I can say is that the Eastern Passage side, or whatever side the member thinks may not be included in the consultation, we’ll make sure that they are.
BARBARA ADAMS: I appreciate that; that’s exactly what I had been advocating for. I would appreciate it if the minister’s department would let me know, at their earliest convenience, as to when that is going to start.
I actually want to go back - I’m thinking geographically - to Fisherman’s Cove for a second. I’m wondering if the minister can tell me exactly how much the Fisherman’s Cove assets are worth, in terms of dollar value, for the Heritage Centre and all of the museum that’s part of it, as well as all the shops that are on that area. I’m just wondering what is the total value of that asset to the province?
IAIN RANKIN: Again, the specifics on Crown land evaluation, I don’t have before me, but we can get that. I know if there is any consideration to paving that TIR would be the appropriate department to speak to. We are more focused on the boardwalk.
I have some notes here. The project that I know she is aware of - that was a combination of Develop Nova Scotia, ACOA and HRM. They are the partners and those would be the entities to speak to. This is about building a new wharf to accommodate passengers going to McNabs Island and that’s why it’s something Develop Nova Scotia is doing, through the tourism interests they have and looking at a long-term vision to access Eastern Passage and the Eastern Shore.
That’s the information I have before me, but we can get more specifics on the asset valuation.
BARBARA ADAMS: I’m wondering if the minister can tell me an approximate number of assets around the same value as the Fisherman’s Cove area that are being managed by non-profit organizations in the province.
IAIN RANKIN: Again, these are very specific questions that I wouldn’t have before me for Estimates. We are making some notes but it would be helpful if the member can put some of this stuff in writing in one letter to me and we’ll endeavour to get the best information for you.
BARBARA ADAMS: Just one last question on Fisherman’s Cove. I have had some constituents contact me because they are aware that the Fisherman’s Cove area is managed by a non-profit. When you look on the website for where you file your financials at the Registry of Joint Stocks you can see changes to the board of directors when financial statements are submitted. The last time financials have been submitted for Rainbow Haven is 2018 but those 2018 financials are from 2016.
I am aware that the requirement for all non-profits is to submit their financials on a yearly basis, but it’s been four years. I am just wondering if the minister is aware of that and if that is something that happens to non-profits that are managing provincial assets.
IAIN RANKIN: That is accurate, that the obligation is on them to file each year so that’s another item that we’ll follow-up with.
BARBARA ADAMS: Terrific. Thank you very much, I really appreciate that. I want to go out to the ATV groups on the Eastern Shore. There is the Gaetz Brook Trail that SATA has the memorandum of understanding about and just like we have competing groups between the Cole Harbour and Eastern Passage ATVers - I was at a meeting sometime in July or August, I’m not sure. but there were several hundred people there. Those from SATA who had the memorandum were there, and those who wanted the trail to be made open to ATVs.
People were calling on the minister from that area to help mediate this process. One of the suggestions I made was that if people want to be involved in how trails are managed, they can join the associations that manage those trails. That’s the democratic process.
I mentioned that that night and, almost immediately, SATA suspended their membership ability. They said they suspended it because they were going to wait until their annual general meeting where they could change their bylaws. You’ve got a group that’s been given a memorandum of understanding that is supposed to be open to all people in the community interested in those trails, and they suspended membership.
I went to the AGM to observe and when I got there, there were five of them who stood there to make sure that I didn’t come into the room, because I wasn’t a member. I said, well I tried to be a member but you blocked membership.
I’m all about fairness. Democracy should be ruling but in this case they suspended membership deliberately, for months. Once they changed their bylaws, in order to take out a membership to SATA, you have to tick a little box online that says that you are in favour of non-motorized trails. That doesn’t feel democratic to me. That feels like you are biasing membership only to those who believe the same thing you do.
I wrote to the minister about this and I pointed it out, that it doesn’t seem democratic to me. The minister indicated he wasn’t willing to look at that membership process but it’s so important to the people of that community, so I just wanted to raise it here and get the minister’s thoughts on it. There are several hundred people who care about these trails and the fact that membership to a group that the minister has given a memorandum of understanding for has deliberately blocked anyone who would oppose their wishes doesn’t seem democratic. I would ask the minister to comment on that.
IAIN RANKIN: To be clear, in these matters that can be divisive in communities, my role isn’t to choose one side or another. I am agnostic in terms of what a community decides for their trails. When there are community groups that bring forward an application for a letter of authority, we treat them all consistently in looking at what they’re proposing. That’s why we get a consultant to do the community consultation, which is online, which is available.
That specific community showed great interest in keeping active transportation limitations on that trail because of a range of reasons - kids walking to school regularly on that path is one that comes to mind. There are other considerations. Of course, that’s not what every community wants to see, but that’s the challenge when we take on the competing issues of regular motorized use versus active transportation use. Whenever we make a decision to grant a letter of authority, there are always significant numbers on the other side that wouldn’t agree, necessarily, with the direction of that decision. That particular community group has made no secret that their intent and focus is on active transportation, so it doesn’t really surprise me that they would have a requirement for their membership to support the whole intention of that group.
BARBARA ADAMS: Although I always appreciate the minister’s quick responses, I don’t always necessarily agree with them. I had two different sides of my community - one wanting one thing, and one wanting another - I’m not imposing my personal preference.
