[Page 509]

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2003

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

4:00 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. David Hendsbee

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Supply to order please. This is Tuesday, April 22^nd, we're now in day eight of deliberations of the Nova Scotia Budget Estimates for the Fiscal Year 2003-04. So far, time in the debate is 28 hours. At the time of adjournment we had five minutes remaining for the NDP caucus with the Minister of Justice. The time is now 4:00 p.m. Your time begins now.

The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.

MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Our caucus has no further questions. We relinquish our five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Chairman, could I just respond to a couple of questions the honourable member asked the other day? I have the information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

MR. MUIR: One question had to do with the increased administration from the Actual 2001-02 to the Estimate 2003-04. There's an increase of 15 in Legal Services and that's 12 solicitors to provide legal services to departments and agencies, 3 support persons; and there is a new Division of Information Management which would also involve the new system, the updated JOIS system which has three people in that. The balance would represent vacant positions.

509

[Page 510]

Secondly, and I will give this to the honourable member to raise because he raised it the other day and raised it again in Question Period today, with respect to adult diversion. I'm reading from the Royal Gazette on March 21, 2001, in addition, adult diversion shall not be considered where - and I'm skipping down - the following offences or factors are involved: 424.3 sexual offences as contained in Parts 5 and 8 of the Criminal Code - and those would be the serious ones - and secondly, spousal partner violence. I hope that offers him some comfort, clearly it was a matter of concern to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now the time is passed over to the Liberal caucus, your time is now 4:02 p.m. You have one hour, sir.

The honourable member for Richmond.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, I certainly won't be taking up anywhere near that time. Mr. Minister, you just indicated in an answer during Question Period, you had earlier indicated you were not made aware of any freedom of information request made to your department since you became minister. I believe you clarified that in Question Period today, indicating that you had in fact been made aware, I believe you said two freedom of information requests . . .

MR. MUIR: What it was, Mr. Chairman, the department is handling the freedom of information requests with reference to institutional abuse. A gentleman in our department is acting as an agent, I guess, of the freedom of information office in determining, in ferreting - or whatever word you wish to use, probably a bad term in light of a couple of years ago - in determining what information should be made available. He has, on two occasions, presented me with a piece of paper indicating where he is in that process. I'm pleased to say that it is coming to a close. He's been working at it for, I think, at least a year.

MR. SAMSON: Who is this gentleman?

MR. MUIR: Bob Doherty.

MR. SAMSON: Why was this brought to your attention?

MR. MUIR: Why was it brought to my attention? That's one of his primary responsibilities, the issue of the institutional abuse and all of the - I will use the word, doings, because I think people understand that. There is some information that had not been given to people who had asked for it and it was simply offering progress reports to see that the task is being completed.

MR. SAMSON: I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just curious, again, why was that brought to your attention and not senior staff?

[Page 511]

MR. MUIR: It did go to the deputy as well, and I assume that has been the practice, although I have not discussed it with my predecessor. I assume that information was on a periodic three month basis, two month basis or a monthly basis, whatever it is, passed on to my predecessor.

MR. SAMSON: So it is a practice that you, as minister, are made aware of freedom of information requests and what information is being given out?

MR. MUIR: In this particular case, I have been, but that is the only one that I've been made aware of.

MR. SAMSON: Yet, you're only Minister of Justice for the last three or four months.

MR. MUIR: Yes, since about December 17^th.

MR. SAMSON: Have you instructed staff to make you aware of freedom of information requests?

MR. MUIR: No, I haven't.

MR. SAMSON: So Mr. Doherty, on his own, just decided to come see you as minister?

MR. MUIR: I've never really sat down and asked him why he's presenting the information, but I assume that was part of a policy that was established when he was asked to put this information together. It's been a long period of about six or seven years and it's trying to come to closure on a process and it's really - I would say, that it would be good practice to inform me, as the person I guess who is ultimately responsible for that, seeing that those requests are acted upon, that considerable progress has been made and that the matter, at least, from that end, will be concluded in a relatively short period of time. Which I think is a comfort to everybody.

MR. SAMSON: Did you provide any comment or recommendations on the information you were provided with?

MR. MUIR: No.

MR. SAMSON: Have you discussed this with any of your other colleagues in Cabinet or in caucus?

MR. MUIR: No.

[Page 512]

MR. SAMSON: Are you aware of whether they have been briefed on these matters, other than yourself?

MR. MUIR: I'm not aware that they would have been, no.

MR. SAMSON: So, there's no one else in the Premier's office or in P&P or in Treasury and Policy that may have been . . .

MR. MUIR: I haven't reported to them, no.

MR. SAMSON: So other than these two requests, you haven't . . .

MR. MUIR: I expect it was reported to the freedom of information office because that's to whom he's carrying out this responsibility. This came from the Kaufman report, this particular exercise. In some ways it's an unbudgeted amount, it's sort of one-time money. There are two people working with Mr. Doherty on this as well.

MR. SAMSON: That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the government caucus at this particular time? No questions? Thank you. Now, honourable minister, you have time for any closing remarks or comments you wish to make.

MR. MUIR: I would just like to thank the committee for the questions. It's been an educational process for me. I would like to thank the members of the Government caucus for sitting here and being so attentive while the questions from the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus have been forthcoming. I would like to thank my staff who put a tremendous amount of effort into preparing the information which is part of the estimates process. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the resolutions.

Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $239,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the FOIPOP Review office, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E17 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,764,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E21 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $299,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Police Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

[Page 513]

Resolution E28 -Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $14,884,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Public Prosecution Service, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E10 stand?

Resolution E10 stands.

For the record, Resolutions E15, E17, E21 and E28 as read into the record by the honourable minister shall they all carry en bloc?

The resolutions are carried.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. The time is now 4:08 p.m. The next resolutions we will be debating are the Department of Natural Resources as follows:

Resolution E11 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $59,160,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect to the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Estimate

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call forward the honourable Minister of Natural Resources. Honourable Minister, you have an opportunity for opening remarks as well as introductions of your senior staff to the members of committee. Just to advise you and your senior staff, if there are any requests for information by any of the caucuses, please provide a copy of the information for those enquiries to me as chairman of the committee as well as to each of the caucuses regardless of which caucus has asked for the information. Is that understood, Mr. Minister? Honourable Minister Olive, is it understood that any information requested by any of the caucuses be sent to all caucuses at the same time?

The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

HON. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Understood, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I'm just curious, when we did the estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries there was a commitment at that time for certain documents to be provided and that hasn't taken place. I'm just curious if you would inform the minister that that commitment was made and those documents haven't been provided. I know usually they're given in a very timely fashion, and that was about a week and a half ago, if not more. So, I'm wondering if you could look into that and see why we haven't received those documents?

[Page 514]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will kindly remind the minister and his staff with regard to the request for that department. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources, your time is now 4:10 p.m., you have an opportunity for opening remarks. You have up to one hour to make your remarks to the committee.

The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

HON. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to committee members. I'm pleased to be here to present the 2003-04 budget for the Department of Natural Resources and the Emergency Measures Organization, of which I am the minister responsible.

First, I would like to introduce some of my staff who are here with me today. On my right, Dan Graham, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources. On my left, Weldon Myers, Director of Financial Services Resources CSU. Behind me, Kevin Boylan, Manager of Financial Services; Mike Lester, Executive Director of EMO; and, Mike Myette, Program Manager for EMO.

Mr. Chairman, natural resource industries are recognized as being vital industries to the province, particularly to rural areas of Nova Scotia where they are important contributors to the local economy. Our traditional, or foundation industries, have made valuable contributions in helping to build this province and these industries will continue to make significant contributions in the future.

Our job is to provide opportunities that will create an atmosphere that allows businesses to grow and thrive. A strong economy will provide for the many things that we need and cherish such as health care, education and safe roads.

In support of a prosperous Nova Scotia, the Department of Natural Resources is committed to the stewardship and sustainable management of our natural resources and Crown lands, using environmentally responsible approaches to resource management, land use planning. Through sustainable management, we can provide support to the provincial economy and encourage economic growth while meeting our protection-related responsibilities.

The mission of the Department of Natural Resources focuses on building a better future for Nova Scotians through responsible natural resources management. My department has identified several goals for itself that sets the path we will follow to get there. Those goals include achieving sound natural resources stewardship, conserving the diversity of Nova Scotia's natural environment, supporting Nova Scotia's economy through the sustainable development of natural resources, improving the quality of life in Nova Scotia and managing the department's financial, physical, human and information resources

[Page 515]

effectively and efficiently. All branches within the Department of Natural Resources work to ensure that these goals are supported in all of our programs and activities.

The department is comprised of six branches which are the Planning Secretariat, Mineral Resources, Renewable Resources, Land Services, Regional Services, and the Corporate Services Unit. I would now like to go into the role of some of the branches. I would like to take the opportunity to describe the important role and functions of each of these branches. It is through the hard work and dedication of all of the departments' employees that we are able to achieve our goals and our objectives.

The Planning Secretariat ensures that policies and plans developed within and across the department are coordinated and support the goals of the department and the overall strategic direction of government. The secretariat also provides a range of administrative planning, research information management, information distribution, graphics, cartographic, communication and Occupational Health and Safety services.

Our Mineral Resources branch is responsible for policies and programs that deal with exploration, development, management and efficient use of mineral resources. The concepts of environmental responsibility and sustainable development as well as the stewardship of and planning for the mineral resource sector are also promoted by the department.

Our Renewable Resources section is responsible for the development and implementation of programs, strategies and plans for the sustainable management of Nova Scotia's forests, parks and wildlife resources. This branch takes the lead in industrial development, resource inventories and research and forest protection.

Our Land Services branch administers and controls Nova Scotia's 3.5 million acres of provincial Crown land. It provides service advice and leadership on all land-related aspects within the department's mandate.

Regional Services, as the department responsible for this province's resource-based industries, many of our projects and programs are rural-based initiatives. Our Regional Services branch ensures that Natural Resources' services are delivered through our system of field offices located across the province. The delivery of these programs and services include forest management, Crown land surveys, geological services, education, enforcement and hunter safety, forest fire prevention, detection and suppression, monitoring of insects and diseases, operation and maintenance of provincial parks and conservation efforts.

Our Corporate Services Unit, which is based within Natural Resources, provides financial human resources and information technology-related services to the Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Fisheries, Environment and Labour, Energy, and Finance, and the Emergency Measures Organization.

[Page 516]

The work that each branch undertakes not only helps the department achieve its goals, it supports the government's overall vision for Nova Scotia and in particular, a strong economy that will pay for the things we need, the creation of an atmosphere that allows businesses to grow and thrive, provision of high quality care when and where it's needed and a Nova Scotia that makes and pays its own way in the world.

[4:15 p.m.]

The Department of Natural Resources contributes to the realization of these objectives through the sustainable and responsible management of our natural resources with the goal of ensuring these resources are available for future generations. The future, and our children's future, is the reason for our commitment to a stronger, smarter, healthier and more prosperous Nova Scotia. This same reason is why the Department of Natural Resources is committed to providing a balanced approach to the significant social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits for Nova Scotians.

This balance involves dealing with the various demands of our lands and natural resources. Nova Scotia has a land base of about 12 million acres. About 3.5 million acres of that is Crown land which the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for managing. Because of the low percentage of provincially-owned Crown land, the demands placed on these lands and our natural resources often outweighs their availability. This creates issues that sometimes see protection efforts pitted against development and recreation opportunities in conflict with harvesting activities.

That is why the integrated resource management project continues to be a department priority and is incorporated into the department's everyday operations. The integrated resource management is intended to ensure that the department's decisions reflect consideration of the different resources and special values linked to Crown land. The integrated resource management process identifies land features, uses and resource values on Crown land. It works to balance known and potential resource uses and values so that long-term sustainable values are optimized and conflicts minimized. The integrated resource management process brings together various interests in Crown land to balance the economic environmental and social requirements of society rather than each working in isolation.

We are currently moving forward with the second phase of the integrated resource management process which is the development and implementation of the long-range management frameworks for Crown land throughout the province. These plans will provide a framework for land use decisions and annual operating activities.

I would like to now discuss briefly the forestry section. Proper management of Nova Scotia's resources is the key to the future of all of our resource-based industries, the largest of which is forestry. The forestry industry in Nova Scotia is valued at $1.4 billion. That same industry employs about 20,000 people, both directly and indirectly in this province. Many

[Page 517]

of those jobs are in rural areas of Nova Scotia. Throughout the province the forestry industry is the lifeblood of many communities. Nearly three-quarters of the province's primary forest workers reside in rural areas, making it the most rurally-based industry in Nova Scotia. Christmas tree and maple syrup producers are also located in rural parts of the province. These communities rely on the forestry resource for their future and the economic benefits that it provides. That is why ensuring the sustainability of existing harvest levels is part of the Department of Natural Resources' mandate.

Crown land silviculture programs are an integral part of ensuring sustainability of this province's forest resources. About 85 per cent of Nova Scotia's Crown land is productive forest land. That's more than one million hectares. We are committed to silviculture work on private lands. Again, this year, $3 million in government funding will go toward private land silviculture. These monies will be matched on a three to one ratio by forest companies, bringing the total dollars for investment in private land silviculture to $9 million.

In keeping with sustainability, the wildlife habitat management regulations have been in effect for more than a year. These regulations ensure the protection of watercourses and watersheds and provide habitat for wildlife on both Crown and private lands. Department staff are actively monitoring forest activity across the province to ensure that the regulations are being followed. Many companies and landowners were already following these guidelines before, but now they must ensure they comply with the regulations which strike a balance between human and wildlife needs. We continue to move forward with the province's forest strategy.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased with the level of support and compliance we are receiving from industry. We have already made and will continue to make changes as we work through the various elements of the strategy. The department is currently working on a code of forest practices which will provide a framework for planning and conducting forest management on Nova Scotia Crown and private forest lands. We are also participating in some federal initiatives, including the national forest strategy and the World Forestry Congress which will see delegates from around the world attending to discuss the future of our forests.

Of particular importance to the forestry sector is the continuing softwood lumber situation with the United States. Our position on this issue is quite clear. Our exclusion from trade remedies, as were reflected in the Maritime Accord, must continue. We are working closely with the industry through the Maritime Lumber Bureau and other Maritime governments to ensure continued access to American lumber markets and to try to resolve the issue. We continue to work co-operatively and put forward one voice and position to ensure recognition for this region and our special circumstances.

Our forests are an important resource from a recreational and aesthetic perspective in addition to supporting the forestry sector. Therefore, I would like to mention the efforts of my department's forest protection group who are vigilant in their efforts to fight forest

[Page 518]

fires and to control infestations of insects and other pests that damage our forests. The efforts include the co-operation of different organizations and other levels of government.

The minerals and energy sector, along with forestry, mineral resources have also been a strong factor in the Nova Scotia economy and new opportunities continue to open up. The industrial mineral section of the mining industry continues to be a mainstay of the economy. Nova Scotia has many natural advantages for industrial minerals production. These include abundant resources of various industrial minerals, good ports, access to important markets along the Eastern Seaboard of North America and in Europe, and a stable regulatory regime. All of these things ensure a bright future for this sector in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Chairman, here are a few examples of the type of mineral production that contributes to the Nova Scotia economy - almost one million tons of salt annually, that equals 10 per cent of the total Canadian salt production. We produce seven million tons of gypsum annually in Nova Scotia and that accounts for 80 per cent of the total Canadian gypsum production. The aggregate quarry in Aulds Cove is the seventh largest crushed stone operation in Canada. This operation exports rock throughout the Eastern U.S. Seaboard and into the Caribbean. Limestone, clay, silica sand and peat moss are produced at various locations around Nova Scotia and there is significant exploration activities taking place for other commodities, including zeolite, kaolin and quartz. These may lead to new mining in the future.

In addition to industrial minerals, there are very good signs that the metal sector, which historically has been an important component of our mining industry, is now beginning an upturn. The much improved price of gold is already having a significant impact in Nova Scotia. Our prospectors are seeing renewed interest by the industry in their gold properties. A number of agreements have been announced that will result in new exploration. Mr. Chairman, more than $1.5 million may be spent in gold exploration in Nova Scotia this year. Already new claim stakings of gold properties has pushed our total area under licence to more than 500,000 acres. This is the first time our area under licence has been this high. That is a very positive reflection on the growth and significance of the mineral sector here in Nova Scotia. Exploration companies continue to discover new mineral commodities in new geological environments throughout Nova Scotia.

Mr. Chairman, this department continues to provide a high level of geoscience support that is necessary for the continued health of the mining industry as well as the effective promotion of our mineral resources. In addition to these initiatives, the department maintains many other important mineral-related programs that deal with resource management, resource protection, data gathering and analysis, legislation and policy development, and information and technology transfer.

[Page 519]

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to inform the members that Nova Scotia will be co-hosting the Mining and Energy Ministers' meeting this coming fall here in Halifax. It will be an exciting opportunity for the Departments of Natural Resources and Energy to showcase the Halifax Regional Municipality and our province to representatives and ministers from across the country, but there are many more exciting and interesting things happening throughout my department.

