[Page 549]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to bring the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply to order. We will start with the estimates for the Office of Immigration.
Resolution E18 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $42,543,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate, Office of Immigration.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Immigration.
HON. LEONARD GOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a great pleasure to be here today. With me today are: Rosalind Penfound, our deputy minister, to my far right, Office of Immigration; Elizabeth Mills, executive director, to my immediate right; and to my left is Brenda Dooley of Finance. So I welcome all of you and thank you for being here today with me.
Mr. Chairman, the importance of immigration to the economic well-being of our province continues to grow. So, too, do our numbers. For the fourth consecutive year the number of individuals arriving in Nova Scotia through our Nominee Program has increased. As outlined in our Immigration Strategy, our targets are to attract a total of 3,600 immigrants, all federal classes, annually, by 2010.
Last year more than 2,500 individuals arrived in Nova Scotia to begin new lives. While there was a slight decrease in the federal government's refugee and family reunification classes, the number of individuals arriving through the federal economic class increased. This is thanks, in large part, to the Nominee Program. As a result, we are succeeding in attracting some of the most innovative and talented people in the world.
[Page 550]
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to report that the province has its first immigration agreement with the federal government. The Agreement for Canada-Nova Scotia Co-operation on Immigration was signed in September - actually, I believe September 19th is the correct date - by my predecessor, Minister Carolyn Bolivar-Getson, and federal Immigration Minister Diane Finley. The agreement, which formalizes federal and provincial roles regarding immigration in Nova Scotia continues, includes a new nominee agreement component. Under this new agreement, the limit previously in place on the number of nominee certificates the province is entitled to issue annually has been eliminated. This better enables us to reach our immigration goals and ensure that we can attract skilled and professional workers who can meet our labour-market needs.
Mr. Chairman, we will soon introduce the entrepreneur stream to the Nominee Program. The purpose of this new stream is to attract immigrant entrepreneurs to the province and individuals who want to make and take an equity position in existing Nova Scotia companies. The stream will replace the program's economic category, which was subject to much attention last fall. Staff are now reviewing feedback received from stakeholders about proposed criteria for the stream. We aim to launch the new stream following our review of the Auditor General's Report on the Nominee Program. This new entrepreneur stream, along with the international graduate and family business worker categories, will further promote Nova Scotia as an immigration destination.
Marketing these streams and the overall program is a priority for us in 2008. While our attraction numbers are on track, we still have some work to do to reach our targets. That's why the proposed budget includes one full-time position for a marketing officer. The officer will be responsible for working with local businesses to identify their labour-market needs and to promote job and career opportunities abroad, hand in hand with employers.
Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear - attracting new immigrants to Nova Scotia is vital; so, too, is keeping them here. A key factor in a newcomers' decision to move in the area is access to meaningful employment. It is also a critical component in his or her decision to stay here after arriving.
We want and we need employers with bona fide job and career opportunities. Last year my predecessor met with business and community leaders across the province. The purpose of these meetings was to promote the advantages of a diverse workplace and to provide information on how to employ immigrants through our Nominee Program. This year we will continue that good work.
A second target of ours is to increase Nova Scotia's immigration retention rate from 37 per cent in 2001 to 70 per cent as of the 2011 census data. I'm very pleased to report the latest figures show the province's retention rate has jumped to 63 per cent. This is very encouraging, but there is still much work to be done.
[Page 551]
Access to settlement supports continue to be key in helping new immigrants integrate successfully into Nova Scotia's communities. In 2007-08 we invested more than $1.8 million in organizations best able to deliver these services. I'm also pleased to note that this year we are increasing our investment by $500,000. Now there will be even more funds available to help newcomers stay and succeed here.
We are working to ensure that skilled and educated workers are able to access their profession through fair, transparent and accountable licensing processes. That's why Immigration staff have collaborated with the Department of Labour and Workforce Development on the proposed fair access legislation. This is an important piece of legislation and none more so than from an immigrant perspective. Potential newcomers need to know what employment opportunities are here for them. They need to know that registration and licensing are required and what courses they may need to practise their profession in Nova Scotia. We must ensure that our province has a fair, transparent and accountable process in place so more people can live and work here. This legislation is a good first step.
This year has been a challenging one for us and, of course, there are still issues that need to be addressed. Maintaining close relationships with our stakeholders will be fundamental to our success in meeting these challenges and reaching our immigration goals.
One avenue for relationship building is the advisory council that we are appointing to help advise us on the needs of business and immigrants as they relate to immigration matters. This advisory council will be in place within the next few months.