As a physiotherapist, I want everybody moving more - I count my steps every day. With all due respect, though, if we’re going to give the process and the consultation to be fair, then the consultative processes needed to be fair and the group that has the letter of authority should not be given a distinct advantage. If you have a membership that has excluded anyone with a differing opinion, you have not levelled the playing field. You have completely biased it, 100 per cent, in favour of one group over another. You’ve already determined the outcome.
I’ve met with the group a number of times, including just this past weekend, and they asked me to ask you about the consultation process because they have tried to FOIPOP the actual report that was prepared. They maintain that they’ve only been able to see the executive summary, so I’m not sure if it is public knowledge but they haven’t been able to find it, nor have I. The one concern that they raised, and this is a number of people, is that the consultative process that was done did not include public consultation. It included stakeholders but not the actual public in the way that you would have a town hall meeting and you would allow everybody to say what they had to say.
So, I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on that report and if he’d be willing to supply it, as well as whether he can comment on whether there was actually public consultation or just stakeholder consultation.
IAIN RANKIN: Stakeholder consultation is a form of public consultation. That’s the process that we have to look at - considering different groups and what they’re proposing.
In this particular circumstance, we know that there was interest submitted from an ATV interest group, and that would have been evaluated. Again, objectively, with the proposal that we authorized to the group that advocates for active transportation, I think if you consider that over 90 per cent of the trails in the province are indeed mixed use and do allow motorized access, I think it would be fair to say that the department supports multi-use trails. In this circumstance, the evidence showed that there was strong community support for this particular trail to be limited to active transportation use.
That was the recommendation by a group that didn’t have a stake in this, and that’s why it’s important that we make a decision based on what’s provided during the stakeholder review of what’s being provided, the capacity for a volunteer organization to actually adhere to the letter of authority and the decision was made in this circumstance to allow for an active transportation trail.
[8:45 p.m.]
BARBARA ADAMS: I just have one question and then after your answer I’ll make one comment. How old was that consultation report?
IAIN RANKIN: I’m being told it’s approximately three years, which predates my time in the department.
BARBARA ADAMS: Given that it is at least three years old, I’m going to politely suggest that there is a big difference between stakeholder meetings, and consultation and meetings with the public. I’ve been part of dozens of stakeholder groups who all have a specific vested interest and a bias, whereas the public itself, they’re not pigeonholed into one or another.
I think it’s important for the minister to recognize that there is a huge group out there who do want this trail opened up to ATVs. I think the minister should reconsider the consultative process that took place and perhaps just simply have another town hall meeting with the minister attends - or somebody from his department attends.
Certainly the one that I attended had over 300 people there. I can tell you the majority of the people in that room wanted it open to ATVs. I think, depending on how you do something, you can skew the numbers one way or the other. I’m just wanting it to be fair and open and transparent.
With that, Madam Chair, I’m going to turn the next part of the time over to the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
LARRY HARRISON: The minister knows that I have five mills in my constituency. Since Northern Pulp is gone, each one is struggling, trying to find a way to keep going and not to lay off people, and so on.
I do want to ask a question on one of these mills. It is the Taylor Lumber Company in Middle Musquodoboit. They have a biomass cogeneration power plant - is that being considered by the minister?
IAIN RANKIN: I’m well aware of the concentration of sawmills around the member’s area. I visited most, if not all, including Taylor Lumber. I had many discussions with Robert and his sons and daughter. They do great work at that facility. The member’s right about the cogeneration - they were really pioneers in developing that some time ago. They have some diversification, although some of the chips were going to Northern Pulp.
They were impacted, but they do have the cogeneration that allows for power to be fed out through the utility. They did ask for a meeting to consider an expansion of the use of that. I just asked if that meeting has been set up. We’re not sure if it has, but I look forward to future discussions with Taylor and the good work that they do.
LARRY HARRISON: You’re right. I’ve had a number of discussions with that family. I know years ago when they set it up, they offered to help the community with some power but were refused that years ago. Right now, I think they’re suggesting that there are two local schools and two Department of Lands and Forestry buildings within a five kilometre radius. I’m wondering if that is a possibility - if they did the expansion, that they would be fed by that particular biomass plant?
IAIN RANKIN: Thank you for the question. That’s exactly the type of vision that we’re looking for in the province. That’s very much a consideration that we are already engaged with. There are opportunities there because the system exists, and the challenge would be the underground infrastructure that would be required, so the pipes that would actually carry the hot water out to various buildings, and then send the cold water back. That is the future, I think, of using that low-value type of product and residuals from sawmills like the one the member references.
We will be, and already have been, working - the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal is the main department that needs to look at what happens with that under the roadbed, and because they deal with infrastructure and what happens with the schools the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development will be looking at that. So, we do have a specific project team that looks at biomass, and they’re the ones who put together tenders for the six public buildings. We are engaged already in looking at that as a possibility, so I look forward to the meeting with that mill and others.
LARRY HARRISON: Thank you, minister. I’ll be anxious to hear how that meeting goes for the plant.
Just one other question: Has the pellet mill in Upper Musquodoboit been affected by Northern Pulp in any way?