In our Regional Services Division, the enforcement program continues to be an integral part of managing our natural resources and it is recognized nationwide for its policies and standards. Ongoing enforcement of the department's Acts and regulations will be carried out. As well, our officers enforce many other laws for federal and provincial departments. They are the eyes and ears out in the rural areas of this province and despite budget pressures over the years, the Department of Natural Resources' staff have continued to successfully develop and implement sustainable management programs for the natural resources in Nova Scotia.

[4:30 p.m.]

At this time I would like to point out a couple of lines of items in the department's estimates that appear as significant changes. You will see that no funding has been identified under the Resource Enhancement Fund for the 2003-04 fiscal year, but I will point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a significant increase in the Private Land Forest Management estimate. This is where the majority of the Resource Enhancement Fund has been relocated. This change has been done to enable the department to optimize the financial SAP system when capturing data for budgeting and forecasting purposes. This program has historically been the responsibility of and administered by the private lands management group.

Mr. Chairman, there is no change in the funds allocated for private land silviculture as a result of this administrative change. The remaining funds have been included in the budget of the Renewable Resources branch. In addition, you will note an increase in the department's estimate for Air Services for the coming fiscal year. This is due to the requirement for routine transmission maintenance on the Bell 212 helicopter.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see by the information I have provided so far, the Department of Natural Resources plays an important role throughout the province and it touches many people's lives. Additional programs that move this department forward fulfilling its mandate include education, implementation and enforcement of the wildlife and habitat, and watercourses protection regulations also continues. Staff continue to work on the development and implementation of the code of forests practices and state of the forest reporting. Revision to the forests sustainability regulations and the registration and statistical returns regulations are currently available to the public for comment and review. The deadline for submissions is May 16^th.

[Page 520]

Department staff continue to work with officials from the Cape Breton Development Corporation to provide for a continuing coal industry in Cape Breton through the surrender of the Devco coal leases. The department will continue to implement multi-disciplinary geoscience programs and undertake promotion of the province's mineral resources to increase the level of exploration. An implementation plan will be formulated to review the province's mineral policy and develop an action plan to ensure that the department's programs are focused on supporting and encouraging economic development related to the use of geological resources.

I would now like to highlight, Mr. Chairman, some of the ongoing priorities for the coming year. Further department priorities identified for the coming year include maintaining the high standards of provincial parks and offering park and recreation programming with high-quality customer service. The department will be working with the Shubenacadie Canal Commission and will assist with carrying out their mandate where resources allow. The Shubenacadie Canal is a series of waterways and lakes that stretch from Dartmouth to Maitland, Hants County. The canal is designated a national historic civil engineering site. The canal provides a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities and significant heritage and cultural values.

As you will be aware, Mr. Chairman, McNabs and Lawlors Islands were designated last year as a provincial park. An advisory committee developed a draft management plan for these islands which included a public review component. That committee will submit a final management plan this year. Once the department has that in hand, we will then look to the future and how we can go about developing the park. That development will depend to a large degree on partnerships between Natural Resources and other levels of government, the private sector and not-for-profit groups.

Last year, as many of you are aware, the province acquired Cape Split in the Annapolis Valley. This well-known and heavily visited coastal property is a gem for the people of Nova Scotia. Department staff have already initiated contact and consultation with the key landowners whose property adjoins the Crown land and is used to access the trail. Initial stages of planning for this property will involve inventory and data collection to determine what natural, cultural and heritage resources exist. We will eventually develop a management plan for Cape Split that will provide guidance on the future development of the site to support both outdoor recreation activities and protect the ecological integrity of the land.

There has been much activity throughout the past year when it comes to land acquisition for the province. We now own the former DAR rail lines throughout the Annapolis Valley, running from Kentville to Yarmouth. Development of trails will take place through partnerships and in consultation with the local communities. Through our Land Services branch we will continue to acquire lands for Nova Scotians through partnerships with non-government organizations.

[Page 521]

Mr. Chairman, this has proven to be a very effective way to lever money for key properties, including coastal islands and coastal land throughout Nova Scotia. Some of the organizations the department works with include the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture. Besides land, our wildlife species are an important resource for the province. We will continue the programs, policies and legislation for the implementation of the national accord for the protection of species at risk and the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act. Nova Scotia currently has 20 wildlife species listed under the provincial Endangered Species Act. A scientific working group appointed under the Act continues to review Nova Scotia's species at risk.

Mr. Chairman, the department recently announced a new conservation licence plate for species at risk in Nova Scotia. This is an important initiative that will see $50 from every plate sold put into a fund that will be used specifically for projects relating to species at risk. The department will continue to work with various partners in projects such as the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, the Black Duck Joint Venture and the Sea Duck Joint Venture as part of Nova Scotia's commitment to wetland and waterfowl conservation under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that we recently signed an agreement with Wildlife and Habitat Canada that will see funding provided for projects that will be used to conserve wildlife habitat and improve water quality in agricultural areas of the province. We will continue to manage the Habitat Conservation Fund which is in its third year of funding for projects that help with the protection and enhancement of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Staff will continue to oversee the program to improve public safety by capping and/or filling abandoned mine openings on Crown lands as well as provide information and advice on abandoned mines to private landowners and municipalities.

The Department of Natural Resources continues to work on project files relating to the new national forest strategy, the forest 20-20 consultation rounds, a review of the criteria and indicate our framework and development of a national information system is key to development of this forest strategy.

Mr. Chairman, our natural resources support an economic and cultural way of life for thousands of Nova Scotians. The Department of Natural Resources takes its stewardship responsibility for our resources seriously. We must ensure that through responsible use today our resources remain available tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I beg the indulgence of the committee, I would now like to briefly outline some of the issues related to another responsibility I have, that is Minister responsible for the Emergency Measures Organization. As Minister responsible for EMO, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the organization. Prior to doing that, I would like to again acknowledge Mike Lester and Mike Myette who are here from EMO and who provide

[Page 522]

an invaluable service to the people of Nova Scotia, not only during the times of disasters as we're going through now, but certainly on an ongoing basis in ensuring that the residents of Nova Scotia and the municipalities of Nova Scotia are in fact trained and ready to respond in an appropriate manner when emergencies do occur. On behalf of the Government of Nova Scotia, I thank both these gentlemen for their efforts and for the efforts of the staff who work with them to ensure successful emergency measures activities are carried out in Nova Scotia in a responsible manner.

Mr. Chairman, Nova Scotia's Emergency Measures Organization is responsible for effectively managing the consequences of emergencies. EMO Nova Scotia does this by proactively identifying the various hazards that are likely to contribute to emergencies and ensuring that plans are in place at the municipal and provincial levels to effectively manage the potential consequences of those hazards. Through its comprehensive emergency management programs, EMO ensures that there are plans in place to reduce or minimize the negative impacts to persons and property when an emergency strikes. The types of emergencies most people are familiar with, however, have impacts that reach out to a community, an entire municipality, a region of the province, across several municipalities, the entire province or even several provinces. There are two fundamental ways to reduce the impacts of an emergency on people and property. The first is through effective planning before an emergency occurs and the second is by promptly coordinating the response and supply of provincial resources after an emergency occurs.

The Emergency Measures Organization of Nova Scotia uses an all-hazards approach to emergency planning. This means plans are not specifically directed at a particular type of emergency, but rather the plans allow an organization to respond to a broad range of emergencies whether they arise as a result of natural weather systems, an industrial accident, or a terrorist attack. The Emergency Measures Organization of Nova Scotia rarely, if ever, works alone, rather it acts as a coordinating force to bring together resources from other entities, including the federal government, the municipal government or other provincial departments in the provincial government. This responsibility to coordinate and facilitate the activities of individual government departments is the reason why the Emergency Measures Organization is not a government department, rather it is a stand-alone agency of the provincial government known as a Public Service vote.

The field of emergency management typically has five strategic components - preparedness, planning, training, reporting and response. Within the emergency preparedness business area, the Emergency Measures Organization's three regional staff routinely meet with Emergency Measures coordinators in every municipal unit in the province to develop and test emergency preparedness strategies and promote regional emergency preparedness co-operation among groups of municipal units. The emergency planning component is delivered through the requirement under the Emergency Measures Act that requires every municipality to have an approved emergency plan. The Emergency Measures Organization of Nova Scotia reviews and evaluates every single one of these plans and awards a rating

[Page 523]

based on the feasibility of the plan and whether or not it has been tested with a practice scenario. At the provincial level each department and agency of government also has a planning officer appointed. The role of this individual is to coordinate emergency planning within his or her department or agency. Collectively these planning officers make up the provincial emergency activation team.

[4:45 p.m.]

The Emergency Measures Organization of Nova Scotia also has the responsibility to provide training to ensure people across the province are prepared to implement those plans. Emergency Measures staff deliver training in basic emergency preparedness as well as the theory and practice of managing evacuations, an emergency operation centre and the emergency site itself. Candidates for these courses come from all levels of government and the private sector. To ensure the effective reporting of emergencies, EMO administers the province's 911 emergency reporting service, which I will go into in more detail in a few moments. Finally, in terms of the emergency response component of emergency management, the Emergency Measures Organization delivers an integrated provincial network of internal and external communications, public information release, emergency response and post-incident debriefing.

Another aspect of emergency response that EMO administers is the provincial volunteer ground search and rescue program. Across the province there are 24 search teams and a total of 1,500 volunteers. Ground search and rescue volunteers work tirelessly performing ground searches for lost persons and provide a ready pool of personnel which can be applied to a broad spectrum of emergencies.

Mr. Chairman, the 911 emergency reporting system, as I mentioned earlier, is one of five core business areas that EMO administers. In Nova Scotia we've earned a reputation for having a world-class 911 system. In 1997 we were the first province in Canada to implement 911 province-wide. Since that time more than one million calls to 911 have been answered and transferred to the appropriate emergency response agencies. Today there are six 911 centres throughout the province - located in Sydney, Truro, Kentville, Yarmouth, Halifax and Bedford. All originating 911 calls are routed to one of these centres. To ensure that our 911 system remains effective and current, all phone subscribers in Nova Scotia have been paying a small monthly fee since October 2001.

Fees collected in this manner are used exclusively to support and improve 911 services. The 911 cost recovery fee is used to support ongoing technology enhancements and other programs which are essential to the ongoing delivery of these services. There are some recent enhancements to the 911 system. These include digitized civic address mapping. The Emergency Measures Organization continues to co-operate with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations on a three-year civic address project that will benefit all emergency response agencies in the province. By developing computerized maps showing every civic

[Page 524]

address in Nova Scotia, emergency responders will have an easier time finding the exact location of the emergency once the call is made to 911.

Mr. Chairman, we've introduced a distance marker program. The distance marker program is aimed at increasing public safety and making it easier for emergency responders to locate emergencies along 100-Series Highways. It has been improved since it was introduced and expanded. Through this program, run by the Emergency Measures Organization in partnership with the Department of Transportation and Public Works, signs are now located at one kilometre intervals along portions of the province's 100-Series Highways. These signs tell the driver the highway number direction they are travelling and their particular location along the highway. If an emergency takes place along a highway, callers can reference the nearest distance marker to explain the location of the emergency to the 911 call taker.

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to participate in a partnership of the 911 system with the IWK Regional Poison Centre. Through this strategic new partnership between 911 and the IWK Regional Poison Centre, Nova Scotia residents are now encouraged to call 911 for poisoning emergencies. Callers will immediately be transferred to the poison centre. Having 911 and the poison centre jointly manage poison-exposure calls will help to decrease the number of unnecessary ambulance dispatches and hospital emergency department visits, resulting in more efficient use of health care resources, as well as significant cost savings.

Public education is an important part of the 911 system. The 911 Public Education Program includes curriculum for Grade Primary to Grade 3, a 911 speaker's bureau and a display that is set up at fairs and trade shows across the province. Public awareness materials, such as brochures, stickers and fridge magnets are also distributed province-wide to individuals, schools and community groups.

Mr. Chairman, since the implementation of the 911 service, municipalities throughout the province have been voluntarily helping maintain the civic addressing program. The 911 cost recovery fee helps to offset municipal expenses associated with maintaining an accurate database of civic addresses. As with any IT system, there will be technology upgrades. Changes in the technology require investment to ensure that Nova Scotia's 911 system remains topnotch. For example, call-taking equipment at the six 911 call centres in the province was replaced last Spring with newer, more advanced call-taking equipment. This new equipment greatly enhances the 911 call-takers technical capabilities, providing for a more efficient reporting system. It can be anticipated that over the next few years, there will be continual upgrades to this equipment, and funding will come from the established funding source.

Mr. Chairman, on April 1, 2003, the province announced that it had established a Disaster Financial Assistance Program to help Nova Scotians who suffered uninsurable losses during the heavy rains and resulting flooding of March 31^st of this year. This assistance

[Page 525]

will help individual Nova Scotians restore their homes to a basic level of living, small businesses to get back on their feet, and municipalities to restore essential public services to a pre-disaster condition. Government has created a toll-free hotline to handle public enquiries about financial assistance. Applications for assistance are now available through municipal offices, and the province has already started to assess applications that have been submitted to date. It should be noted that in all of the affected areas in the province, the exemplary efforts of our emergency responders, both volunteer and paid, have helped to minimize the loss of life and damage to property. These people are to be commended for their ongoing efforts.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time is now 4:55 p.m. The first hour of questioning belongs to the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Hants East. Mr. MacDonell, your time is 4:55 p.m.

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister. Welcome to the staff. It's nice to see you, Mr. Graham. Never let it be said brevity is your strong suit. I did, though, pick up a few pointers in your speech. The honourable Minister of Economic Development just provided us with a copy, and we went right into questioning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind members to keep the microphones close, for the purposes of Hansard.

MR. MACDONELL: My first question, I will start where you ended, is around EMO and the disaster relief. I am curious about time frames, when people apply. Just watching the news last night, it seemed as though the information they need to provide is fairly extensive. Any ideas? I assume they will need appraisals by professional people to estimate the cost of replacement or whatever. Also, I would like to know what's covered by the relief.

MR. OLIVE: There were a couple of questions there. First of all, if I may take the liberty, the reason for the dissertation. As you are aware, the Department of Natural Resources is, in fact, I believe, a very key part of the economy of Nova Scotia. I did want to take the opportunity - we don't get many opportunities in our department - to expose the general public and members of this committee and others to the breadth and strength of our department and its effect on the economy of Nova Scotia. I felt that this was probably a very appropriate time to take the opportunity to outline the department's positions on various issues and promote the department, where possible. I appreciate the member's comment, but I did want to take that opportunity.

[Page 526]

Regarding EMO, certainly there are certain forms that have to be completed, just as a matter of course. I, too, saw the news reports and appreciate that some people believe that there may be a bit too much bureaucracy involved. I think it's important that some very basic information be provided in order to qualify claims, that being, obviously, ownership of the home, vis-à-vis a mortgage, proper quotations from contractors or from insurance agents or adjustors. While some may feel that creates red tape and a bureaucracy, I think it's very important that the government be very sure, in spending the people's dollars, that the money is, in fact, going to whom it should go to under a legitimate claim.

The list of eligible - are you asking for a specific list of what is claimable under . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. OLIVE: If I may get back to you with that form, I have seen the list. There is a proper list. If the honourable member could wait for that form, I will have it delivered to you and to the committee.

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Minister, I will give you a specific case, and you may not be able to answer, only because I told my constituent I would ask and intended to actually do that some days ago. This is a young woman who actually drove her car into the water, just at the Elmsdale Lumber Mill, along the No. 2 Highway there, stated that the barricade had been moved, but I think there was one there. Insurance covered part of her damage. It was my understanding that if it was insurable at all, that it wouldn't be covered under this program. It seemed to me that most of what I heard of it was around dwellings, so I was curious as to whether or not an automobile, whether it was parked in the yard that flooded or what, would be covered under this?

MR. OLIVE: I'm just checking. It is my understanding that if it was insurable, it's not covered. I would qualify that by saying that uninsurable claims, the priority is to get people back into their homes. As far as your comment regarding the residences, the idea being that people get back into their homes and that they're put back in a habitable state.

MR. MACDONELL: I will move to forestry and will probably deal with it for some time. I hope to get to ask some questions around your budget. Before I do that, though, there was one item, you kind of raised a question for me in response to my first comments. You said you don't often get an opportunity to speak or promote the department. Under Planning Secretariat, what does information management mean, that line item. The estimate for 2003-04, is $404,000.

[Page 527]

[5:00 p.m.]

MR. OLIVE: That group is our operation in Truro that produces various publications and information packages for the various divisions, whether it's hunter safety, that's the group that actually does that work and they do it out of Truro.

MR. MACDONELL: Can you tell me what present stumpage rates are for Crown stumpage in the province?

MR. OLIVE: I will have to get back to you on that. I'm sorry, I don't have it right here.

MR. MACDONELL: I would be looking for hardwood and softwood.

MR. OLIVE: Hardwood and softwood? Right.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm also curious about the bark beetle that was in Point Pleasant Park, I can't think - European, long-horned beetle - if I have it right. Can you tell me what the status is on that beetle? I'm not just wondering about the park, I'm wondering about across the province - if there are some hot spots anywhere.