Mr. Chairman, the 2008-09 budget for the Office of Immigration will represent a $942,000 increase over last year. Of this new money, more than half will be targeted for settlement in enhanced-language programs aimed at overcoming the barriers of international credential recognition, increasing community capacity building, enhancing language skills and supporting immigrant entrepreneurs.
The work of the Office of Immigration will be further supported by the addition of four staff: one program officer, one policy officer, one administrative person, and a marketing officer as I indicated earlier. The office will have more capacity to follow up on inquiries and Nominee Program applications. In addition, there will be $328,000 in federal funds available that we can access for Web portal projects for the Atlantic-wide recruitment and retention initiatives, and marketing projects to attract more Francophone immigrants to our French-speaking communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about the work of the office in the past year and our plans for the coming one. I'll now take questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We now will turn things over to the NDP caucus.
[Page 552]
The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.
MR. LEONARD PREYRA: I welcome the minister to his new position, new to this committee. In particular, I want to welcome Elizabeth Mills back - I don't see Carmelle d'Entremont here, but as I've said before, I've been very impressed with the quality of advice that I've received from Elizabeth and Carmelle. I'm sure the minister has been brought up to speed very quickly in his tasks with Carmelle and Elizabeth beside him. I would welcome the deputy, as well, but I don't interact with her as directly - but welcome.
I wanted to start with a general question. What is your perception of the ideal immigrant?
MR. GOUCHER: My perception of the ideal immigrant? I guess my perception probably of an ideal immigrant is someone who wants to come to Nova Scotia and stay here. I think that's probably, to me, one of the most critical parts of the whole process. As we said, our goals for our department are attraction, integration and retention. We need to have immigrants coming to this province who have the skill sets we need, who have the entrepreneurial base that we're looking for but, most importantly, people who really want to come to Nova Scotia to settle - not to use the Nova Scotia Nominee Program as an entry point to Canada and end up going somewhere else. We want them here, I guess, if that answers your question.
MR. PREYRA: I would just like to - you know, we haven't talked about the larger question of immigration before and I do want to get your conception of an immigrant, because so much of what happens in immigration is informed by this larger conception of the world. I was really struck by it, because I was looking at the Office of Immigration's Web site under About Nova Scotia, and it says, "In this section, learn about our province, our people, and our way of life."
The visuals are quite telling because we have on the front page a picture of North America - Canada and the United States - and on the second page, Europe and the only countries identified there are the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the United States, with the Atlantic Ocean at the centre. I'm wondering if that tells us something about the Office of Immigration and its perception of the world.
It seems to me that certainly in previous statements, there has been this description of the world as European and I'm wondering if maybe there's something - I'm taking too much of this, but is that telling?
MR. GOUCHER: No. You know, I think it's a fair question. No, I don't think it is because I think when you look at your map - I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me. That's fine, that's okay, because I think I understood a lot of the countries there. But when you think that in Nova Scotia right now, it's probably pretty telling when you think the second most
[Page 553]
spoken language in the Halifax Regional Municipality is Arabic. It's probably not shown on your map there. We do emphasize and we - you know, immigrants come from the U.K., they come from the United States, but they come from Iraq, Iran, Taiwan, the Philippines, China, they come from all over the world. No, I don't think you can read anything from that map. I think we're very, very proud of the origins of the people who immigrate to Nova Scotia. I don't think that map tells the full story at all.
MR. PREYRA: It's not my map, it's your map. I was just pointing that out.
MR. GOUCHER: It's our map, yes.
MR. PREYRA: I also wanted to talk in general, because it seems to me in your description of the ideal immigrant that you talk about people who want to come here and stay here, but most of our immigration policies seem to be informed by a focus on getting capital here, getting money here, getting people with money here. It seems to me that we're looking at citizenship more as a business transaction rather than a citizenship issue, where we want citizens, we want people who will raise families here and stay here.
I was listening carefully to your description of the priorities for 2008-09, and all of that focuses on entrepreneurs and getting people with money here. I'm wondering if that has been part of our problem with retention, if you look at it down the road, that entrepreneurs are people who come here just on a contractual basis and will leave when they can get better contractual terms elsewhere.
MR. GOUCHER: I think I understand where you're coming from, but our ability to be able to attract immigrants to Nova Scotia is somewhat limited because we are an arm of the federal program, which is the economic stream. Under the economic side of our program, we have to look for only those people who will take an active role - not a passive investment role, but will take an active role - within the business sectors of the province. That's one of the issues and that's why, I think, the current federal minister, there were some changes made to the federal Act which clarified active versus passive on our part, because there were some questions surrounding some of the nominee programs.