IAIN RANKIN: We’ve had many discussions with the operator of that facility, looking at how we can potentially support growth in that particular pellet mill. That is one of the type of products you can make from the low-value stuff coming from sawmills. They did see supply challenges, for sure, from the closure of Northern Pulp, but they’re one of the companies in the province that has expertise in exporting those types of pellets.
Whether it’s that pellet mill or expanding that mill or other pellet potential projects in the province, we would look to that operator to provide expertise to help how we move around that type of product, logistically, and looking at exporting out that to different markets globally.
LARRY HARRISON: I just want to wish the department all the best in trying to sort out all the things that are converging on the department at this time. So, good luck in the future.
THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cumberland South.
TORY RUSHTON: As my colleague just mentioned, it is a major time of change, and we do recognize this department is very busy. I guess in my opening question, when I welcomed the minister’s staff, I was a bit oblivious to staff who are present in the gallery as well. I’d like to welcome them here this evening, also here to support the minister.
My next question to the minister is in and around Crown lands. Last year, when we met during this budget process, I believe the minister stated that there was $1.6 million going out in acquiring new lands under Crown. I’m just wondering if the department is going to be sourcing any new land this year during I guess what would be called March Madness, for lack of a better term? Are we going to be acquiring any more lands this year?
IAIN RANKIN: Our budget remains the million and a half each year for purchasing land for our Crown inventory. We have spent that for this year, so there will be no more purchases for that.
We’re just finalizing the cohort for our Office of Aboriginal Affairs, which is that land that we purchased on their behalf for an accord that will be signed at a future date. Each year we have an allotment of $1 million as well for that, which we get advice and support from the Mi'kmaq - the KMKNO provides their priorities of land they want to see, so we continue each year to spend that.
We’ve already spent the $1.5 million this year and we’re getting close to spending the $1 million for the Mi'kmaq.
TORY RUSHTON: I thank the minister for that response; I have a follow-up question to that. If there were a resident of Nova Scotia who would have a parcel of woodland that maybe, with the changes going on, they would want the department to enter into an agreement on a purchase, how would that resident go about that, to offer that and maybe come into a conversation with the department?
IAIN RANKIN: The application is available online for Nova Scotians to go through that process. If they need assistance, they would be able to contact our staff who would be able to walk them through that process.
TORY RUSHTON: Is any of that land that we acquired as a province this year scheduled to be part of the protected land that we’re striving towards that goal?
IAIN RANKIN: We already have a parks and protected areas plan that we predominantly look to for candidates for protection and there is still, I’d say, over 50,000 hectares in that list of potential protection, so we have a base to look to. At this juncture we’re committed to protecting 13 per cent.
Currently, once we finish consultation on the seven pieces that are out right now for consultation, that will put us at 12.75 per cent. The area to get to 13 per cent is less than what is in the candidate’s list.
What I can say is that when we do purchase land in the province, there are different priorities that we have. That is broken down as follows: 50 per cent is for strategic forestry land; 25 per cent is to support our parks - that could be additions to parks, connectivity and those types of things; 20 per cent is for biodiversity considerations so that could be a list of features, the coastal type land, sensitive wetlands, those types of things; and the remaining 5 per cent goes to general goals and values of the department. That is the general scope and framework when we’re looking at prioritizing land for advancement for a purchase.
If we’re speaking to the theme of conservation, we do have value set on the biodiversity features. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be set aside for a nature reserve wilderness area or a provincial park, which is the legal designation for protected areas, but there are various ways that we can help protect sensitive ecosystems, our existing legislation around species at risk or looking at special management zones and those types of things. At this juncture, again, our commitment to get to 13 per cent, we do have enough Crown land in our current inventory.
TORY RUSHTON: With the ongoing changes and wanting to maintain some of our forests in Nova Scotia, does the province still operate a tree nursery?
IAIN RANKIN: Yes, we do have the Strathlorne Nursery in Cape Breton. Yes.
TORY RUSHTON: Further to that question, how many seedlings or trees would the province put in the ground to grow a forest in the run of a year, roughly?
IAIN RANKIN: It is based on orders. We have approximately around three million to four million planted each year.
TORY RUSHTON: We know that Northern Pulp operated a tree nursery in Debert and in an given year it was around six million trees that Northern Pulp would put into the ground with their process and taking care of their land - not just their land, it was also for contractors’ land and small woodlot owners.
Has the department been in discussion with Northern Pulp to possibly maintain that nursery? Not just for the trees - I mean, that’s of big importance, but it’s also part of the economy for that small community in Debert.
[9:00 p.m.]
IAIN RANKIN: This is a similar conversation that we had with silviculture in that they have to supplement some of the investments that large company was making around forestry and the growing of trees, otherwise known as silviculture. They did invest $4 million in silviculture, which we’ve replenished through our investments that the transition team made as a priority. That helps keep that capacity going.
Likewise, with the growing of seedlings, the member’s figure is what I understand to be accurate as well: about six million seedlings would be planted by Northern Pulp. Those discussions are ongoing. It makes sense to help in that regard. With the increased investment in silviculture, which includes the category of planting, it would make sense for us to look at purchasing those. We’ll be looking at that and I’ll get a more conclusive answer once that’s finalized.