MR. OLIVE: Honourable member, I guess what I can tell you is that statistically there were 2,537 trees removed in 2000. In 2001, 126; in 2002, 38; and, there have been similar reductions on McNab's Island - 150 removed in 2000 and only 38 in 2002. Since the start of the eradication program, there's been approximately 768 square kilometres surveyed. Our integrated pest-management group continue to do that research and, of course, that information is passed on to CFSA - Canadian Forestry Service - and it's my understanding that the Canadian Forestry Service are trying to develop a clearer method of identifying the larvae. That's part of the problem. Our integrated pest-management group is working with them in that area to identify them.

MR. MACDONELL: Are you telling me that it hasn't moved outside the HRM? That's what I was curious about.

MR. OLIVE: We have to be very careful whether we say whether it's moved outside the HRM because we are still trying to identify them in areas outside of HRM. I can tell you that there were several finds in Upper Sackville near two sawmills. The information to date is that we haven't found it outside HRM, but no one is going to step up to the plate at this point and indicate that it's not there, only because the research is ongoing. We put prohibition on the movement on private property in the areas where it has been found so that, hopefully, we can restrict its movement.

[Page 528]

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, that's fair enough. You're certainly saying there's a possibility it could be there. You're investigating to find out and as of yet you haven't identified any locations?

MR. OLIVE: No.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. Well, I would like to know, you talked about forests as sustainable and that the department's view is towards sustainability of the resource. You mentioned 20,000 employed directly and indirectly, worth $1.4 billion to the province so I'm curious as to your thoughts around the health of Nova Scotia's forests and the industry.

MR. OLIVE: We will talk about the industry first, I guess. As you know, the industry has gone through a pretty trying time over the last few years, especially with the softwood lumber issue. The price of lumber has not been as favourable as it could have been. We have been involved in the softwood lumber issue and been successful in maintaining our independence in that area. It's an ongoing job to maintain the health of our forests. There is no question about that. One of many things that makes that job difficult is that we can identify areas around Nova Scotia that need to be harvested because the trees - areas need new growth - need to be cleaned out.

Unfortunately, many of these areas are specific to areas where there are segments of society who would like to see them protected or turned into wilderness areas. It's a very fine balance between trying to educate those who wish to protect areas and to create more wilderness areas and I'm sure we will get into that discussion before we're through. The fact is that forest sustainability does require, in some cases, that we go in and clear out forests. I don't mean old growth forests, I just mean forests that are dying on their stands. It's a job to do that so we can talk about sustainability and what people understand to be sustainability as protecting forests and ensuring the silviculture program. As you probably heard in my preamble, there's over $9 million going into the silviculture program which is tremendous. You would like to see it double. I'm sure we all would.

It's important to understand that the Crown land only makes up 3.5 million acres - 75 per cent of the 12 million acres is on private land. So, we have a real education program that is ongoing, that changes as those who own the private lands change, to try to get as many people in the private sector - as I say, 75 per cent of the forest base is private sector owned - to get them working with government and working on their own to ensure the sustainability of our forests. That's an ongoing challenge.

There are many people out there who have a woodlot which is their pension plan, they're going to cut it down, walk away from it, make the money and don't, for whatever reason, have the interest to go in and do the silviculture that has to be completed to sustain that land as forest lands.

[Page 529]

So, the forests overall are not in bad shape in Nova Scotia. Mainly because the major partners, the Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia and its partners are working very hard to ensure the sustainability because it's their livelihood in years to come.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, minister. I would like to know in very succinct terms your definition of sustainability.

MR. OLIVE: I thank the member for the question, I really do, because sustainability is not just doing silviculture. Sustainability is wildlife habitat protection, it's making sure that the ecological characteristics of the land are identified and classified and measures taken to protect them. There's the issue of endangered species. We have 20 endangered species now and there are many more that are nearing extinction if we don't take corrective action. So we have to find a way to sustain them within the forest environment. We have the old forest policy, the old-growth forests. There are trees 150 years old that we have to identify, we have to locate first and we have to identify, which is done. I might add, through the integrated resource management process, and protect them and sustain them for Nova Scotians in the future.

Our parks and protected strategy, particularly our park strategy, I was really disturbed to read an article in the paper recently regarding Card Lake. I know you've had an issue with Card Lake and a legitimate concern with Card Lake, that it not be clear-cut. I don't even know where that came from, but I read something in the newspaper where somebody was getting credit for saving Card Lake from being clear-cut and, wow, that was a wonderful statement. I've never anticipated or suggested, or anything that would even closely resemble clear-cutting provincial parks. Yet, you know, part of our sustainability is to make sure that those provincial parks, whether they're run by the government, whether they're run by a partnership of government and the private sector, or whether the private sector takes them over, we will own that land. We will not give up that land. That land has to be sustainable for years to come.

Public-private partnerships can come and go, but we have to maintain that land. We have to protect it and certainly not clear-cut it and I was very surprised to hear that and this gives me an opportunity to clarify that issue.

MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: I have said that publicly in Chester about Card Lake, it happens to be my riding. Sorry, I apologize for the interruption.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. OLIVE: To the honourable member, if you wanted to, there's a lot to talk about, about sustainability.

[Page 530]

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think you're right. I think sometimes there has been more talk than action on sustainability. I think that, personally, I'm very concerned about sustainability of Nova Scotia's forests for all the reasons you've mentioned and in particular for its economic value and to keep people working in rural Nova Scotia. The forest sector is one that actually has had a reduction in jobs over a period of time. Technology has, and probably, you know, I was trying to maximize efficiencies, costs around Workers' Compensation, all of these things have probably certainly driven the industry to be more mechanical and so it hasn't generated as many jobs, but the harvest has gone up.

I worry a lot about whether or not we're actually harvesting in a sustainable manner and sustainability to me, when it comes to harvest levels, means that you determine how much you're growing every year in the forest and you don't cut more than that. Now, there has been a lot of talk around the issue that Nova Scotia's private woodland is being overharvested, that Crown is sustainable and large industrial is sustainable, but small private woodlots are not sustainable. If you question, I usually spend a fair bit of time questioning your department and it has been indicated to me that we're growing about 3 million cords a year in Nova Scotia's forests, in the operable forests. Our harvest level, according to this document by your department, around 1996 and I think around 1998 as well and I'm not just positive, but I think every five years this is reviewed, but it would be around 3 million cords. It's about 6 million cubic metres per year and that's including hardwood and softwood and most of that is softwood.

So our harvest level is around 3 million cords and our growth on our forest is about 3 million cords, but yet we say that we're overharvesting on our small private woodlots. I agree with that, that we're overharvesting on our small private woodlots, but I don't differentiate. To me, the operable forest is the operable forest whether it's small private or what it is because if you're cutting trees for this industry, it really doesn't really make much difference where you cut them. If you think you're running short of them somewhere, you're running short for the industry, period. So there seems to be a contradiction of saying that we're overharvesting the small, private woodlots and yet saying the forest has grown the same amount that we're cutting. Can you explain that?

MR. OLIVE: Well, I guess I would like to clarify something. It's one thing to say that the forest industry in Nova Scotia is on the decline, but I would like to tell the committee that the growth in Nova Scotia's forest industry over the last 10 years has been stronger than that of all other industries in Nova Scotia and stronger than the Canadian forest industry. So it's not totally accurate, depending on how you define the growth, but it's not totally accurate to say that the industry is not growing in Nova Scotia, it is growing.

I would like to refer you to an APEC study published in January 2003 entitled, The Forest Industry and the Nova Scotia Economy. This industry generated an estimated $1.55 billion in extra provincial shipments in 2001. Forest-related exports accounted for 20 per cent of the province's total export base. That is not a shrinking industry. So it is there and it is

[Page 531]

operational and it is growing. The APEC report also estimated that in 1998 the primary forest and related manufacturing industry generated about 13,000 direct jobs and an additional 5,300 indirectly while accounting for $450 million of the province's GDP.

So, you know, I think we have to be very clear when we have a discussion about where the forestry industry is going in Nova Scotia, the forestry industry in Nova Scotia, given the circumstances of softwood, given the world market, is doing quite well and I believe it sends the wrong message to the markets that our industry is trying to find, the message that, you know, we're not doing well, we need help, we need government's support, that's the worst message we could send, especially across the border given the softwood lumber issue. So we're doing quite well and we're doing it based on the stability and the strength of the industry itself and without all this government support that the other provinces are now paying for through countervailing duties and other issues. So I would just like to clarify that issue.

[5:15 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Well, you clarified the wrong issue. I didn't say the industry was in decline. I said the industry isn't employing as many people as it had been. So the level of employment in the industry is going down. The contribution to GDP for the province, I have no doubt is going up because the harvest level has gone up. As employment has gone down, harvest levels have gone up. So, therefore, the dollar value of that I'm assuming would go up as well even though employment in that sector has gone down. That was my point - that employment is going down in the forest sector.

MR. OLIVE: If I could respond to that.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. OLIVE: I don't know of an industry, and coming from the business sector, I don't know of an industry in the world that's not finding more effective ways to harvest, in this case to harvest and produce and distribute its product through, and it's being done through IT. I mean I have toured mills in this province. I grew up in Elmsdale, you know, I spent time with the Elmsdale Lumber Mill when you practically had to lift the log up onto the ramp to get it into the sawmill.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. OLIVE: Everything is done electronically and mechanically. So, of course, there's a reduction in employment.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

[Page 532]

MR. OLIVE: There has to be a reduction in employment. This industry is no different than any other industry so I don't understand, I guess, your message that there's a reduction in employment in the industry and, therefore, the industry can't be doing that well because you would have to say that about the production of motor vehicles in Windsor, Ontario. They probably don't have half as many people working there. You can go back to major industries in Nova Scotia, whether it's Michelin, or whatever. There's probably a reduction in everybody's workforce. So you can't associate a reduction in workforce with a downturn in the industry for employment.

MR. MACDONELL: I agree. What I'm trying to tell you I think, and not well I'm starting to assume, is the number of people employed, or the spinoff to a community, has to be weighed against what that industry is doing. I don't think the industry is in decline yet. What I'm trying to say, and if you want to look at the technology side in terms of renewable resources and what it can mean in terms of renewable resources, you only have to look at the cod fish to figure out what you can do in terms of putting increased technology, applying it to a renewable resource, reducing the number of jobs, and exhausting the resource. Now, if anybody can come up with a technology that will produce cod fish, I would say we're well on the road to recovery.

So my point, which I haven't really gotten to, is that I think the way we harvest in this province, the levels that we harvest and how we harvest, is not sustainable. That will have a major impact on this industry at some point down the road because the only way that you can do that, if you're harvesting by volume, is you're going to have to start cutting younger and younger trees which is exactly what we're doing in this province, in order to maintain those volumes, and at some point that will stop, that won't fill the need, and you're going to find amalgamation, a feeding frenzy among companies, because there won't be as many. There won't be as much resource. So, therefore, those with the deepest pockets that can stand to pay the prices for private land stumpage are only the ones who will survive. So you will actually reduce the number of jobs even though your contribution to the GDP may not change.

So what I'm trying to say is I think that the resource is in danger, I think the jobs in the resource are in danger, and I think that its contribution to the economy is in danger. Now, why would I think that you would ask? Well, I will tell you. This is your document from your department. It tells me what the harvest level in the province is which is about 3 million cords or 6 million cubic metres. It also indicates to me what the operable forest is which is about 6 million acres. It's 2,616,000 hectares. By having an idea of how big the forest is, which we do, and knowing how much we're cutting, we can determine how long it would take to cut it, would you agree?

MR. OLIVE: It's not quite that simple but . . .

[Page 533]

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, I will let you explain why it's not but, to me, a tree standing is almost the same notion that if you could have all the cod fish sticking up out of the water, we could have seen how many cod fish there were and a level of harvest would have told us we know how long they will last. Well, we have that ability with the forests. We can see the trees, we know how big the piece of land is and we can say we're harvesting this amount of wood and so in x number of years we can exhaust it.

Now, I played with these numbers quite a bit. As a matter of fact, I played with them so much that I was even optimistic in my assertions of how long the forest would last and I made a mistake, so I will put that in the record, but on this chart, and here's where I made my mistake, this says total forest change, age and class structure and it has, 32 per cent of the forest is between 61 and 80 years. So doing a little bit of math, I figured out what 32 per cent of the forest at 6 million acres, at 30 cord to the acre, would work out to. Presently we're harvesting 100,000 acres a year in this province and it would take 19 years to cut that and that's if we were just going out and cutting the trees that are 61 to 80 years which we wouldn't be doing, but just for simple figures. So we could cut that in 19 years.

Now, the other thing you notice about this chart is there is no old forest. The 100-year-old forest is that little dot, 100-plus, right there, 80 to 100 is that, less than 3 per cent but, you know, Mr. Minister, what I haven't found out is if this is the operable forest because I think it's not. I think this is the total forest and I did my calculations based on that being the operable forest and if that was the operable forest, we would have 19 years to cut that, or if it's a total forest, yes, if it's the operable forest, we had 19 years, but what I found out was this was the total forest and that means the operable portion of that is smaller. GPI says that it's 11 per cent, this age class. I said it was 32 per cent and they said, no, that's wrong, that this is only 11 per cent of our operable forest and if that's 11 per cent, we will cut that age class in six years.

Now, is that the only piece of information that makes me think that I should be worried? No, it's not. This, the Forest Health Network - Canadian Forestry Service, Natural Resources, Canada, I don't know if I can turn to the page quickly enough, but they mention about the forests in Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Maritime eco-zone, and that we're overharvesting in Atlantic Canada and actually they pick New Brunswick specifically and I have never been able to get the information on how much they think we're overharvesting in Nova Scotia, but they say they're overharvesting by one and one-half times in New Brunswick.

So, to me, the industry is in serious trouble because, one thing in particular, there's no limit on our harvest. We have no annual allowable cut. So, therefore, whatever companies can sell, they can cut in Nova Scotia and one of the first things I would think you would want to identify, if you're going to talk about sustainability, would be that you determine how much you can cut because you know how big your forest is and you know how fast it's growing, so therefore you would say we can only cut x number of cords per year and we

[Page 534]

don't do that. So that's one problem. The other problem is the issue around clear-cutting because if you're talking about silviculture, and you have been, that you should be applying your harvesting practices on a treatment to a particular stand and you can't tell me that almost every acre that we harvest in this province should be clear-cut, but that's a treatment that would be appropriate.

MR. OLIVE: I don't think anyone ever said that.

MR. MACDONELL: No, but we allow it to happen. So can you tell me why we do that?

MR. OLIVE: Just on the last issue, you will find that clear-cut is becoming less and less of a harvesting process because of the old forest strategy and the elements involved in it and in developing through the Code of Forest Practice and others. I know people, some people in society love to jump up and down and use clear-cut and, God knows, I get enough e-mails on stop clear-cutting when, in fact, there is so much, where there are so many other select cuts and other processes going on now that the industry is educating itself. So clear-cutting is becoming less fashionable from the point of view of the ability to then go back in and work that forest and create a new sustainable environment but, honourable member, you're quoting from a document that was created in 1996 with statistics back to 1996. We've come a long way since then.

We've developed a full forest strategy that includes things like forest sustainability rates, monitoring and enforcement, education information, the code of forest practices which has just been released to the public, wildlife habitat management regulations. We have a state of the forestry report that is done every year. You know, I don't think it's doing justice to the industry to float around, you're cutting this many, you're not planting that many when you're talking about a five- or six-year old program that has recognized the points that you're making. If I was back here in 1996 and we hadn't done what we have done as a government from 1996 to 2003, I might be agreeing with you that there are some numbers in there which are questionable, but that is not the case today. That is not the case today. Our silviculture program, our harvesting program is monitored. It is monitored more so now than ever in the history of this province and it is getting more so. But what you have to remember is that 25 per cent of it is Crown and 75 per cent is private.

[5:30 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. OLIVE: What we need to do through the Code of Forest Practice - and I'm not disagreeing with you - is educate people, so they will sit back and say, well, I shouldn't cut that many cords off my land, I should cut some, plant some, use regeneration, whatever it takes but have a plan for sustainable forest management. We're getting there. We've come

[Page 535]

a long way since 1996. So I don't put a whole lot of faith in having a discussion about statistics that are six, almost seven years old, because we have come a long way.

It is an education process and I know you understand that. It is an education process because 75 per cent of the forest land mass is not owned by the government. It is not managed or controlled. We can't go out there and tell you, you can't cut all that wood down, you can only cut a third of it and when you cut that third, you must plant. We want for the woodlot owners out there to say, help me manage my land, so that I can cut this down and I've a nice little nest egg to go on with but I want to make sure it's there so that my son or daughter in 25 years from now will have access to the new growth through good forest management, maybe it will grow in 15 years instead of 25 years, maybe it will grow a greater return per acre than I did.

So, it is all part of the whole forest strategy, the education process, the Code of Forest Practice, the regulations. We know, we have a much better handle today through the "state of the forest" report than we ever did in 1996.