TORY RUSHTON: I know government doesn’t hear this on a regular basis, but thank you to the minister for that answer. We certainly would encourage that and enjoy to hear that those six million trees are still going to go back into our land here in Nova Scotia.
Let’s spin back a little bit to the biomass projects. I believe the tender closed today or will close tomorrow - sometime right around this time. The minister and I have had conversations this sitting actually, one-on-one, and I believe we’re both on the same board with these biomass burners and the heating facility. I believe the example would be taken from what P.E.I. is doing with theirs. I’ve had the chance to visit one of the P.E.I. facilities and talk extensively to one of the operators.
I’m just wondering what the minister and his department envision this roll-out to look like. The reason for asking that is, we sat in the same position last year and I know the minister was hopeful that those facilities would be up and running for this current heating season. I’m looking to see what that roll-out’s going to look like over the next period of a few months, as that tender closes.
IAIN RANKIN: We do have the tender closing for the initial public buildings. There’s six across the province, which will be evaluated in short order. It’s my expectation that we would, at minimum, have at least that amount for the following heating season. I expect it to go well based on best practices that I’ve seen on the ground, as the member references, in Prince Edward Island. Given that we’re utilizing the same model and that we have a lot of private woodlot owners looking for markets, I think that we can expect some success and potential to grow out into district-energy-type projects. We’re already engaging municipalities in that discussion. Potentially looking at some of our institutions, I think, would be prudent.
As well, I’ve asked staff to consult with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal - the lead on constructing new assets for our consideration - for these types of systems to be incorporated in any new buildings. These are the types of discussions that are ongoing.
I’d like to thank members that have been bringing this to my attention since I’ve been in the department. The member for Colchester North and the member for Clare-Digby have been very strong pushing for this - I know members in the Opposition also support this. I think that’s good because not all Nova Scotians completely understand the value when you use locally-sourced wood.
It’s a renewable resource. If it’s close in proximity and we have these highly efficient systems that are very modern, that replace archaic oil systems in some of these buildings that are importing from the Middle East, and the transport costs, I think it’s a good investment both for our economics and for supporting local communities, and also good for the environment. I think we are all on the same page on this one in moving this out. We will continue to talk about any other opportunities we see that present themselves.
TORY RUSHTON: As this rolls out into different parts of the province, is the department looking for one sole provider of the biomass to these facilities, or is it going to be divided up into the different areas where these burners are actually at?
IAIN RANKIN: This is where market forces really will dictate where supply comes from. Primarily it is to support private woodlot owners. That’s the model that has existed in P.E.I. The companies that are successful on the tender - it would be left to them to find the material.
We know that there is a lot of interest from private woodlot owners. We know that they have been advocating for this for some time and I’m sure they actually did encourage members to go visit P.E.I. to see how that system works. Having already the expertise on how that works, knowing what type of material that’s being provided to these systems, I think gives them a clear advantage in terms of being able to provide a supply to these types of buildings.
It really is moving forward in helping mitigate climate change, along with investments that we’ve made in programs like solar energy and wind that has been developed across the province. It’s just one more avenue. It is meeting a recommendation in the Lahey report, and I think it will help find markets for these low-value products across the province.
TORY RUSHTON: I enjoy the excitement in the conversation about these projects. I’m curious, with the outlook that this is going to be a positive project for the province, once we do get it up and running, has the department or even the transition team talked to our federal counterparts to see if there are any federal buildings that would meet the scope that we could actually work on with our federal counterparts and switch over from those fossil fuels that we’re heating federal buildings with, and take part in this whole project in our province.
IAIN RANKIN: Certainly, that’s exactly why we have ACOA sitting on our interdepartmental team for this project. Of course, this would be a good opportunity for them to invest in a low-carbon alternative for their buildings, if there is funding as well; we’ve had that discussion.
I think this fits well with their direction on climate change mitigation. We’ll continue to have those discussions as we move forward. We also have other discussions around the bio-economy and the investments we made with the Innovation Hub, so it’s not just heating for public buildings. That’s one part. There are a number of other opportunities in front of us and using that low-value product.
The key now is the urgency around finding those markets. That’s why the transition team has been working to put those programs together, to keep the capacity in that supply chain, to keep workers on the ground and keep the contractors working in the forests throughout the province so that we can come to realization that there are opportunities out there for this sector to thrive in the province.
We have great people working across the province at the sawmills. I had the opportunity to visit many of them over the last year-and-a-half and I appreciate the work that they’re doing. I think that the projects and the innovation that we have seen, we can only build upon. We have opportunities here domestically with our own public buildings, with the federal buildings that the member is referencing. We have opportunities for exports because people around the world look to Nova Scotia, and Canada in general, in terms of our environmental regulations, which are stronger than other jurisdictions.
Although there are challenges and I fully recognize that, we do have to remain optimistic in how we can work together to get through this period of anxiety and uncertainty and see the horizon, that there is strong opportunity for this sector in the province.
TORY RUSHTON: In the budget process, there’s a line item there about expenses. In 2019-20, the department exceeded the budget due to additional funding in the forestry transition incentives of $2 million. Could the minister explain what that $2 million was?
IAIN RANKIN: That’s part of the $7 million that has been committed to for the silviculture and roadwork program that we announced from the transition team - one of the earlier programs. That overlaps two fiscal years and that’s why $2 million is coming out of this fiscal year. That’s the money that we were able to get out the door and the remaining $5 million would come out of the next year’s budget.
That’s exactly why that $50 million that we put in a trust has been put in a trust, so that it doesn’t fluctuate from year to year. It’s a full $50 million commitment that’s above and beyond some of the money that we’ve committed to, including that $7 million for silviculture and Crown roads and private roads.
TORY RUSHTON: Also in that line item of expenditures, it speaks about damage from Hurricane Dorian. Is there a number on that as to what that was? I’m assuming that was on parks, the damage, and what the number may have been.
IAIN RANKIN: Correct, there are overages, of course, for that event. It’s about $600,000 or $700,000 total, and the majority of that cost, about $450,000, relates to overtime for staff work, to ensure the parks were all cleaned up and everything.
TORY RUSHTON: I obviously can’t speak for the whole province, as I didn’t get around to the whole province after Hurricane Dorian, but I do know parks locally in my area, as like every park in the province after the hurricane, they were closed. One in particular was Wentworth. The gate closed on Wentworth - it never reopened to the public, but I did see staff in there on a regular basis. Does the minister anticipate all parks to be reopened, or is there still some of that damage that needs to be recovered after the hurricane?
IAIN RANKIN: There’s an expectation that all our parks would be open. There could be some trails that aren’t open yet, but eventually we will be able to deal with all aspects of our parks.
TORY RUSHTON: Out of that number that was shared about the overtime and the damage to the parks through the clean-up, is any of that going to be able to be recouped from the federal disaster relief?
IAIN RANKIN: Through EMO we’ve been able to recoup about $200,000, and then EMO is actually the one that’s compensated through the federal government for that fund. It’s about $200,000, effectively, that will be recouped from the federal government.
TORY RUSHTON: Being from the profession prior to being elected to this House, I know the minister is very proud of being able to share some of our fire suppression services with what’s going on in the rest of the world. Does the minister anticipate any costs that are going to be incurred provincially for that travel over there? Maybe this would give a chance for the minister to speak about those services that we’re sharing with the rest of the world - how that whole process works out and lets Nova Scotia sort of lead the charge on a system with that.
IAIN RANKIN: Indeed, any time our firefighters that are engaged outside of the jurisdiction, both in Canada and exterior, we do recoup that cost fully. I’m very proud of the work that the firefighters from Nova Scotia had been doing in Australia specifically, but also in the past year in some of our sister provinces like Ontario. We’ve been able to send a crew out and we are always called because of the expertise and the training that the firefighters get in this province is second to none, I understand. We’re always there to step up, and I certainly encourage Nova Scotians to give them a hand for the work that they do because it is dangerous, in many circumstances.
[9:15 p.m.]
In Australia, I know they did some management stuff there, as well as being right on the front lines. There are still some out there that have yet to come home, so I look forward to welcoming them back home.
TORY RUSHTON: Staying on the same theme - when I was fire chief and the call volume came down, I always touted the fact that it was because of a very good fire prevention program that I would run within my own fire department. As the minister would know, forest fires in Nova Scotia have come down. I believe it’s an opportunity for the Province to tout the fact that we have a good fire prevention program.
Is there anything new coming within the fire prevention program this coming year? Is there any other fire protection that we are going to be sending to Australia in the next few weeks?
IAIN RANKIN: I think I heard the last part - is there any more going to Australia? That’s a no - they haven’t requested any more to go out that way. The former part of the question, we are undertaking a new initiative this year, which is a commitment to work with virtually all the Indigenous reserves across the province to create a program of prevention in all those communities. I think that’s a pretty exciting thing to add to the list of many prevention programs that we do with municipalities, with schools and with community groups.
TORY RUSHTON: For the last three hours, I’ve been putting questions forward to the department and greatly appreciate the communications back and forth. It has certainly been a rough six months leading up to the eleventh hour, if you will. I know every MLA in this House has been receiving calls and things of that nature.
Rural Nova Scotia, especially - I know it’s impacting many people. Many people say, the effects of what took place with the closure of Northern Pulp really doesn’t affect me if we’re in the urban area, but the true fact is that it’s affecting all Nova Scotians. There are different views on different sides of the House, but at the end of the day, we truly do have the heart of Nova Scotia and these rural economies and the foresters at hand.
It has been a hard few months for a lot of people. I just wanted to take the time to recognize that and thank the minister and his staff for this conversation.
THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the PC caucus. I’ll turn it over to the NDP.
The honourable member for Halifax Needham.
LISA ROBERTS: It’s a pleasure to be back in this room. I’ve popped in a few times and I hope I’m not going to ask exactly the same questions that you’ve already answered, but I was doing double duty - also in the Red Room a bit.
The minister would know that as a result of dominant harvesting practices over the last century, perhaps, or maybe more, Nova Scotia’s forests have become significantly younger than they once were. For example, in 1958, 34 per cent of Nova Scotia’s forests were between 61 and 80 years of age. In 1995, that proportion had dropped to 11 per cent and is likely even lower now.
Does the department have targets relating to the age of Nova Scotia’s forests? When might we be back to 20 per cent of forests at 61 to 80 years of age, for example?