MR. MACDONELL: Call me naive but I'm telling you, Mr. Minister, that this is an industry in serious shape and you won't notice it for a bit yet, I think, because I think the dollar values will stay high and then it is going to collapse, then you're going to notice it. Somebody is going to say, who was sleeping at the switch?

Now, I think education is great because I was a teacher for 15 years and I think education has its place but I haven't found that education has necessarily had a major impact when it comes to people trying to get dollars back on their investment. They want to do that very quickly. What you may say about these numbers, because they're 1996, this is a projection, 1996 to 2070. These are the people in your department who came up with these. They didn't do that overnight, they spent a few years coming up with these figures. I know that these figures are re-examined, I think, every five years to find out how close we are on track with this.

Now, I didn't write this report and I didn't write this either, but I've analyzed them and I've asked a lot of questions. To me, both of these say we're overharvesting. Now, you might disagree. This one definitely says it, because they put it in writing that we're overharvesting in the Atlantic Region.

MR. OLIVE: If I could just interject, honourable member. Because the last comment you made is quite significant. You indicated that that document said there was overharvesting in the Atlantic Region.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

[Page 536]

MR. OLIVE: It does not say that about what's happening in Nova Scotia. What you don't have and what you haven't shown me and this could be available if it was asked by the committee is the APEC, January 2003, Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and I would like with permission of the Chair to read part of this document, "Nova Scotia's forests are considered to have higher rates of natural regeneration that aid in the renewal of forest land." This goes to your issue of are we growing as much as we're cutting. "A report by the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources states that of the areas harvested in the province, 70% of the area typically regenerates naturally, 15% requires replanting and a further 15% needs fill planting." It also says, "Replanting is not the only measure of investment in sustainability. In terms of relative expenditures for forest management, Nova Scotia spends more per hectare than the Canadian average on forest management. In addition to the $10.3 million spent on silviculture in the province in 1997, government and industry spent over $26 million on other forest management initiatives, including $3 million on protection against fires and pests, $7 million on resource access and $15 million on other expenditures such as research, timber management, technology enhancement and training."

So I would suggest that instead of saying Atlantic Canada, let's talk about Nova Scotia and let's talk about what APEC and other independent bodies say about the state of our forests and the sustainability of our forests, because the comments that you're making relate to Atlantic Canada, relate to problems that, perhaps, exist in New Brunswick or that exist in Newfoundland. So if you want to talk statistics, let's talk about Nova Scotia's statistics and let's talk about statistics in 2002-03 and not 1996.

MR. MACDONELL: I will ask now if your department could provide me, if they have done a five-year update on these statistics, could they provide them to me, I would appreciate that.

MR. OLIVE: If that's completed, yes, we can.

MR. MACDONELL: These are your numbers, not mine. I didn't generate. Well, it is a projection from 1996 to 2070.

MR. OLIVE: But that's what we used to develop the strategy that recognized, as you have recognized quite appropriately, that we had to do something and that's exactly what we've done in the last seven years.

MR. MACDONELL: Right. Well, I'm not sure that you have.

MR. OLIVE: Well, then, we will just agree to disagree, because I'm telling you we have and we will provide statistics over the next few years that will show that the actions taken by this government in the forest sustainability program is working and, in fact, will offset the concerns you would have had in 1996.

[Page 537]

MR. MACDONELL: Great. I will be doing cartwheels if you can provide me with that, I want to tell you. But I also want to tell you this. This says, Nova Scotia Projected Inventory for the Operable Forest. Now, that's the forest we cut. That's with the parks and everything else taken out of it, 1996-2070, which I know you're going to disregard, even though it is your own department. It says proposed silviculture, now it talks about the projected inventory. That's the projected inventory of trees in the province. If you will notice, this inventory goes down over time. That means the harvest level goes up over time. Now, to me, right now we're overharvesting.

You can disagree with the Canadian Forest Service which says we're overharvesting, because they may not have mentioned Nova Scotia, they've said Atlantic Region, I think we're still in it, unless somebody moved us, there was some talk a few years ago about towing Nova Scotia somewhere else, I don't know if that happened in the last day or so, but it would seem to me that I think we're overharvesting by about the same level that we harvest, in other words, cutting twice as much as we can sustain. I've talked to people in the industry and they talk about cutting 55 year old trees, that's where we're going. So, to me, if you're cutting 55 year old trees, you're cutting trees that are just starting to grow. If that is the vision of the industry or the vision of the province, then how can you say that we're not overharvesting and how is it that you can separate and say, well that's not Crown land, we're talking about private land? It's all being cut.

It doesn't matter to the industry - if they need trees, they're going to go where there are trees, it doesn't matter to them if it's on private land or Crown land. So if there's not enough trees in the operable forest, including all the land that you cut on, what difference does that make? It means you don't have enough. You're cutting it faster than you can replace it. Your APEC study talking about regeneration, I know we can grow trees. I know we can grow trees very quickly, we have good regeneration in this province. We usually have good rainfall, we can grow trees in Nova Scotia. If you walk out of here tomorrow and all the operable forest was cut, what good would the level of growth be? What good would it mean - we can go out and plant and replace every tree? It wouldn't mean anything, you wouldn't have a forest. That's the point I'm trying to make.

We're cutting it faster than we can replace it naturally. I haven't seen anybody actually dispute that until now when you tried. The Royal Commission on Forestry back in 1986, somewhere around that time, I might be wrong, they set up some scenarios for sustainability of the forest. One of those scenarios, a doubling of silviculture treatment specified as scenario two would permit the harvest of softwood and hardwood in the next five-year period to increase to 20 and 50 per cent respectively. Beyond 1986, the continued and slightly expanded investment in silviculture would allow the annual harvest to be further increased to 2.5 million cords of softwood and 1.1 million cords of hardwood by the year 2040.

[Page 538]

Mr. Minister, we're at this level of harvest now in 2003. We're 40 years ahead of what this predicted if we put a lot of money into silviculture, which never happened. The money never went into silviculture in this province after the federal government stopped their program, so therefore we're 40 years ahead on that Royal Commission's estimate of what we can harvest and we didn't put the money into silviculture.

If you think that in five or six or seven years or whatever that what we've done as far as stewardship agreements and the sustainability fund - because that only just came into effect in the last four years if that - because there were no funds in there in 1998 when I got elected. I can't see how anybody can reconcile this unless we're going to say, well, that was a different model. We're using a somewhat different model these days. Well, you can pick any model, you can punch anything into a computer and it will spit out what you want to know, but what this is indicating from this commission is that we're 40 years ahead on our harvest and we haven't done the work in silviculture. I say again, we're overharvesting, number one, and number two, we're doing too much clear-cutting.

I don't think it matters what that APEC report says because everything they said as far as growth of trees and regeneration, I think is right. But that's not going to mean diddly if all the trees are cut and you have to wait 60 or 70 years for them to grow back. Any comment?

MR. OLIVE: No.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. So, if you have some updated information that would change my view on this, I would be more than happy to hear it.

I would like to know if you can tell me the difference between the three categories in the IRM classification, because I don't see a difference.

MR. OLIVE: You're talking about the C1, C2, C3? C1 is general, which leaves it notwithstanding any additional information through an IRM process. When you go through the IRM process, it determines if it's C1, C2, C3, but that's not to say that there's not ongoing research in a C1 area. Generally, a C1 area is general, which is available for multi-use, whether it's forestry or mining or recreation or whatever. It's a multi-use.

[5:45 p.m.]

C2 means that there are some areas within a C2 area that may need some protection. Where we may be identifying endangered species in a C2 area, there may be old growth forest in a C2 area, but that's not to say that the whole area couldn't withstand some other form of activity, whether it was a select harvest or whatever. If you remember before, I talked about having areas that you may have a C2 area which would not be open to massive logging,

[Page 539]

but in fact, in a C2 area you may have to cut some trees that are dying on the stand. In a C2 area, there would be some discussion as to whether or not you could go in and do that.

In a C3 area, that is to all intents and purposes an area that requires various levels of protection, that would be heavily restricted for any harvesting. There would be significant characteristics that have been discovered during an IRM process that would highly limit general use, such as forestry or mining.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. Are we saying that for category C1, there's no protected areas?

MR. OLIVE: No, you can't say that. An area is categorized as a C1 at a given point in time because at that point in time the IRM process had discovered that generally speaking, you could do anything on the land, within reason. I mean, I'm not talking about anything on the land, but you could harvest it, you could mine it, you could put a park on it if you wanted to. Whatever you wanted to do with the land, within reason, you could do. But, what you have to remember is a resource management process, when you talk about sustainability and you asked a question before, it may well be that you declare an area C1 which means there's no specific area that could or should be protected, and all of a sudden you find that a moose herd has set up home or wildlife or birds have set up somewhere in a small piece of wetland, that may have been there, but not considered enough to make it a C2 or C3.

There's an ongoing process to make sure that we protect the environment which is part of the sustainability issue we talked about before. So, while we could say C1 is a general area, that's not to say that three years down the road somebody will discover a turtle habitat in there that nobody saw before and all of a sudden part of the C1 may jump to a C3. It's difficult to say it's C1 today and it will be a C1 20 years from now.

MR. MACDONELL: So, are we saying that you're not done your integrated resource management program?

MR. OLIVE: No. What I'm saying is, it's an ongoing process. It's part of the sustainability process - I mean, animals don't just live in a C2 or a C3. They can move into a C1. If they move into a C1 and nature conservancy or Ducks Unlimited or somebody comes along to us - they know where the C1s are - and says my heavens, we found out that there's endangered wildlife or wild fowl in this C1 area and we need to protect it. So we have to go back and look at it. We can't say, whoops, it's C1, can't touch it - too bad, the birds are gone, it's unfortunate they happen to land there. You can't do that.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, can protected spaces be taken out of a category or protection?

[Page 540]

MR. OLIVE: No. Protected spaces cannot. We're talking about moving into that area, not out of that area. Like a wilderness area can't be taken out.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. What comes under the definition of a protected space?

MR. OLIVE: Pardon?

MR. MACDONELL: What comes under the definition of a protected space? I know there are 31 protected spaces that are listed.

MR. OLIVE: Yes, the protected spaces are under the wilderness area. They're under the Department of Environment and Labour. They do their determination as to what should or shouldn't be a protected space.

MR. MACDONELL: And they do that based on?

MR. OLIVE: I really can't answer that. You would really have to ask them.

MR. MACDONELL: Department of Environment and Labour?

MR. OLIVE: Yes. They are responsible for the designation of protected spaces and the integrated resource management process provides the information.

MR. MACDONELL: But, that's with your department, isn't it?

MR. OLIVE: That's right. But we don't implement the designation of the wilderness areas and protected spaces. It's no different than our geological staff who go out and they find potential minerals all over the province, and that's a resource, it's like a library, and the mineral sector comes in and they use the information. Our IRM process determines that and, by the way, DEL is part of the IRM process. So it's not like they don't know what's going on. They are at the table when the IRM process is ongoing and when the evaluations are made and then it's up to them to step up to the plate, or whatever, and say this is significant, it should be protected.

MR. MACDONELL: But wouldn't they get their information about habitat or species, or geology, from your department?

MR. OLIVE: Through the IRM process, that's absolutely right.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm curious between category two and category three because category two you said there were areas that are protected and in category three there are various levels of protection. So what's the difference? What's various levels of protection compared to protected?

[Page 541]

MR. OLIVE: In category three, I mean the sole use could be as a park, for example.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. OLIVE: Okay, in category two there would be blocks within a category two which would have a very specific value based on the IRM process which may affect what happens in the rest of the C2 area.

MR. MACDONELL: So when we talk about protected under C2, or protected under any of these categories I guess, are we talking in terms of ecological, biological? Are you talking about . . .

MR. OLIVE: Yes, we're talking about old growth forests, we're talking about endangered species, we're talking about wetlands, any of those areas which have a significant value other than sort of forestry, or mining, or whatever, or that would inhibit another activity, major industrial activity.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure if I've ever really read the word inhibit in any of these. Like I say, it seems vague to me. I don't find anything clear in the categories. I would certainly like to think that if it gets to category three, that that's kind of etched in stone, but I'm not at all clear about category two, that if something is protected there, does it move to category three then?

MR. OLIVE: Well, no. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to actually get the definitions that we have for C1, C2 and C3.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, this is from the Standing Committee on Resources. Well, the witnesses were the Nova Scotia Public Lands Coalition and the Eastern Shore Forest Watch Association and Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia, but the background information came from the Department of Natural Resources and that's where that came from there. So I'm assuming my definition is the same as yours.

MR. OLIVE: Yes. Just to clarify C2, you've got a block of Crown land in a C2. Now, on that Crown land there are resources of significant value as determined through the IRM process. So any activity as a result of that recognition of those values must work around and protect those significant values that have been identified in a C2. Does that make it any clearer? I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, no, it doesn't, but my time is up, because if you look at number three, it's protected and limited use areas which sounds exactly what you just said for category two. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Minister, I appreciate it and I shall return.

[Page 542]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We turn now to the Liberal caucus. The time is 5:55 p.m.

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go with a number of major issues and then I will go into some local detail. The first question is with regard to the Kyoto Protocol. Would the minister be kind enough to provide a copy of the department's plan to deal with the effects of the Kyoto Protocol?

MR. OLIVE: I thank you for the question. The issue regarding the Kyoto Protocol, as you know, was with us when we also had Energy. All of those issues, and staff has been transferred to the Department of Energy and, therefore, the plan that the member speaks of is managed at the Department of Energy. So it may be more appropriate to request that through Energy.

MR. MACKINNON: Does the department have a copy of the policy position or issues, management paper or document, or anything that relates specifically to the Department of Natural Resources? Does it have anything documented that would outline what issues it deals with in terms of the Kyoto Protocol and how it deals with the Kyoto Protocol?

MR. OLIVE: The forestry sector is one of the 14 tables set up under Kyoto and we would have information on that and I can make that available to the member and to the committee.

MR. MACKINNON: Can the minister outline as to what the implications of the Kyoto Protocol are as it relates to sustainable forest management; in other words, the Kyoto Protocol that was adopted by the federal government, and I realize there has to be some detail worked out with the provinces. Where does the province stand on this, how does its long-term sustainability plan, how is it going to be impacted by the Kyoto Protocol? Will there be more jobs? Will there be less jobs? Will there be greater cost to industry, to government, or what analysis does the minister and his department have on it, or what limited information he may or may not have?

MR. OLIVE: Well, it's a cross-departmental question. This whole Kyoto . . .

MR. MACKINNON: I just want the information on the Department of Natural Resources.

MR. OLIVE: But it's not quite that simple, what we do directly reflects the policy and the position papers being prepared. As I say, it's a work in process being prepared by the Department of Energy.

[Page 543]

MR. MACKINNON: Has that been completed yet?

MR. OLIVE: No, it hasn't and I mean you're asking for something, first of all, it's ongoing so I would suggest there's probably not a complete position paper available at this point. What stage it is at, I can't even tell you that, but it is a work in progress and it's not an isolated paper at our Department of Natural Resources, nor is it one at Energy. It involves a number of departments across government and I'm really not in a position to tell you any more than that.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, I'm a little disappointed because your colleague who sat in that very chair indicated a slightly different position than what you've indicated here today, but I will leave that for both you and your colleague to sort out, as to whether department or the government really has a policy position on the Kyoto Protocol.

The other issue is with regard to the coal leases, for the most part the coal leases in Cape Breton, I understand there are approximately 57 or so, could be more, what's the status of the negotiations between the federal government and the provincial government and the transfer of these coal leases back to the province?

MR. OLIVE: I appreciate the member's question and I know the member, no more or less probably than any other Nova Scotian, but I know that you would have a particular interest in the economic development issue associated with those leases in Cape Breton. We have had ongoing discussions with the federal government and with the Board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation regarding a transfer of those leases. We are in a situation now where once those negotiations get through to fruition, we will be in a position to go to a public tender, a request for proposals for development of a number of mines in Cape Breton. The federal government is aware of that. They are in support of our goal of revitalizing those mines in Cape Breton that can provide economic stimulus to the island and to Nova Scotia and basically we're still in that negotiation process.

[6:00 p.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: How far along are you in the negotiations? Are you 50 per cent, 20 per cent, 10 per cent, 90 per cent, or what?

MR. OLIVE: Well, I would rather not talk to it in percentage terms. We've come an awful long way since the surrender of the leases. There are so many issues involved with it that to put a percentage on the overall discussion, we're making good ground in some areas and, quite frankly, it's hard-slogging in others, but I think overall the negotiations are going quite well.

MR. MACKINNON: So you're saying the federal government has surrendered those leases?

[Page 544]

MR. OLIVE: They have.

MR. MACKINNON: So the issue is on remediation and subsidence, correct?

MR. OLIVE: Those are two issues involved, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: But there are other issues?

MR. OLIVE: I think the primary issue that we are concerned with is the remediation. Subsidence is a secondary issue from the point of view of the surrender of the leases. So we are into discussions with the remediation issue. There is also the transfer of any lands that could be used for other than coal development. So there are many issues on the table.