IAIN RANKIN: It’s always a challenge to pinpoint specifics around exact ages across the province. Some of the LiDAR work that we’re doing will help us capture some of that work. This year, in 2020, we’ll be able to capture 100 per cent of the province.
One of the recommendations we’re following is the State of the Forest report that will be out within the year. That will also provide some insight into the different ages of our province.
I think I mentioned to the member that we have 430,000 hectares that are considered old forest, so around the 100-year age or higher. That’s following the policy we have, which is 30 per cent of the basal area being an average age of 100 years. Then we have some old growth in the province that’s even older than that.
What I can say is that the whole intent behind the Lahey report is to maintain and, to the extent that we can, restore that multi-age compilation of the forest and ensure that we’re protecting those types of trees that are native to the Acadian forest or multi-age, mixed-state species forest. That’s what we’re doing with our interim guidelines to ensure there is more retention of those types of species. Because of the centuries, and it has been mentioned that over time high grading really was the modus operandi of the day, over time that did contribute to some of the younger type of forest you see that is filled with more of the short-lived types of species that we see in many of the stands across the province. Unfortunately, that makes it almost a snowball effect because when they are going through the pre-treatment assessment, they tend to be keyed-out to a type of even-age management or a clear-cut.
Looking at the new guide, at the new matrix part of the triad, and ensuring that there’s a lot more partial harvesting and attention given to retaining those long-lived, shade-tolerant species, like red spruce or yellow birch or sugar maple and those types of species, that’s how we’re going to begin to shift to maintaining those trees that have a longer lifespan.
Again, that comes full circle with what we’ve been speaking to much of tonight; that low-value product. When you are thinning out that material, getting it to markets and continuing to do that, it doesn’t work unless you have markets for that type of material. That is the challenge that is in front of us with no longer having a major business and a market like Northern Pulp taking that material and ensuring that we have a market.
What I can say is we have been reducing our reliance on that even-age management, and I do know one figure that is important to note. Over time the reduction - and it’s important to look from a landscape perspective and not just on Crown land because Crown land is only 35 per cent of the province. In 1997, 67,000 hectares were clear-cut. There has been a reduction over time to a historic low. The last year we have stats for is 2018, which is 23,000 hectares.
That’s where I think we, as members and the public, should be giving credit where credit is due to the sector. Sometimes they feel they’re being criticized for not adhering to protecting the environment and sustainability of our forests but there has been progress made and the reliance on clear-cutting has drastically reduced, especially in the last couple of years. I think those are big number reductions, in terms of the retention, even in the last year when it was required to retain only 2 per cent to 5 per cent of for wildlife clumps and now in a lot of these mixed stands they are retaining 30 per cent of the most valued trees for biodiversity, and not just that but other wildlife features, like snags or different types of trees that are important for species at risk.
There has been progress and there should be more progress coming out. That’s why I think it’s important to recognize the work that has been done and what we’ll continue to do to move forward with the sector, to ensure we are recognizing all the externalities in issue management around Northern Pulp but ensuring that we have a sustainable and a healthier forest in the long run.
LISA ROBERTS: Thank you for that answer. Little brown bats are listed as endangered, under the Endangered Species Act. Their populations have been severely impacted by white nose syndrome. They often rely on old forests and dead, hollow trees.
What specific actions is the Department of Lands and Forestry taking to ensure protection of populations of little brown bats as per the Endangered Species Act?
IAIN RANKIN: We’ve been doing a lot of work around species at risk as of late, putting the recovery teams together, as the member likely knows. We’ve had a number of sessions in the last couple of weeks, so we fully committed to implementing the recommendation in the Lahey report, as well as the Auditor General’s report, looking at improving our work around species at risk.
With respect to the bats that the member references, we do a lot of work with universities - both Saint Mary’s and some work with Acadia - to identify habitat to ensure that we know where that is. We continue to work with our academic community and ensure that we protect that. As the member knows, under the Act it’s illegal to disturb habitat for any species at risk, and we continue to do our due diligence around ensuring that the Act is adhered to.
LISA ROBERTS: Does the minister have a timeline for the outstanding provincial recovery plans and status reports to be complete, and will they be made available publicly?
IAIN RANKIN: All the recovery plans are with those recovery teams that I referenced. They’re all drafted and awaiting approval. All recovery teams have been appointed and have met at least once. That’s the work that we’ve been working on very diligently, especially within the last year when we committed to the recommendation in the report. We’ve actually also hired two additional wildlife biologists to have that as their primary focus in the department. We’re committed to continuing down that path as we identify more work with regards to the recovery plans.
LISA ROBERTS: Thank you for that answer. I’m recalling - and maybe the minister and the deputy minister will recall more clearly - an incident this Spring where there was an approved cut where it was because of the actions of a citizen that there was footage taken of nesting birds. I believe that particular cut was postponed or disallowed as a result.
I am frequently contacted by citizens - as I’m sure you are - who are particularly stewarding particular parts of the province, including for habitat of endangered species. What would the minister say about the role that citizens are playing and whether that is acceptable to the department, that citizens are having to play that role? Maybe it’s just that we have a big forest, and there are a lot of places and the minister’s staff can’t be everywhere.