MR. MACKINNON: Is there any dollar sign or amount attached to the remediation issue on the leases that have been surrendered to the province?

MR. OLIVE: Not at this point. I am aware, and I'm sure the member is aware, that a while back Devco did put a figure of $112 million on the table and had that money booked for remediation of the mines, that they at that point had accepted responsibility for. That would be the only number that I have that I'm familiar with regarding the cost of remediation.

MR. MACKINNON: Does that include the coal-mining sites that have involved strip mining over the years, for example, out in the Broughton area, the old Town of Broughton?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, it's difficult to say if that specific site would be involved, but it is all of the sites that they were responsible for.

MR. MACKINNON: That seems to be a significantly different position than was outlined by the federal government at a public town hall meeting in Dominion several weeks back which they had a briefing session on subsidence. I attended that meeting. The $112 million that the minister is referring to with regard to the issue of subsidence in and around the underground mines had nothing to do with any of the other sites that I just referred to, whether it be Broughton, whether it be South Head, whether it be the old Bras d'Or coal mine district, or what have you, it has nothing to do with those. They're speaking strictly of $112 million on the subsidence of, for example, No. 26, No. 12, No. 1A, No. 1B and so on. So does the minister or anyone in his department have auxiliary information to show anything to the contrary or is he still of the opinion that the $112 million is for everything?

MR. OLIVE: No, what I said was, just to clarify that, honourable member, it's my understanding that the $112 million was booked by the federal government for the sites that at that point they had taken responsibility for. We are beyond that point now and whether

[Page 545]

$112 million is adequate enough to reclaim the sites that are on the table is yet to be negotiated or yet to be determined, sorry.

MR. MACKINNON: I can appreciate that. What has the provincial government booked on this issue of remediation?

MR. OLIVE: We haven't booked anything.

MR. MACKINNON: So the province hasn't put 5 cents into it?

MR. OLIVE: We don't own Devco. We have not accepted . . .

MR. MACKINNON: I'm not talking about Devco per se, and I'm not only talking about all the active sites that have been just recently involved with the shutdown of Devco, but a lot of the abandoned sites anywhere from 30 to 50 to 75 years past. Obviously, the minister doesn't seem to be - and I don't mean this disrespectfully - aware of the total number of sites that we're dealing with.

MR. OLIVE: With all due respect, I'm fully aware. There are 133 sites all together.

MR. MACKINNON: So the minister would know which ones were active and which ones were inactive?

MR. OLIVE: That's correct.

MR. MACKINNON: Does the minister have a list of those that are active and those that are inactive?

MR. OLIVE: I don't have a list here, but we have actually broken the mine sites, for the want of another word, the 133 sites, into four categories and I believe the ones that you're referring to, we would place in category three and four. Those are the ones that go back to 1870.

MR. MACKINNON: Will the minister table the list of those 130-plus mine sites and how they're categorized?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, I can table that, certainly.

MR. MACKINNON: And would the minister also provide us with a highlight of what the key issues are in relation to these particular mines, even if they're done in clusters? I believe the minister has indicated the issue of subsidence is one, the issue of remediation is another. What other issues would be in consideration of negotiations with the federal government?

[Page 546]

MR. OLIVE: With full respect to the honourable member, we are going through a negotiation process and it would not be advantageous to the government, nor to yourself as a member representing this region, nor to Cape Breton in general, for us to have negotiations carried out at this table or any other table until we get closer to a time when all of us would be proud to see coal mines developed in Cape Breton.

MR. MACKINNON: With all due respect, we have been proud to see coal mines develop for the last 250 years without having to come to this table to discuss it and as far as negotiation, if the provincial government is not putting 5 cents on the table, it's not an issue of negotiation, it's a question of how much you're going to get from the federal government to address the issue and my concern is threefold. Number one, the issue of subsidence, who's going to ultimately accept the responsibility for subsidence?

I realize the minister has sent me some correspondence in recent weeks for a request that I made of his department because of an initiative that was announced at that Dominion town hall meeting indicating the possibility of a provincial subsidence program, but I would like to have some clarity at the ministerial level as to whose responsibility it is. The federal government has indicated to me in writing that it is not a federal responsibility. The provincial minister has indicated to me in writing that it is not a provincial responsibility. I would like to have some clarity on that even if there are some legal opinions within the various levels, particularly provincial. That's one issue.

The other issue is the fact that this so-called negotiation has been at an impasse for a considerable amount of time and there are various stakeholders that have investments such as Donkin Resources. They have expended well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps $0.5 million-plus. There's another contractor by the name of H.W. Phillips & Son that has expended upwards of $300,000 to $400,000 and these folks have not only invested, but have had their businesses put on hold. They're, you know, seriously constrained and it means job losses. Well, the other issues, I don't think I have to go into detail. If we have no sense of when we're going to have closure on this issue, I think the minister can appreciate that's not fair to these individuals, their companies or the employees or, indeed, any of the stakeholders in the private sector. It's not what I call a way to treat people who have committed their whole lives to industrial development.

So there are two of the issues and the environmental side I can focus on that a little later. But if the minister could give me some clarity on this issue of subsidence, I would like to hear in clear detail - perhaps if we have some legal opinion handy that they can clearly state what the province's position is on this; and, two, when these business people can have some kind of a comfort level before they're forced to go out of business.

MR. OLIVE: Thank you. I will deal with the subsidence issue first because the subsidence issue is very clear. If you want to know what the provincial government's response is, we are not liable for the subsidence issue. I would bring to the attention of the

[Page 547]

honourable member who, back in 1995, I believe, served in the Government of Nova Scotia and in 1995 the government of the day had this issue of subsidence before its Cabinet . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think the point to which the minister refers, if he will check Hansard he will find that I wasn't a member of the House at that time.

MR. OLIVE: Okay. Then I would restate the fact that the Liberal Government of the day did in fact have the subsidence issue before its Cabinet. It had the opportunity at that point in time to introduce a program - it chose not to do that. I don't know why it chose not to do that. You're asking me at this point what our position is, our position is that we're not responsible for the subsidence issue, that in fact the Cape Breton Development Corporation is. While I'm not a mind reader and don't profess to be, one has to wonder why that subsidence issue was never brought forward in 1995. What the reasons were for that, I would like to know that myself and perhaps the honourable member could ask his colleagues as to why the government of the day chose not to take any action that would result in acceptance of responsibility for subsidence through whatever program they were discussing at the time.

The second issue, I came into this portfolio mid-year last year. One of the files that I inherited, in fact, was the Devco lease file. I, along with my very capable staff, have been working very hard in resolving this. The member's quite right - it's been an issue for quite a long time in terms of business development. I have been working extremely hard in trying to find effective negotiating methods to resolve this issue in all four categories of the total 133 mines. I believe that we've made progress, but I accept that it would be nice if the progress was a little bit faster.

The honourable member may also want to take an opportunity to speak to the federal MPs from the area in relation to the desire of the community and the business community in Cape Breton and in industrial Cape Breton to move this file ahead. I have had discussions with them and quite frankly, they are very positive, but would, I'm sure, appreciate the support of the honourable member and other members of the Liberal caucus in industrial Cape Breton in support of their constituents and their business partners in that region to move ahead for economic development in Cape Breton. I would fully support any initiative that the honourable member or his colleagues wanted to take in moving this issue ahead a lot faster than it's been moving in the past.

MR. MACKINNON: With all due respect, I think that's perhaps one of the silliest comments I've heard from a minister this session. First of all, you haven't answered the question. I guess my first question is, did you, as minister responsible for this file, have any direct discussions with the federal minister responsible for the coal leases in Cape Breton?

MR. OLIVE: I and staff have been in contact with the federal department . . .

[Page 548]

MR. MACKINNON: Have you had direct conversations with the federal minister on this file?

MR. OLIVE: I and staff have had conversations with the federal department involved up to the ministerial level. I anticipate that will continue.

MR. MACKINNON: Did you have any discussions with the federal minister responsible for this file directly yourself? You and the federal minister, yourself?

MR. OLIVE: I and staff have had these discussions with the federal minister's office, the federal minister's staff, who are working on this file on behalf of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

[6:15 p.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: But, Mr. Minister, you have not answered the question. Have you had any discussions yourself, never mind the minister's staff, never mind you and your staff having discussions up to the ministerial level, my question is, did you have any direct deliberations or discussions with the federal minister on this file? Yes or no.

MR. OLIVE: My staff and I have had these discussions on this file with the federal minister's office. We continue to do that.

MR. MACKINNON: So the answer is no.

MR. OLIVE: You didn't hear me say that.

MR. MACKINNON: No, but you haven't answered the question.

MR. OLIVE: Right.

MR. MACKINNON: So, in other words, you haven't had discussions. Do you have any documentation to show that you've had direct discussions with the federal minister on this file?

MR. OLIVE: The honourable member's entitled to interpret my answer any way he wishes.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, could the minister please answer the question? Did you have any discussion or any deliberation at all with the federal minister on this file? You can say yes or you can say no or you can dance around the issue all you like, but it all comes down to did you have any discussions with the federal minister?

[Page 549]

MR. OLIVE: Like I had answered, staff and myself have been dealing with the minister's office and we will continue those negotiations. I do not plan to carry on those negotiations around this table.

MR. MACKINNON: I thank the minister for his response and I wouldn't expect him to carry them on around this table, but my question was, did he have any discussions with the federal minister himself, directly, on this file? Yes or no. He doesn't have to tell me the essence of the conversation, he doesn't have to tell me about whether there were negotiations on any particular issue. My question was, did he have any discussions with the federal minister on this particular file directly? He and the federal minister.

MR. OLIVE: Asked and answered.

MR. MACKINNON: But you didn't answer.

MR. OLIVE: Well, you can interpret my answer any way you wish.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, can you tell me yes or can you tell me no, did you have any discussions with the federal minister?

MR. OLIVE: Asked and answered, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get an answer. He's saying asked and answered, but he didn't answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the minister may have made a reply to your answer and I've learned earlier this week that if a minister wishes not to answer a question or provide any further answers, he's not compelled to do so.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, that's a little better, Mr. Chairman. At least we now have on record that the minister is refusing to answer the question. That having been said, we can bring that back to the stakeholders on behalf of my constituents so that they will know quite clearly the level of discussion that has taken place at this point.

My next issue is with regard to Communications Nova Scotia. How much money has the department spent on communications in the last year, both in-house and in terms of contract work with Communications Nova Scotia? How does that compare with the previous year?

Perhaps while we're waiting for that, Mr. Chairman, the minister might be able to answer this supplemental to that other issue. Has the minister ever made an official request to his federal counterpart to have a meeting directly on this issue, between he and the federal minister?

[Page 550]

MR. OLIVE: On communications?

MR. MACKINNON: No, on the coal lease issue.

MR. OLIVE: Could you repeat the question?

MR. MACKINNON: Has the minister ever made an official request to his federal counterpart, the federal minister responsible for the Devco file, to meet specifically on the issue of the transfer of the coal leases?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, we have.

MR. MACKINNON: Would you table a copy of that letter?

MR. OLIVE: I will have to get back to the member on that.

MR. MACKINNON: Why is that?

MR. OLIVE: Well, because this has been a staff negotiation between our department and the federal Department of Natural Resources, and I will have to clarify how that request was in fact made. You're asking me if there was a written one, I am telling you there was contact. I cannot confirm here today whether it was a written request or whether it was as a result of the negotiations.

MR. MACKINNON: But you, yourself, never instructed staff to make an official request to the federal minister that you would like to meet with the federal minister to discuss this file, personally.

MR. OLIVE: This has been a staff negotiation . . .

MR. MACKINNON: So the answer is no.

MR. OLIVE: . . . and part of it was that the staff, and at the appropriate time, the full ministerial level meeting would take place.

MR. MACKINNON: So the answer is no.

MR. OLIVE: No.

MR. MACKINNON: You don't know then, because you don't know what the official request was. You can't provide any detail.

[Page 551]

MR. OLIVE: In response to the honourable member's question on communications, for 2001-02, the publication services expenditure was $90,498.52, the advertising was $87,558.48 and the support services, which would be salaries, was $83,220.94. We also have two communications people on staff with the department through Communications Nova Scotia. It's always been that way, apparently.

MR. MACKINNON: That's over and above, support services is the $83,000?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, the $83,000 is the two staff.

MR. MACKINNON: How does that compare to the previous year?

MR. OLIVE: Staff haven't changed, so I would presume that, notwithstanding Public Service increases, regular salary increases, would be the same.

MR. MACKINNON: I see considerable expenses here for different automobile dealerships. Has the department upgraded its fleet of vehicles in the last year? If so, would the minister give us some detail on that?

MR. OLIVE: We do have a tangible capital assets account for replacement of vehicles that need to be replaced. If you're looking for specifics on what vehicles and how many, I could certainly have that tabled. But, yes, there is an ongoing replacement program, as there is in, I think, probably all departments that have vehicles that have seen better days.

MR. MACKINNON: What's the total complement of the department's fleet? Approximately.

MR. OLIVE: My memory did serve me, I was going to say 700 or 750. In fact it is a fleet of approximately 700 vehicles, which includes cars, trucks, fire trucks, snowmobiles, boats, ATVs, tractors, graders and bulldozers. There is a life cycle replacement schedule. Every year, those that need to be replaced, in fact, are replaced.

MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to provide the detail on that. I can take that on notice.

MR. OLIVE: Yes. We can do that. That's fine.

MR. MACKINNON: What was the total fuel bill for the department in the last year?

MR. OLIVE: Just as a clarification, honourable member, we have aircraft fuel and vehicle fuel. If you want a breakdown . . .

MR. MACKINNON: If you have that broken down, that would be nice.

[Page 552]

MR. OLIVE: Okay. We will have to provide that to the committee.

MR. MACKINNON: Could I have that by Thursday? Would that be a problem?

MR. OLIVE: Yes. That's fine.

MR. MACKINNON: The department has a helicopter, correct?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: That helicopter is leased out or rented out, serviced out to other government departments, as well as for itself, correct?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: What was the total revenue generated from other government departments? Do you have that broken down on a department-by-department basis?

MR. OLIVE: We can get the recovery figure, but as far as it being by department, I will have to check that. I can't confirm that that level of detail is available. My deputy tells me that it is available, we just don't have that breakdown here. We will provide that for you.

MR. MACKINNON: With regard to legal services, I know that there's a fairly significant bill there, the Department of Justice - I'm going to round it off - about $160,000. The department usually issues fines in the run of a year and different citations for different issues, and I realize the money that would be collected for fines would go to the Department of Justice or in general revenues, but let's say for deer jacking, how many charges were laid for deer jacking last year? Is that up or down from the previous year? What about for illegal sports fishing? Do we have that type of detail?

MR. OLIVE: Again, you're asking for detail that we unfortunately don't have with us. It's difficult to bring all of the detail. We can get it and will provide it to you. That was for . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Illegal deer hunting and for illegal fishing.

MR. OLIVE: We can give you a summary on both of those.

MR. MACKINNON: And the total number of charges that were laid and the total number of warnings. I am not sure if you would have it on a county-by-county basis, but if it's possible, that would certainly be appreciated.

[Page 553]

MR. OLIVE: We can give you a full status report that will show all of that information.

MR. MACKINNON: Now for our provincial parks, last year there was quite a cutback on the amount of time that the provincial parks were open to the public. Is there any change in the scheduling for provincial parks from last year? I noticed the Mira River Provincial Park in my constituency was cut back quite considerably at the beginning and the end of the season. I know there was a rap sheet on all the provincial parks that your predecessor provided. Would you be able to provide that to us, and give us some detail if there is any change of access for the general public, time-wise?

[6:30 p.m.]

MR. OLIVE: The determination on when the parks open and close is based on statistical evidence from previous years. Those parks, obviously, that don't have the volume, we adjust accordingly. That's an ongoing process. I do have all of that information here in our 2002 parks statistics and 2001 client survey comparison, which I will table for the members of the committee. It's important to note that we have, I believe, 99 day parks, and quite a large number of them are under-utilized - that would be an understatement. On the other hand, there are a number of day parks that are getting a lot of use, but due to budget restraints, obviously, and the ability to spend the dollars where they become most effective as it relates to public use, we do change the opening and closing times so that we can provide a level of service equivalent to the level of use.

I guess to answer the question, there are changes. We do have printed - again, I can table it for the members of the committee - our Reserve Some Time With Nature, our park opening-and-closing schedule around the province. It's safe to say that there are some changes based on statistical usage.

MR. MACKINNON: Could you outline what changes, specifically, you are referring to? Which parks?

MR. OLIVE: I would have to get that back to you. I don't have that level. I would have to get that information back to you. It's not substantial. There's no change at the Mira, it's still June 20^th to September 1^st, which is what it was last year.

MR. MACKINNON: One other issue, I am just going to change this slightly. Why would the department pay Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages almost $25,000? Are they buying a lot of pop for their employees or what? Have they taken over Sparkling Springs? Is that for the minister's office? Any takers? Is it for mix?

MR. OLIVE: This amount represents the purchase of Pepsi-Cola pop machines and to supply pop for the parks throughout the province.

[Page 554]

MR. MACKINNON: Why would the department take it upon itself to buy pop machines?

MR. OLIVE: Because we do get the revenue back from the sale of pop, to help fund the parks.

MR. MACKINNON: But if you didn't buy the pop machines - I recall at the College of Geographical Sciences, the pop companies would still own the machines and it would be a cost-sharing issue. There would be revenues for the college, and in this particular case the student council, and they would have the luxury of their profit from the machine. It doesn't seem to make any sense why the department would go out and buy the machines when they would be supplied for nothing. If you go into the chain stores, they pay for the privilege of going into the chain stores. It doesn't sound to me like the department got a very good deal.

MR. OLIVE: I can only qualify that . . .

MR. MACKINNON: If they're talking about a healthy Nova Scotia, why wouldn't they buy machines where they could put juices and fresh water?

MR. OLIVE: Actually you can put them in those pop machines, you can put cans of juice and cans of water in those pop machines. Notwithstanding that . . .

MR. MACKINNON: You buy Pepsi from Pepsi-Cola and you're allowed to put other products in?

MR. OLIVE: Well, you're asking me a question I can't answer. You probably know the answer to that or you wouldn't have asked it.

MR. MACKINNON: That's right.

MR. OLIVE: Anyway, I think, in fairness, what you may want is what the offsetting profit would have been based on the $24,000 expenditure. I believe we could probably provide that. That may give you a better perspective as to why this transaction took place in the first place.

MR. MACKINNON: I would be very interested in that one. I noticed, switching the focus just slightly, the department, going back to the issue of communications, advertised on some of the cable company outlets, such as Eastlink Communications, an additional $32,000. What was that for?

MR. OLIVE: That represented installation and provision of Internet services for the department.

[Page 555]

MR. MACKINNON: Would the minister expand on that just a bit? Doesn't the department have its own IT?

MR. OLIVE: I think more specifically we are talking about high-speed Internet which we would have to go to the private sector to acquire. The majority of these may well be in the more remote areas of the province where Eastlink provides high-speed Internet.

MR. MACKINNON: I also see a line item there, RCR Catering Limited, $9,924.39. What's that for?

MR. OLIVE: The $9,924.39 was for the provision of catering services for the Premier's energy forum and the deputy ministers' conference.

MR. MACKINNON: Why would that not have been charged to the Premier's Office?

MR. OLIVE: Because at that point in time, I would presume, the Department of Energy was part of our department and therefore funded through Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. That was 2001-02.

MR. MACKINNON: Are there any other issues within the Department of Natural Resources that have catered to issues from the Premier's Office that have been charged to the Department of Natural Resources?

MR. OLIVE: Not that I'm aware of.

MR. MACKINNON: Is anybody else in the department aware?

MR. OLIVE: No.

MR. MACKINNON: But you haven't consulted, you haven't even asked.

MR. OLIVE: I'm hearing it in both ears, honourable member.

MR. MACKINNON: So that's a no.

MR. OLIVE: Yes, no.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, it's a no?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, it's a no. You have me confused now. (Laughter)

[Page 556]

MR. MACKINNON: I notice there's a bill there to the Department of Transportation and Public Works for $955,022.68. Would the minister be kind enough to tell us what that was for?

MR. OLIVE: Transportation and Public Works, as you know, is a central agency, and they have billed us on a cost-recovery basis for maintenance and other services.

MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps the minister - I could take this on notice - could give me the detail on that line item.

MR. OLIVE: We can do that.

MR. MACKINNON: I notice on Founders Square Limited, $1,366,119.87, I would presume that's for the rent of the office space at Founders Square.

MR. OLIVE: Yes it is.

MR. MACKINNON: What's that work out to per square foot?

MR. OLIVE: We would have to get back to you on that, we don't have that exact number.

MR. MACKINNON: Could I get that detail by Thursday?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, you certainly can.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Besides the Department of Justice, the $159,000-plus, were there any other legal fees that the department paid out, for example, to the private sector for legal services, or were paid out on the department's behalf?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, there are. They would be termed minor from the point of view of land title searches.

MR. MACKINNON: Would that be, for example, if there was going to be an expropriation or a land acquisition?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, if we required independent legal advice on a land transaction, then there would be occasion where we would go to the private sector.

MR. MACKINNON: For a standard woodlot, what's the rule of thumb that the department uses on a per acre basis? I know at one time it used to be approximately - it was either $100 or $300 an acre, that was the rule of thumb by the department.

[Page 557]

MR. OLIVE: Are you talking about purchasing, selling . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, for the land acquisition for woodlots. What's the rule of thumb, the general, what's the average?

MR. OLIVE: First of all, we get an independent assessment . . .

MR. MACKINNON: I realize all that. I used to sell real estate. I have been in the survey business for 20-some years. I am quite familiar. I know there was a general figure for consideration. I know every case is different, but on average for a standard woodlot?

MR. OLIVE: Well, because you're familiar with the industry, there is no rule of thumb other than we pay the appraised value. I'm not sure - it depends on where it is in the province. For example, you look at Cape Split versus . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, let's just look at the stumpage aspect of it. Obviously we're going off onto rabbit tracks here. What's the rule of thumb on an acre of woodland for stumpage? Do you use 15 cords per acre? Do you use 20 cords per acre? Or what?

MR. OLIVE: Well, it depends on the site, but we're running between 12 and 15 cords an acre.

MR. MACKINNON: So 10 at the low and 15 at the high.

MR. OLIVE: Yes, in that neighbourhood.

MR. MACKINNON: What does the department pay for a cord of wood at the stump these days?

MR. OLIVE: It's based on sort of market prices. One of the major buyers is paying in the range of $65 a cord, but really it depends on the quality of the wood, the market forces of the day. As I said, one of the major suppliers is paying in the range of $65. We, ourselves, don't buy it. The industry does that.

MR. MACKINNON: The province, with all due respect, through its Land Acquisition Program would acquire that to meet certain contractual obligations with entities such as Stora Enso and so on. I am not sure if the province has met all its contractual obligations, supplying x number of cords of softwood to Stora or not. Could the minister confirm that? Have all the contractual obligations since Stora came to Nova Scotia been met in terms of supplying the guarantee of a certain amount of wood supply? Have they all been met?

MR. OLIVE: I guess the short answer is no.

[Page 558]

MR. MACKINNON: What's the total cordage left for us to meet our obligations?

MR. OLIVE: We're in a deficit position now. It's not according to the lumber, it's by acre. We're in a deficit position of about 0.25 million acres right now.

[6:45 p.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: What's that line item of $2,523,643.40 paid to Stora Enso, Port Hawkesbury? Is that part of that refurbishing, the upgrade - it's on Page 103 of the Supplement to the Public Accounts - or is that for a different reason?

MR. OLIVE: The $2.5 million, as per their licence agreement, that's payment for silviculture work that they've completed.

MR. MACKINNON: That's silviculture work on Crown land?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Now, do they also access some of the silviculture dollars from the check-off that the contractors pay into that? Do they use any of that silviculture money on these same lands?

MR. OLIVE: No, they don't, unless the wood is coming off private land. Then they can use it on private land.

MR. MACKINNON: Only on private land?

MR. OLIVE: If the wood is coming off private land.

MR. MACKINNON: Now that would be their own land, correct? No, that's not necessarily correct. A contractor would have to apply to access those silviculture dollars.

MR. OLIVE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. MACKINNON: How much money is collected through that check-off levy and how much has been expended in the last year? How much would be collected? I guess if we had an approximate figure of - what is it, $2.50 a cord or $3 a cord?

MR. OLIVE: It's $3 a cubic metre, so . . .

MR. MACKINNON: That would be about $1.50 or thereabouts. How many cords do they consume? I guess I'm fast-forwarding to the issue - I realize my time is getting a little short - the fact that less than 20 per cent of all private forest land in Nova Scotia that is

[Page 559]

harvested receives silviculture. I believe that was an issue that was raised at one of the Resources Committee meetings. To me, that would be quite concerning, to allow that to continue, because despite the rather energetic debate the minister had with the member from Hants County, the evidence would point to a deterioration of our wood stocks by not keeping up with silviculture.

With the rate of harvesting, silviculture should be at least, I would think, somewhere in the 50 per cent range in order to complement the natural regeneration versus the consumption rates and so on. You put all the factors into the blender, I think 17 per cent was the exact figure, and I believe that's when MacTara appeared before one of our Resources Committee meetings, only 17 per cent of all the forest lands that they harvest receive silviculture. I think if we were to extrapolate that, that would be - maybe it's not the same with Stora, maybe it's not the same with Bowater Mersey, maybe it's not the same with Scott Paper. Do we have an idea of how many dollars go into that fund for the private contractors?

MR. OLIVE: Well, as I said in my opening remarks, we put $3 million into this, that's matched three to one, which gives us $9 million. I guess the other issue here is that it's unfortunate that the federal government chose not to renew the national forest agreements that we had here. If they had, there well could have been a greater participation.

MR. MACKINNON: History will tell you, Mr. Minister, the reasons why, very much why is because of the way the province mismanaged tens of millions of dollars under the subsidiary agreements. All you have to do is look at the Royal Commission on Forestry, look at the amount of money that went into administration. There were more penny-loafer surveyors and foresters running around this province than there were people who knew the difference between a spruce tree and a hardwood tree. Some of them couldn't tell you the difference between a maple tree and a rock maple and all you had to do was go down to the central office that was managing this and the polarization between the Canadian Forestry Service and the Department of Natural Resources was enough to turn anybody off from silviculture in this province and I'm speaking with experience and knowledge and history on this because this was an issue dating back to your predecessors as far back as the honourable Ken Streatch when he was minister when this whole thing took off.

That was the primary reason, it was a waste of money through this program, and the feds pretty well had enough of it. You have extrapolated $3 million and multiplied it into $9 million. Does the minister have $9 million budgeted for this year?

MR. OLIVE: I have $3 million.

MR. MACKINNON: So it's not $9 million?

MR. OLIVE: It is $9 million in actual expenditure. That's what it will be.

[Page 560]

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, so the department itself is not . . .

MR. OLIVE: Industry and government in partnership will spend $9 million.

MR. MACKINNON: So it's not correct for you to suggest that the department is spending $9 million?

MR. OLIVE: I didn't suggest that.

MR. MACKINNON: I think maybe if we check Hansard, the impression was left that the government was putting $9 million into the program.

MR. OLIVE: Just to clarify that, I believe my comment was that there was $9 million in the silviculture program, $3 million of which was provided by the government.

MR. MACKINNON: How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have remaining two and a half minutes, sir.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few other issues here. The J.D. Irving Limited, there's an expenditure of $387,816.05. What would that be for? (Interruption)

MR. OLIVE: Sorry for the delay, honourable member. The forest sustainability agreement, cost-shared financial assistance for the completion of silviculture treatments carried out on private woodlots.

MR. MACKINNON: So we're now paying the Irvings silviculture on . . .

MR. OLIVE: That $387,0000 is part of the money of our $3 million.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, that's a very interesting point. Out of the $3 million, what percentage of the $3 million is going to large corporations such as the Irvings, Stora Forest Industries and the like and what percentage is going to small private woodlot owners and small contractors?

MR. OLIVE: The monies are distributed based on the work done.

MR. MACKINNON: No, I realize that, but I would like to know what percentage has gone to large corporations and what percentage has gone to small or medium-sized silviculture contractors.

[Page 561]

MR. OLIVE: Is there a cut-off that you could use, that you could cite to us so that we could get that information.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure.

MR. OLIVE: I mean when you're talking about the level of small and large.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes. Well, I think the minister should have that detail in his department and you're talking anywhere from 50 to 200 or 300 acres, from 300 to 1,000, 1,000 to 3,000 and so on. I can take that on notice if the minister would . . .

MR. OLIVE: No, I can provide that information, that's fine.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I will finish, if the minister could just give me a breakdown on who received that $3 million.

MR. OLIVE: We can do that, yes, absolutely, we have that information and we will provide it.

MR. MACKINNON: By Thursday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has now expired. We go back to the NDP caucus. The next series of questions will be started by the honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect. Mr. Estabrooks, your time is 6:55 p.m. Just a reminder to members, we have until 8 o'clock here tonight for the time allotment of four hours.

The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: I welcome the opportunity to exchange a few ideas with the minister and his staff. First of all, I want to pass on to you as the minister and to your staff the very co-operative approach with the community that I've been involved with for a number of years on a number of issues, and I know the minister is aware of a couple of them most recently, your staff is extremely professional, competent, and very attentive to details. Please pass that on to the particular staff who deal with some of the issues that I'm going to bring forward.

Initially I would like to, if I could, clarify the future of Lewis Lake Park in the community of Upper Tantallon, I believe, it could be in the community of Lewis Lake, but I don't know if that is actually a community. This is an extensive recreational facility along the old Highway No. 3, through the initiative of a predecessor of mine, the honourable Jerry Lawrence, the MLA for Halifax St. Margaret's at the time, Mr. Lawrence showed great initiative in having a park that would be accessible to all. The concern, of course, is that the community is fast being developed. For one reason or another we tend to be the chosen

[Page 562]

destination for subdivisions and developers. As the minister perhaps will remember, I'm asking the question as the local MLA, but I'm also asking the question as a member of the Five Bridge Wilderness Heritage Trust and I'm asking the question as the past president - I know the Chair will allow this, and there's no politics in this fabulous service club - of the St. Margarets Bay Lions Club. So could you clarify, for the community that I'm fortunate enough to represent, the future of Lewis Lake Provincial Park?

MR. OLIVE: I thank the member for the question and I will answer the question, but I would like to give a little background first.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Please do.

MR. OLIVE: We have 99 day parks and 24 overnight parks in Nova Scotia. As I mentioned earlier in response to another question, we have to go through a re-evaluation of our park system, not from the point of not continuing ownership of the park, but how the parks are used. Many of these day parks, in particular, were opened many, many years ago when they were on the main highways and then we came along and built 100-Series Highways and with the exception of the community, an awful lot of them would not be getting any use, but the communities themselves have maintained the use of these parks.

So having given that as background, one thing that we are going to do is a complete review of all the parks that we have in our system regarding statistics on usage, and on those parks that have very low usage, find out if there in fact is any community appetite to operate these. I would say to you categorically, however, that it is not our intention to relinquish ownership of any of those parks either short term or long term, as long term as I can predict anyway. If in fact parks like Lewis Lake are integral to the future recreational needs of the community and it's a park that through statistical information we may determine we can't afford to operate at the level that we would like to because of its lack of use - and I would suggest this one is not going to fall into that category because of where it is and for the reasons you've stated - we would be very interested in, whether it was the Lions Club or some other community group, taking over in a partnership the operation of this park with the full support of the Department of Natural Resources staff and the expertise therein.

So the short answer to your question is the operation of the park, as in the day-to-day operation of the park, may see a partnership, and that's not a bad thing, but the park itself will remain an integral part of the recreational needs of that community.

[7:00 p.m.]

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and welcome to the Chair, the member for Chester-St. Margaret's.

[Page 563]

That's a relief to know because I want you to know that it's a park that's used year-round, especially when it's closed. The main entrance is gated and I understand, of course, that there are resourceful users of recreation in the community that I represent, particularly cross-country skiing and various other groups of that sort, so I appreciate the background and I appreciate the information that was given thus far.

I would like to jump to another topic and I see the Chairman, in his particular area, and I want to clarify that I've been made aware of the use of funds from the Swissair memorial fund and I want to compliment the staff and I want to compliment you, as the minister, for providing that information in the manner in which it was done. I believe at the time there was some misunderstanding, perhaps by the member for Timberlea-Prospect to be quite candid with you because he didn't know where to go for the answers, and I would like to compliment, I believe there's someone from your staff who is on that committee.

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. ESTABROOKS: It's in pretty good shape and I know it will be continuously monitored. So I wanted to thank you again personally because of what had transpired previously as you're aware.

MR. OLIVE: If I could respond.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Please do, if you wouldn't mind, because that Swissair memorial, I want you to know, Mr. Minister, I was there on Monday and there were six cars in that parking lot. The parking lot needs a little work, but I know your staff is monitoring it. So go ahead, please.

MR. OLIVE: I guess what I wanted to say was I for one appreciated, maybe not the way it was done, but I think the fact that you brought to our attention an issue that had not so much slipped between the cracks, but perhaps it wasn't as upfront and in the forefront with our parks people as it might have been.

We never, ever relinquished our responsibility to maintain it. The issues that were brought to our attention were primarily erosion-based and that can happen anywhere, but the important issue that you brought to our attention was whether or not there was a regular review of the condition and while we did have a schedule put together, given the nature of the site, the environment near the site, the weather, you know, the washout that can happen, we have determined as a result of your inquiries and, again I say, I appreciate that, we have determined that we must do more regular inspections to maintain the quality of the site as we would expect that site to be maintained in Europe if, in fact, the disaster had happened over there. So we have certainly readjusted our schedules to ensure that there is a regular review of the site and appropriate maintenance is kept up to the category that we would expect others to do for us.

[Page 564]

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you. I know the member for Chester-St. Margaret's in his travels, and myself on that road, we will continue to bring those concerns forward to the appropriate officials.