IAIN RANKIN: Of course, we would encourage any time there is data that the public can provide to us. It has to follow a recognized protocol when identifying species at risk. I think the area that the member is referencing is probably Corbett-Dalhousie Lake, where there was concern around that particular piece - chimney swifts, I recall, were seen flying in the area. The picture that was submitted was a magnolia warbler, which is actually not a species at risk. That was the nest. Subsequently we’ve sent staff out and our biologists to double-check to see if there was species at risk habitat.
Again, the warbler wasn’t species at risk; the chimney swift is indeed, but there’s no habitat in the area. It’s a bird that - and this is common across Nova Scotia - species at risk could travel through and throughout areas but doesn’t necessarily mean habitat is there. Still, to date, we do not have records of species at risk in that particular area. If there were, we would make modified plans.
[9:30 p.m.]
That’s why we have the pre-treatment assessment and we do that integrated resource management study to try to find if there are species at risk, which we are committed to augmenting with the Lahey report, with special focus around species at risk, taking a closer look. Of course, any time the public has that type of information that only helps us do the work that we want to do. Of course, Nova Scotians feel very strongly about the forests and protecting conservation or even just recreation or different ways that people use the forests for hunting, those types of activities.
Again, it is about trying to make sure that we are looking for the overall public interest. That’s why we protect land and we protected over 100 sites from the Our Parks and Protected Areas plan, but citizens continue to bring up new sites - usually around where they live - that they’d like to see protected. That’s just one of them but I would say that most regions of the province have similar-type sites that have various biodiversity features that they’d like to see protected, so we do our best as government to ensure that we’re listening to those voices. At the same time, we’re valuing the contribution of an industry like forestry and the requirement to find the timber to go to our family-run sawmills that provide opportunity for Nova Scotians and that provide the materials we use every day.
LISA ROBERTS: I would like to ask a few questions about the discussion paper recently released on high-production forestry. The paper emphasises converting abandoned farmland and similar sites in order to find the necessary landscape territory for high-production forestry. How is the productivity of abandoned farmland assessed?
IAIN RANKIN: We have our own soil specialist in the department, Dr. Kevin Keys, who would be looking at that, in conjunction with some of the soil index information and data sets that we have at the Department of Agriculture for that particular set of criteria. These high-production forestry criteria are out for public consultation and that’s where we can engage the public on their feedback on what they think of the criteria proposed by our internal and external experts on this file.
We had Dr. Thom Erdle and Dr. Graham Forbes from the University of New Brunswick working on this with our internal staff, who are very qualified to look at what are the best pieces of land. That is one piece of the criteria - also proximity to two different areas that help, in terms of where the sawmills actually are for economic reasons. Looking at other types of criteria, what makes sense to grow more trees on less of the landscapes so we can get higher, more biodiversity features protected in the general landscape.
LISA ROBERTS: Some have argued, in the Chronicle Herald for example, that forest restoration on abandoned farmland is a very slow process and one that does not easily result in stands of desirable species. What has convinced you that these areas will become productive if they are cropped frequently?
IAIN RANKIN: This is why we’re at the early stage of consultation, which is available online until March 13th. Once we gather that feedback, which we value, we would put those types of remarks to our experts who I referenced, but also the targeted group, to get thoughts and see what they think of that.
I would note that at one time about 70 per cent of the landscape of the province was completely cleared for that agriculture use and has since come back into forests across the province. Now the forests are about 75 per cent, so some of that has returned into more of a forest, some of it is healthy and mixed-age, multi-species-type natural across the province in different regions, different eco-sites.
I’m not prepared to say exactly what we’re going to land at as a final document because it’s really early on. That’s the whole intent of getting the public feedback, but I think once we consider some of the submissions and we look at the science within our department and within academia, we’ll be able to come to a good conclusion before that document is finalized.
LISA ROBERTS: I do appreciate that this is a paper that’s currently out there for feedback and so the plans are still evolving. The paper explains that 333,000 hectares of Crown land will be available for high production forestry, and then asks or invites people to compare that with the total land mass of the province, 5.5 million hectares. It seems more helpful to compare that figure to the total working forest in the province, which is more like 3 million hectares. Is it correct to anticipate that 11 per cent of the working forest would be allocated for high production forestry?
IAIN RANKIN: This is very early, and this is a very preliminary number to look at what is possible to be allocated for this particular leg of the triad system. What is clear in the Lahey report and what we’ve endorsed is that the leg of the triad that would have the largest percentage would be the matrix leg of the triad. That’s where there would be very limited even-age-type management and mostly irregular-type shelterwood, partial harvesting with very high retention. The smallest part of the triad, along with the conservation leg of the triad would be around the high production side.
That’s the whole idea, really - and I know the member knows this - that we can have more ecological protection in the greater landscape. This is a starting point. I wouldn’t get caught up on that exact number and start doing math on percentages until we clarify what the criteria will be in the end, and then we start selecting sites.
LISA ROBERTS: In the Lahey report, it was suggested that private landowners would have to step up to the plate in order to sustain production. With the closure of Northern Pulp, obviously we don’t have same demand for production that we had, but is there still an anticipation that high production forestry will be required from private landowners?