I want to turn my attention to a rather controversial topic that comes up at times with people in the community that I represent. I need some clarification on the topic of land swaps, a term which I can tell you personally I find offensive but, you know, the rumours continue to persist, Mr. Minister, and this is a good opportunity for us to have this sort of conversation because of the fact, particularly when it comes to coastal communities, that there have been, in the past, allegations, some of them quite unfounded but, you know, the rumour mill in small communities really gets spun out of control when an outsider from the community, I mean, you know, I'm sure the member for Chester-St. Margaret's can tell you that if you don't live in Hubbards and you live in Boutiliers Point, you're an outsider, okay.

So you can imagine the situation. I have this current one on the go. There is an island called Purcells Island, and I don't expect you to know all the details of this, it is an exclusive island and it's owned by, that's neither here nor there, it's owned by a non-local. The concern, of course, is that to get to that island there will have to be a causeway built or a bridge but, more importantly, there will have to be a piece of road that will go across Crown land to get even to the causeway or to the bridge so you can get to the island. I would like you, as the minister, to clarify for me the process for something like that to happen. Are there such transfers of land where a road is allowed across a piece of Crown property so that another piece of property, in this case an island, could be developed?

MR. OLIVE: Without being specific about the situation with the island, your general question is do we allow a right-of-way across Crown land or will we, in fact, transfer a piece of Crown land for a right-of-way access for power, for water or sewer, whatever, there are situations where we do that, and it's not a swap. We would either sell the land for going market value or just provide right of access, what do we call that - easement? (Interruption) Yes, we retain ownership, but provide easement. The Power Corporation is a good example of that if they have need to do that.

You're asking about the process. Every piece of Crown land that's disposed of has to go through the IRM process. It's not that, well, we don't think that's a valuable piece of land because we don't know what's underground. We don't know whether there are turtles in there or whether there is wildlife, wildfowl, or whatever. So it all has to go through an IRM process before any discussion goes any further. Once it goes through that - and we're not talking about a large piece of land now, we're talking about an access road. So we're talking about a reasonable amount of land and let's assume that that piece of land, there was no outstanding reason why we couldn't either provide an easement or in fact sell the piece of land, but then after the IRM process we get a value placed on that land which would be a fair market value. If we have an offer to buy that piece of land, which I would presume

[Page 565]

would trigger the IRM process in the first place, then we would go through the process of negotiation with the person who was interested in acquiring it for access.

That's an open process. I mean if anybody wants to see at what stage any given piece of land transaction has reached, that information is there. There's no secret to it. It becomes a public document from the point of view that Cabinet has to approve all of those land transactions. So if it's approved and IRM agrees, if we can negotiate a decent price given the market price, then it would be taken to Cabinet and approved and discussed there if there are any extenuating circumstances. We would ask the extenuating circumstances first, of course. But now if you're talking, I'm not quite sure how you want to connect that process to a particular island access across Crown land. I'm not sure where . . .

MR. ESTABROOKS: I perhaps shouldn't have used the example, it's just the current one that I'm involved with and it's not that specific example, you know, I shouldn't have gone perhaps in that direction. The concern comes down to, on an issue such as this, particularly when you're dealing with the salt water and you're dealing with shoreline as opposed to the tidal, I can go to DFO, I can be dealing with the Department of Environment and Labour, if I'm into, well, you know, for example, I said a bridge, okay. It could be a causeway, heaven forbid, the alarms go off in the community, a causeway to an island, okay.

But if I'm talking about a road across Crown land, I'm now talking about Transportation. So in the middle of all these departments and with the feds involved also, at times, I think the minister can understand that from the local perspective, it can become quite cumbersome, not quite knowing who to go to at what stage and that's one of the things that I would like to clarify. I'm sorry for the rabbit tracks - it wasn't intentional, I assure you.

I want to go to the issue of the Five Bridge Wilderness Heritage Trust. I would rather not get into the specifics of what the developer was proposing and what was rejected by the community . . .

MR. OLIVE: Is this the road issue?

MR. ESTABROOKS: No, this is Mr. Bryson who's developing the land and this is where the term "land swap" was involved. We were at public meetings, and I'm sure other members have perhaps heard of this, but I had a certain developer who said to me that land swaps happen all the time, it involves all kinds of acres, and various other comments were made where you begin to hear in the community the alarm bells going off, because people were asking what's happening here - incidentally, it was a member of your staff who clarified in crystal-clear terms for the community the exact status of things and how they are done and why they're done. That particular staff member receives from me, as an elected official and from the community, compliments, and I've expressed them to you privately about Ms. Penfound and how well that was done. This is where I'm coming from on this; I think

[Page 566]

however there have to be certain myths dismissed here - like land swaps do not happen off-hand.

MR. OLIVE: No, they don't.

MR. ESTABROOKS: There is a process. It is time-consuming and there is the opportunity for public input, correct?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. ESTABROOKS: At what stage in a community, through the various processes is there a - public hearing is the wrong way to put it - community meeting? What stage in the movement of the land? Proposed.

MR. OLIVE: Talking about this particular issue, our staff became - and I think it's indicative of how our staff operate - they do try to get the pulse of the community, let's put it that way, in relation to land deals, acquisitions or otherwise. In this particular case and, as I say, I really believe it has become typical of staff to be very aware of what the community of interest is in relation to any request for a piece of land, especially from a developer, especially in this particular case, because this could be a typical case, quite frankly, where staff make a recommendation to government regarding the effects of approval of a request such as the one you're talking about. Quite frankly, our department - we had input from yourself and we get input from the members on what effect this would have for recreation and all other issues - very quickly, as in this case, can nip it in the bud. That's exactly what we did; we just said not on our watch, it's not going to happen. That was the expectation of the community, and I believe it was your expectation.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Absolutely.

MR. OLIVE: That's the way staff try to operate. It has really nothing to do with small-p or large-p politics. It's quite simple, the community does not want this to happen. I can relate it to the development of trails on DNR lines and that sort of thing. I've had a couple of occasions since being in this position where people other than the trails' groups wanted access to trails for other purposes, and it wasn't a hard decision to make - we turned both of them down. I think there is a community of interest, and you and I both know, in our business, if you don't listen to the community you're in big trouble.

I just want to clarify one other issue when you talk about land swaps. The government is not selling Crown land. We're not giving it away unless there's a real need for it. We're certainly not selling it. We're not even giving away land that has any shore frontage, whether it's on a lake or on the ocean. As a matter of fact, every opportunity we get - and we've had some big successes over the last few months in acquiring coastal property - and when I mentioned to you that if during a process somebody wanted a right of access, using your first example, for a road, if that road led to a shore somewhere I'm going to tell you it would be

[Page 567]

a very easy decision to make as to whether we give them access, because it is shore access and I know you and other members of your caucus and other members of the House in general, on all sides of the House, are very concerned about access to the coast. There are some decisions that are very easy to make for myself and for staff when it relates to access to coastal properties in Nova Scotia.

[7:15 p.m.]

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you. I have one more issue and it's an issue that is going to - I certainly don't want to leave with the wrong impression, but the Land Disclosure Act of 1972, it needs improvement.

MR. OLIVE: Yes. Agreed.

MR. ESTABROOKS: I've seen other ministers in your position, I've dealt with other governments on this particular issue. I know that Voluntary Planning did a noble task, surveyed community meetings around the province, input, et cetera, but the Land Disclosure Act is, aside from the dramatics of Question Period, as toothless as I am at an old timers' hockey game - but you've heard that line before.

MR. OLIVE: No comment. I've never seen you play hockey.

MR. ESTABROOKS: But do you have anything, or does your department, have anything planned?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, only it's through Service Nova Scotia, with the Registry 2000 program. As you know, the original Act was designed to enable the government to collect information on non-resident landownership. Unfortunately, you're quite right, the need to collect information on non-resident landownership has been very ineffective. So, what's happened through this whole negotiation process with the municipalities, to enact legislation that will require municipalities to take a much more important role under law to do that, that's the process we're going through now through Service Nova Scotia.

The new Land Holdings Disclosure Act will be forthcoming as a result of that. Obviously they have to do through the process with the UNSM as the overseeing body of the municipalities to develop a new Act. It is part of the whole process of the Land Disclosure Act, the Trails Act, and a number of Acts that all relate to tighter control and tighter management of our land base. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand Mr. MacDonell, you are taking up on the time of the member for Timberlea-Prospect. You have until 7:55 p.m.

[Page 568]

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you Minister, I appreciate that. What time is it now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's approximately 7:18p.m.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you. I just want to touch on an area - a piece of Crown land in my constituency. I'm not positive, but I don't think there's a lot of Crown land left in Hants East, but there's a piece in the western Nine Mile River/Renfrew area, and I think the Municipality of East Hants is interested in having that for recreational purposes. Can you tell me where the department is with that?

MR. OLIVE: What I would like to do is get the exact detail - what I understand is that it's valued as a C2, which means it's some recreational, so if I could get the full answer to the question and get it back to you? Okay?

MR. MACDONELL: Sure. I appreciate that. I was just wondering if the minister would . . .

MR. OLIVE: If I could just interject, honourable member, if you could, after we're finished, let the deputy know exactly what parcel we're talking about.

MR. MACDONELL: I think he may know anyway.

MR. OLIVE: Okay, thank you.

MR. MACDONELL: Thanks, I appreciate that. I want to come back to our previous conversation which was around the categories and also around the role of the Department of Environment and Labour. My impression from what you said was that it's actually the Department of Environment and Labour who weighs the information about any specific piece of land and they determine whether it should be protected - am I right there?

MR. OLIVE: Just to clarify the role of Environment, they are under the Wilderness Act, responsible for the 31 areas; they also fully participate in the IRM process. In relation to the designation of wilderness areas, which I presume is where you're headed, that is under the Department of Environment and Labour. They have that authority.

MR. MACDONELL: They have the authority to designate?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. What would be the role of the Department of Natural Resources in that process? Does the Department of Natural Resources have to sign off on anything to have a piece of land designated?

[Page 569]

MR. OLIVE: Yes, as I said before, our role is to respond to any requests for information related to a site that they're looking at perhaps as a wilderness site. They would want to know, they would have the IRM information. Let's assume that there was a wildlife habitat there, then they may want to get more information. The general statement would be made, there's a wildfowl area or a wetland area - let's say there's a wetland area, so we would say there's a wetland area that makes it a C2, and they may come back and then say can you give us any more detail on that. So that would be our role, as a resource.

MR. MACDONELL: So if they make a designation that they want to have an area designated and protected, then the Department of Environment and Labour can go ahead and do that without any more - once they get all the information from the Department of Natural Resources, they can designate that as a protected area?

MR. OLIVE: It's up to them to bring it forward, yes.

MR. MACDONELL: What does "bring it forward" mean? What happens?

MR. OLIVE: Well, to bring it to Cabinet.

MR. MACDONELL: All right, good. Thanks, I appreciate that. I want to go to a couple of areas where there has been some interest in having them designated, and they are the Eigg Mountain, James River area, as well as Gully Lake. Now, from The Daily News story here, its shows that Minister Russell is pretty far down this road. There's been a study done on these areas, and he seems to believe that these are areas that should be designated. I'm wondering what's going on, has it come to Cabinet, can you tell me that?

MR. OLIVE: I don't mean to be trite honourable member, but you should ask Mr. Russell that. I don't mean to be trite, but really that is a question that you would have to ask him.

MR. MACDONELL: I will have to do that then. Just to be clear on the process, it doesn't have to come to you or your department at all anymore in this process, it actually has to go to Cabinet?

MR. OLIVE: The final decision would be made there, yes.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. OLIVE: We would certainly have input into any final decision, but the final document, the R&R, whatever, is in the Department of Environment and Labour.

[Page 570]

MR. MACDONELL: Well then maybe I should ask this. Have you been approached by DOE for any further information on these sites, that you know of? I am assuming that you've already submitted some.

MR. OLIVE: Not recently, no.

MR. MACDONELL: Not recently.

MR. OLIVE: No.

MR. MACDONELL: Well I don't have Minister Russell here. I'm just curious as to his comments.

MR. OLIVE: Let me qualify that by saying - whether you're talking about a particular site or sites in general - we have discussions with the Department of Environment and Labour that would relate to, particularly C2 areas. If we get inquiries, or if they get inquiries, which might not be directly related to a future designation as a wilderness area or protected site, just for information flow like clarification, as I said, about wetland or deer habitat or moose calving area, or whatever, there are ongoing discussions with the Department of Environment and Labour on property all over the province. I just want to clarify that if we say we haven't had any discussions, there are discussions but they may not be on any particular site you're talking about.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess I'm asking have you had discussions specifically to these sites that Department of Environment and Labour would be indicating that they were thinking of having these protected?

MR. OLIVE: Which sites are these now?

MR. MACDONELL: James River, the Eigg Mountain site, and Gully Lake.

MR. OLIVE: Not recently.

MR. MACDONELL: How not recent would that be?

MR. OLIVE: Probably two months - a month and a half to two months.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm sorry?

MR. OLIVE: A month and a half, two months.

MR. MACDONELL: A month and a half, two months. Okay, well that's fairly recently considering government.

[Page 571]

MR. OLIVE: Well, yes, I guess.

MR. MACDONELL: That discussion then was around the issue that the Department of Environment and Labour was raising around protecting these areas?

MR. OLIVE: That would have been around the same time, yes.

MR. MACDONELL: I want to ask you more questions, but I know I'm going to be told that I have to ask Minister Russell. Are there any flags that go up from your department around the IRM process that would make the department advise the Department of Environment and Labour that they wouldn't want these protected?

MR. OLIVE: I'm basically going to reiterate what I said before. When you talk about flags, there would be a flag attached to everything that we gave them regarding designation as a C2. They would have all of the information that they would be able to evaluate to determine whether there was sufficient ecological, habitat, whatever, to further consider protection of the area. They're all flags, unless you're talking about a C1 which is a general area and we've done all our homework and it says there really nothing there that jumps out at you that says you can't go there or you can't do this on that piece of land.

MR. MACDONELL: I guess what I'm getting at when I use the word "flag" or the term flag, I'm wondering if the DNR indicated to the DOE, we don't want this done. That's the flag that I'm looking for. Is there anything that ...

MR. OLIVE: It's not our position to do that.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. OLIVE: It's our position to provide the information and they will evaluate that as to whether it's something that should be done or shouldn't be done. Our job is only to provide the information on habitat and ecological sensitivities, whatever. I know you're talking about environmental issues, but they would also have information that might say that under Eigg Mountain there's probably the most dense, or there's a very dense gold deposit, or gypsum or zinc, or quartz, or zeolite, or whatever, we would tell them all that. The IRM process is there to determine the land value. The land value is whether there's a deer calving area there, whether there's a gold mine there, whether there's old growth forest there, so they would have all of that information and they would then take that and say - well I can't say what they would say - but I guess they would take that information and make a determination as to whether all, some, part, or none, would, could, or should be protected . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Does your...

MR. OLIVE: Under the Wilderness Act, sorry.

[Page 572]

MR. MACDONELL: Under the Wilderness Act, yes. Does your department proactively pursue the Department of Environment and Labour and say here are some areas we want protected, because you're giving them the information that they're going to use to evaluate it. I'm assuming that because of your role with conservation of deer populations, species at risk, that you could actually approach them and say look, we've identified this, we would like you to look at this as an area to be protected. Does your department do that?

MR. OLIVE: We haven't, but with a clarification. We've been very sort of busy recently getting the in-holdings in the Bowater area. That was a substantial acquisition. We've been working on the Dunn's Beach and Cape Split and Gaff Point, those are all major files, they're not simple things to do, they take a lot of staff time. So, at this point, the answer is no, we haven't moved forward with that type of initiative.

[7:30 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, in terms of an area like Cape Split - it's my understanding that that was bought through your department, am I right?

MR. OLIVE: Excuse me, I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONELL: Cape Split was bought through your department?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: So you recognized it as ecologically significant, among other characteristics, I'm assuming. Did you have to go through DOE to make that purchase?

MR. OLIVE: No, it was a purchase for the purposes of having it in our Crown land bank. It has park value, it has a lot of other values. I would say negotiations for that have been ongoing for a number of years and we were very fortunate to bring it to completion.

You know, when you talk about parks and reserves, this falls into that category of C2+. For example, I think it's reasonably safe to say that there's not going to be a logging truck going into Cape Split. If you're asking do we have any input, for me to be able to make that statement, yes, we do, but we're considering it not under the Wilderness Act, but as park and protected area, which is different than the Wilderness Act. We can protect areas.

MR. MACDONELL: All right, fine.

MR. OLIVE: Dunn's Beach is another one that we protected as Crown land. It's a protected beach.

[Page 573]

MR. MACDONELL: So that comes to my whole question of being proactive. I mean, Eigg Mountain and James River is Crown land, so you can protect it without to going to DOE.

MR. OLIVE: Well, we could protect the values that are in there, but we're not talking about a wilderness area, only DEL can do that.

MR. MACDONELL: Does that seem like ridiculous legislation?

MR. OLIVE: No, I don't think it's ridiculous, but people before me decided that the wilderness area would be under DEL and everything else would be under us. I can't second guess why that decision was made.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, you can change it, can't you?

MR. OLIVE: I could, I suppose. I guess I probably could.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I've got a few minutes. I don't really know where else to go. I think I've tried to circumvent every answer you've given me and I've run out of circuits.

Can you tell me what percentage of land in Nova Scotia is protected under the - well, give me protected, and give me protected under the Wilderness Act.

MR. OLIVE: So, approximate numbers, okay? Plus or minus a point or two, the Crown land, about 20 per cent is protected.

MR. MACDONELL: Twenty per cent of Crown land is protected.

MR. OLIVE: Yes, and province-wide about 8 per cent.

MR. MACDONELL: Does that include the Crown land, in the 8 per cent?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: I think, nationally, the target is 12. Any plan?

MR. OLIVE: Well, we talk about protected areas as opposed to wilderness areas, wilderness areas aside for a moment. You have federal parks, you have provincial parks, you have other pieces of Crown land that are basically not being used, which are in limbo, so you can't call them protected. If you add up all of the actual land mass in Nova Scotia, there is a substantial amount of land mass in Nova Scotia that, to all intents and purposes, is protected from what we traditionally see as industry.

[Page 574]

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, but it can't be more than 8 per cent, or 8.5.

MR. OLIVE: No, it's not.

MR. MACDONELL: Can you tell me how much of that would be category three?

MR. OLIVE: How much would be category three?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. OLIVE: Well, all of the protected spaces would be category three.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, well how come, when you defined category two you said protected?

MR. OLIVE: In our parks and protected area strategy we can have an area of Crown land that has a protected area within it and you can still perform other functions within the area while protecting - for example, a turtle habitat, okay, we say you can go in there and you can cut the trees, you can do the silviculture, but you've got to stay away from this area. We have great co-operation from Forest Products Association and the woodlot owners and all the people that are involved in recognizing that to get access to section A that you've got to stay away from sections B, C and D. That's part of the forest management agreement, that we would sign with somebody in a C2 area.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. OLIVE: I use for an example Algonquin Park, and I know there are people in the environment who say that that doesn't work but, quite frankly, it does. If you say it doesn't work often enough, people say it won't work. The fact is that Algonquin Park is an example of a C2 that works. They log in there, and there's parkland in there, there's protected spaces in there and everybody gets along with everybody else.

MR. MACDONELL: How do they log in there? Do they clear-cut? Do they log with horses?

MR. OLIVE: I don't know how they log in there. I do know they log, they do have roads, they have logging roads in there. I presume, today, they probably use equipment. I don't know that, but I would suggest that they're not using too many horses today.

MR. MACDONELL: It would seem to me that under that category, if you call an area protected and you can say you can go to A, B and C, but don't go to D, that D is all that's protected.

[Page 575]

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: Well then, that's not how you explained that. You said the area was a protected area and you can do these things in A, B and C of that protected area, but D you can't do. So it seemed to me that D is the only area in the protected area that's protected.

MR. OLIVE: But you see, this is the difficulty in the environment sector. Whether it's the Ecology Action Centre or whoever else, that group and others like them believe that unless a piece of Crown land - and we will talk about Crown - is in a protected area that it has no value to the people of Nova Scotia.

MR. MACDONELL: I don't understand what you just said.

MR. OLIVE: Well, unless it's in a wilderness area, it has no value, okay? Not a protected area, unless it's in a wilderness area the land has no value, which is totally ridiculous.

So that's one point. The second point is you don't have to be in a wilderness area to have a protected area. You can have a protected area, you could have 500 acres and you could have 450 acres that are protected and 50 that aren't. It will remain protected, and it remains protected because the IRM process has come up with values, whether they're ecological, habitat, environmental, old growth trees, whatever, that says yes, there's a place in there you can cut the trees down, but 75 per cent of it you can't go anywhere near, and don't ever go near it.

That's part of the agreement that you get when you say yes, you can go in and cut down 25 per cent, and 75 per cent leave alone. The IRM process clearly determines if in fact there is, in this case, a 25 per cent area that can be and should be cut and replanted. Now, you can say should it be clear-cut? The issue is good harvest management. So that will be determined based on the wood that's coming off and how the company is going to do the silviculture, but you don't have to have a wilderness area to have a protected area.

You're right, we have sent the information on Eigg Mountain, James River to Environment, they are aware of the areas there that should be protected and so are we. That's not to say - and just going back to my previous example - that there may or may not be parts of that area that don't have to be protected. I don't know that, I'm just saying, using my previous example, while James River and Eigg Mountain may have areas that should be protected that don't have to be wilderness, they can be protected which gives them the same protection from the point of view of when that decision is made, it's made forever.

MR. MACDONELL: Right. You mean it doesn't have to be wilderness under the Wilderness Act?

[Page 576]

MR. OLIVE: That's right. Okay, you made the point of we made the decision on Crown land at Cape Split, and you're right, the difficulty is that with many individuals it's all or nothing, there is no give or take. There are people out there who would like to see all Crown land as wilderness area and put a $1.5 billion forestry industry and 30,000 people out of work. Well, that's not going to happen.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think it is going to happen, but it has nothing to do with this, it's because there are not going to be any trees left to cut.

MR. OLIVE: On another point.

MR. MACDONELL: Sure.

MR. OLIVE: Actually that is a good example and if the honourable member will beg my input here.

MR. MACDONELL: Sure.

MR. OLIVE: McNabs Island is a perfect example. McNabs Island, prior to being designated as a park, and you know all the discussions that went on about McNabs, it was going to be a golf course, it was going to be a sewage treatment plant, it was going to be anything, it's now a protected park.

MR. MACDONELL: Right, but not under the Wilderness Act.

MR. OLIVE: But not under the Wilderness Act. It's in the heartland of Halifax Regional Municipality. It's a protected park and there's not going to be any logging on McNabs Island, or mining. So that's a really good recent example of where we can't take an area that has unique characteristics, that the IRM process has been completed, and determine that there is no choice here; this should be and will be a protected area under our parks program, and thus it is.

MR. MACDONELL: So just to be clear, when we talk about 8.5 per cent or 8 per cent of Nova Scotia land protected, we're saying wilderness or DNR protected status together?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, that's provincial parks, federal parks, wilderness areas, protected areas.

MR. MACDONELL: Right, and some of that, I assume, is C2, some is C3?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, some of it could be.

[Page 577]

MR. MACDONELL: You could have resource extraction on some of that?

MR. OLIVE: On the C2.

MR. MACDONELL: On the C2 part of that 8 per cent?

MR. OLIVE: It's possible.

MR. MACDONELL: It's possible.

MR. OLIVE: I must tell you that it's possible with a great deal of caution because you're not about to allow any of that if there's any chance at all of it endangering the waterways or wetlands, or habitat, or old growth trees, or whatever.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

[7:45 p.m.]

MR. OLIVE: So I say that with caution because I know when I make that statement that all of a sudden the environmental committee goes nuts and says, oh, he just said it, we can go in and cut on C2. Well, it's not that simple. Otherwise it would be C1.

MR. MACDONELL: I think I can almost recognize that, considering your comments prior to getting to this point around Algonquin Park and other areas, you're sounding far more definite on the notion of protection than you were five minutes ago.

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: So I guess the point I'm going to leave you with is that it's not really clear to me that we actually have 8 per cent protected.

MR. OLIVE: We do, there's no question about that. There is 8 per cent protected. That's not an issue. I mean it's not an issue for me, it may be for you. In fact, there is 8 per cent protected.

MR. MACDONELL: All right, I won't go there any more. I do want to say that the public reaction - and I have these comments here from various newspapers - to the IRM process has not been user friendly, I think is probably the most generous way to describe it. I want the minister to think for a minute that when people raise these concerns, and the people who I have come to know, in any aspect, if you want to lump them together as part of the environmental movement, wherever they come from, I haven't noticed any other agenda in these people and I haven't noticed that they necessarily are always totally against people making money. I actually am very pleased to see people go and extract resources and

[Page 578]

create wealth and create jobs and I have a big problem with the deterioration of rural Nova Scotia.

I see access to resources as a major component, the major component to keeping these communities together. Whether or not it's done, certainly for your department, but through forestry, or mining, or whatever - but I also think quite highly of agriculture and its potential - what it can do in these communities. I have been approached to fight for a total ban on cutting. I'm not just talking about a ban on clear-cutting, but a ban on cutting some areas. These would be privately owned by foresting companies, mills and whatever, and I had to say I can't do that because I want people to be cutting trees. You can't create jobs and keep people in communities without doing that. Well, I shouldn't say that, you can do it. We do it with a parks system, we do it with tourism, these things are not destined to cut down the forests. Certainly, I see the value in using the resource, a renewable resource and a sustainable resource, that we can do this forever and ever, supposedly.

So I don't want to come down so much on the side of never trying to extract resources, but I want to see a fair bit of balance, and it's my understanding that that's where you think the IRM process is going. I'm not entirely sure that I'm so convinced of that. I do have to say I think it's better than what we had before, which was nothing. Certainly in cases that appear to be protected, and you say that are protected, I wonder if they are protected. That causes me some concern. We could volley that back and forth all night. Anyway, I thank you for your comments in that regard.

As I came in the room earlier, you made a comment about, I think it was stumpage rates. So when I asked earlier today, you didn't know that. So I'm wondering, did you get some information since I left?

MR. OLIVE: No.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, because I had thought the honourable member for Cape Breton West had . . .

MR. OLIVE: They won't let them leave.

MR. MACDONELL: What's that?

MR. OLIVE: They won't let my staff leave right now. I need them here. So we will get it for you, honourable member.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. I will shift my focus back to forestry again. I heard you mention $3 million that the province puts into silviculture programs, reforestation, whatever. You said that was matched - it is $3.1 million - by another $6 million which makes $9

[Page 579]

million. You also said so much per cubic metre, which I thought you said was $3-something? What's that number?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, that's what they pay on Crown land. Yes, $3, or 60 cents on hardwood, $3 on the softwood.

MR. MACDONELL: All right, $3 on the softwood per cubic metre, $6 a cord basically?

MR. OLIVE: They have to do the silviculture up to that amount.

MR. MACDONELL: They have to do the silviculture up to that amount. They don't have to actually give you any money?

MR. OLIVE: Pardon me?

MR. MACDONELL: A company, if they were buying stumpage, Crown stumpage, they wouldn't be paying you $6 a cord for Crown stumpage, is that the way I would understand that? They would have to do silviculture to that amount?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, exactly. They have to do the silviculture to that amount.

MR. MACDONELL: To that amount?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: I thought, a couple of years ago - it wasn't to you - I raised questions around the Stanley block, which borders Hants East and Hants West. In talking with Dan Eidt in your department, I was told that - I think it was MacTara I was raising the question around - they don't do the silviculture, that the department was doing the silviculture on that block. Which would mean it was a Crown block that they were harvesting, but the department was doing the silviculture and not the mill. What you're telling me is the opposite now, that the companies actually do the silviculture on Crown blocks?

MR. OLIVE: They're contracted to do it.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. OLIVE: If the private woodlot owner or whatever doesn't want to do it, then we will have it done.

[Page 580]

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, I'm curious as to how you determine on private land, because it's actually the private land that's the three partner, because the Crown land is not . . .

MR. OLIVE: That's right.

MR. MACDONELL: So, on the private land, how do you determine that the private landowner is actually contributing, or that the mill's actually contributing? The mill's paying him and I'm not sure how you determine whether or not . . .

MR. OLIVE: They do it through a wood acquisition plan. We know that up front. They agree to do that up front.

MR. MACDONELL: But their wood acquisition plan is a fairly general plan. It's not a specific plan that Jim Smith's woodlot and Frank Jones' woodlot.

MR. OLIVE: No, that's right.

MR. MACDONELL: Look, we're going to harvest umpteen hectares this year based on our history and here's what we think we'll be doing.

MR. OLIVE: Here's how many credits they get for doing that.

MR. MACDONELL: I know the mills are supposed to submit their plan by February?

MR. OLIVE: February 28^th.

MR. MACDONELL: So, do you know if you have them all?

MR. OLIVE: Yes, we do. They're all signed off.

MR. MACDONELL: These people are what we would determine registered buyers?

MR. OLIVE: That's right.

MR. MACDONELL: How many registered buyers are there in the province?

MR. OLIVE: There's about 300 total, but there's only about 56, 57 that are actually registered buyers. We can get those real numbers.

[Page 581]

MR. MACDONELL: Would you say that again?

MR. OLIVE: I will get you that list. There are registered buyers, but there are those out there that do less than the volume, that they don't have to be a registered buyer - sorry, they don't need a wood acquisition plan because they don't do enough volume.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, so their volume is too low.

MR. OLIVE: The volume is too low. Right.

MR. MACDONELL: But, they're registered buyers?

MR. OLIVE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: How many would have to submit acquisition plans? How many are big enough, the volumes are big enough?

MR. OLIVE: Fifty-six or fifty-seven.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have one minute.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. OLIVE: The deputy is just telling me that we have the report of the registry which will give you all that information, which we could table.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, that would be great. I don't even know where I could go in a minute. I guess I will close with a point. Where we're going to go with this tomorrow is that you were going to tell me how much money is put into silviculture and reforestation, but the number of silviculture contractors has been declining since you guys formed the government. As a matter of fact, they're going broke. I'm wondering who's doing the work, because they're not making any money. I will close with that, Mr. Chairman, and I will come back tomorrow with the credit system and whatever. I want to thank the minister and his staff. I appreciate it very much.

Are we into Liberal time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are. The other thing is I understand the minister may want to say - the bottom line is by 8:00 p.m., we have to be here until 8:00 p.m., so we have five minutes and I would certainly have a question for the minister. I'm sure the minister and

[Page 582]

many other members around the table would have a question. The minister might just want to say some final comments.

MR. OLIVE: Are these the closing comments or am I back on Thursday?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, these are the Liberal's . . .

MR. OLIVE: They're not closing comments. No, I didn't think so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I understand the Liberal Party is not coming back for their questions.

MR. MACDONELL: The last member told me I could use it if I wanted to. That was the point I was trying to get to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is it okay with the whole committee to do that? Okay. You have four minutes.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I will remember that.

Mr. Minister, I probably could have a lot of questions around the stewardship agreements and the sustainability fund and whether or not the money actually gets spent. I want to attack this problem, what I perceive to be a problem, around the use of the credit system for work being done and the fact that some of the silviculture contractors are hired to do a job and they're paid - let's say a hectare which I think is 600 credits or something like that. When they're asked to do the job, the mill who hires them will say we will pay you $200 to do that. They say, no, we need $600 to do that job. Then they say we're not willing to pay that. So, they will say, well, it's 600 credits and they say it's not a dollar per credit. But, I think that what seems to be when mills can swap credits, et cetera, that it actually seems to be related to a dollar value. I'm wondering if anybody's raised this with you? If the silviculture contractors association has raised it and what the province thinks they can do in this regard? I don't think there's anybody to do the silviculture work.

MR. OLIVE: It's an interesting observation. I have had discussions with companies in Nova Scotia that do silviculture work. I question whether or not the companies that are in it believe that they can continue to survive under the present program financially. They tell me they can. We do bring this to our advisory committee, this has been discussed at the advisory committee. Part of the problem with the silviculture business is that there's a stigma attached to it, which is very unfortunate. Silviculture work is a profession not unlike any other profession in the forestry industry. Unfortunately, either the education system, the college in New Brunswick, whatever, and maybe even down to the high school level where students wonder what they want to do, this is on the same category as a gas station attendant,

[Page 583]

which is really unfortunate. These are highly-qualified, dedicated individuals who want to go out and do what they do to sustain the forestry and be in the outdoors and provide a meaningful day's work that has long-term benefit to Nova Scotians.

One of the things that did concern me was that some people within the industry feel that it's not promoted at the level and at the quality that it should be promoted. We don't know why, but it's having a negative backlash on the image of silviculture work. That's something that the advisory committee is looking at. How do we improve the overall image and how do we get more young people involved in silviculture because that's where it's got to come from.

I think there's an education process and, you, as an educator, can fully appreciate that. There is an education process to put silviculture in the category that it should be in related to the future of our forests. It's a legitimate concern. Whether the people who are in it believe that it's a dying trade and they're losing money, I don't totally agree with that, notwithstanding that they're concerned about its future from getting new people involved.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I can tell you how to change that. Pay them.

MR. OLIVE: It's not all money, though. Not to diminish that. I'm not saying that you're wrong, what I'm saying is that money isn't everything, that it's an environment too.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, they'll be treated like gas station attendants as long as they're paid like them.

MR. OLIVE: Yes, good point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Hants East, thank you very much. We have now spent four hours today, and now we have 32 hours in this room. Mr. Minister, would you like to sum up?

MR. OLIVE: Well, there's no summing up, Mr. Chairman. I will wait and I will be back having a discussion with the honourable members on Thursday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is Thursday, April 24^th, after Question Period. Thank you very much.

[8:00 p.m. The committee rose.]