IAIN RANKIN: Our focus is on Crown public land, and that is in line with the focus of the actual report. The majority of the 45 recommendations are around Crown land. Two-thirds of those recommendations are significantly under way and making progress with another seven of those recommendations in the early planning stages.
We’re making great progress. We followed the theme of that in ensuring that we’re engaging Nova Scotians because public land is just that. There are multiple values people put on that - recreation, conservation and, yes, for industry. In doing that, we have private woodland owners at the table with us at the advisory committee, where we’re discussing sequencing of those recommendations. They will have that option of looking at the work that we are undertaking on Crown land to see if it can be emulated on private land.
I know the member probably knows the quote from Professor Lahey, that there would be a reduction of supply on Crown land, which would mean there would have to be an increase on private to compensate for that. We don’t know exactly what that looks like at this early stage - again, to reference the quote that he said, that the work you’ll see under way won’t really be able to be visualized until 15 years out.
This is a paradigm shift that’s not happening overnight. There are a number of management issues across the province, like Northern Pulp’s hibernation. We don’t know for sure if that’s happening in perpetuity. We’ll be monitoring that, but there are other aspects happening in the bioeconomy that we’ll be watching for.
We’re committed to the Lahey report in advancing those recommendations, especially the ones that are foundational in setting up the triad approach to begin with, so that we can fully adopt the concept of ecological forestry. We’ll see what happens with supply. We do know that there’s already been a reduction of supply based on the reduction of clear-cutting, based on the retention, and that does present challenges for industry.
That’s why we do have industry at the table, to discuss opportunities because there is an opportunity once this is fully implemented. I’ve spoken directly with some of the authors. In the short term, we do see a reduction. However if managed properly, we actually have an opportunity to get an increase of supply if it’s set up the right way, with the high-production leg mitigating some of the loss.
Once you have healthier forests in the matrix side of the triad system, you’re actually able to nurture better growth within the system and better species. That’s where you’re going to be able to get more revenue from higher-value products. Speaking to opportunities around mass timber, now that the federal government has looked at updating the building code to allow for 12-storey buildings made of wood, we know there are private sector partners looking at that opportunity. There are different products that could be made from that and looking at all the different range of value-add-type products that are in infant stages, looking at the Innovation Hub, which we support.
This is really a long discussion in terms of how we transition the industry into a more sustainable one that benefits both the industry, the revenue for sawmills in the long run and the health of the forest.
IAIN RANKIN: That is, using herbicides is one of the categories for silviculture, one of the many. We have said that we accept that that actually helps productivity on the high-production leg of the triad. We have said in our response that we will not be funding that, so that’s one area of disagreement we had with the report, but we do believe that allowing for something like that is a trade-off, so that it provides more opportunity to get better productivity, which results in more timber supply off of a smaller part of the landscape. Again, that allows for greater protection and conservation on the greater part of the landscape. That is something that we have accepted.
It wasn’t a priority for us until we get some advancement of some of the core recommendations around Forest Management Guide, around the peer-review of natural disturbance regimes, around setting up a longer-term assessment equivalent to the Class 2 environmental assessment when we are looking for long-term forest agreements. Those are the types of initiatives that are well under way, that we need to see advancement on before we can actually make some conclusive decisions around where exactly the high-production land is set up, and then we can start talking about potential herbicide application as part of a full silviculture-type program.
LISA ROBERTS: The Lahey report drew attention to the fact that current legislation governing forest management puts too much emphasis on production, and he recommended revising the Crown Lands Act and the Forests Act to change the emphasis to stewardship. Is there a timeline, and where are we in the process toward acting on that recommendation?
IAIN RANKIN: That was another recommendation that we’ve committed to. It wasn’t as high a priority to finalize as the other recommendations I’ve referenced many times this evening, but we do have work under way to reviewing the Act. There are administrative changes directly recommended in that report that are long overdue because the Act hasn’t been amended in some time, there will be some public consultation around that, and then probably to come in around 2021 for an amendment to the Crown Lands Act is our goal.
It’s not a deadline; I’m loath to have a deadline on that. It is an important piece and I think it is one of the recommendations that it’s important to implement it sometime.
[9:45 p.m.]
THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Needham. Just be aware of the time.
LISA ROBERTS: Yes, I’m trying to figure out which of these . . .
THE CHAIR: The minister will need at least a minute for his resolution.
LISA ROBERTS: In that case, I think I will sit.
THE CHAIR: I invite the minister to make some closing remarks and then move his resolution.
IAIN RANKIN: I want to thank the members from both Opposition Parties for their enlightening questions tonight. I appreciate their feedback. I know it’s a challenging time for industry and the transition period with Northern Pulp no longer operating. I want to reiterate government’s commitment to getting through that period of time, as well as our commitment to advancing the recommendations in the independent forestry review as we will go forward.
I want to thank the hardworking staff at the Department of Lands and Forestry for their assistance throughout the last year leading into the next fiscal year.
THE CHAIR: Shall Resolution E15 stand?
Resolution E15 stands.
The honourable Government House Leader.
GEOFF MACLELLAN: Madam Chair, I move that you do now rise and that you report progress and beg leave to sit again.
THE CHAIR: The motion is carried. The committee will now rise and report its business to the House.
[The committee adjourned at 9:47 p.m.]