[2:15 p.m.]
I think, from that standpoint, as far as who we attract, quite frankly, we are somewhat limited as to who we can attract under the economic stream. We have four other streams that are there: we have the skilled worker stream; the international graduate stream, which is starting to come into its own; the community identified; and we also have the family business. But under the economic stream, which is our largest - because, as I said before, that accounts for the largest part of the immigration to the province - we are somewhat limited as to who we can attract.
[Page 554]
MR. PREYRA: That being said, whether it's active or passive investment, or really all of those other streams, there's still this economic criterion that dominates all of those streams.
MR. GOUCHER: Absolutely, yes.
MR. PREYRA: I wanted to talk about the economic stream. I know that you're not accepting applications into the business mentor part of the stream, but I wanted to ask you about the - I mean the Web site still has information about the economic stream because it's still alive for those who are in the process. I want to know, given your experience over the past year, and the previous minister's experience over the past year, whether or not the criteria for the selection of businesses have changed for the business mentorship arrangement.
MR. GOUCHER: As I say, I haven't been here for a year, I've been here for about six months, so it's still a learning experience for me. Yes, we have opened it up. We have opened up to companies that are not listed on stock exchanges, et cetera, so we have opened our opportunities up to other companies.
When it came to the mentorship side of it, of course, before you accepted a second one you always checked on the first to make sure it was successful before we allowed a second, after the year waiting period.
MR. PREYRA: Have you, or has your department embarked on anything specific in terms of approving businesses? Is there any more due diligence? Part of the criticism of the office has been that your department approved a number of what can only be described as fly-by-night operations that were there to take the $100,000 and then they ran with it. I'm wondering if you've done anything more to exercise any oversight, both in terms of the selection of businesses and, also, have you done anything in terms of monitoring and enforcing the arrangements once approved?
MR. GOUCHER: I guess, first of all, I think your reference to "fly-by-night" is somewhat unfair. I don't think that's an appropriate comment, but I'll leave it at that. I presume you're talking about the mentorship program because right now that's the only stream - it's not active, we're not accepting any more programs, but people are still arriving on it.
MR. PREYRA: No, but you are accepting business mentors.
MR. GOUCHER: Pardon me? We have 65, I believe, business mentors still registered for the program and of the new arrivals, I think we have four that have opted to take the mentorship program. But as far as oversight goes - I think that's what you're talking about - as far as the department goes, we do our best to provide oversight and input and
[Page 555]
monitor the situation to ensure there's a proper mentorship and a legal mentorship, I guess - maybe "legal" is the wrong word - but a mentorship taking place that may have been somewhat suspect before.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I'm glad you mentioned this question of legal responsibility because that is an issue that has come up. Even today on your Web site, you say the business mentor, if approved by the province and later matched with a nominee, provides the nominee with an employment contract and the nominees have argued that it implies an obligation on the part of the department, that you approved those business mentors. In fact, you required them, in many cases, to get into an agreed-upon relationship with an agreed business, then you stepped away from it when things went badly and said we're not responsible, that they signed their agreement with the businesses and we had no responsibility. Are you saying now that you do have a legal obligation to protect those nominees who were hurt by the mentorship arrangement that your department approved?
MR. GOUCHER: As I said, I think that the terminology, from the standpoint of the mentorship program, the department did its best to provide oversight when we took the program over in 2006, I believe it was - July. We've done our best to ensure that the mentorships, the matches that were made, were made with full knowledge by both the mentor and the nominee. The department did periodic checks. I mean it's impossible to be out there on a 24-hour basis to monitor what is going on but at the end of the day, they both - both the nominee and the mentor - had to sign off that a successful mentorship had occurred.
If you look at it from our standpoint, there has to be some level of trust that people are telling you the truth, that they did happen. I think from that standpoint, the department did its due diligence. I don't think there was any question that we didn't try to do our due diligence but if you're asking me, did we suspect some issues prior to 2006, absolutely. That's why we took the program over and that's why it was cancelled.
MR. PREYRA: With respect, Mr. Minister, I'm asking about the relationship that preceded 2006, as well, because it's one thing to say that the immigrants signed this agreement in full knowledge of what was being offered but the fact of the matter is, many of these immigrants who were harmed by this process had no knowledge about the companies that they were signing a deal with but they went on good faith, trusting the department, that the department had, in fact, done its due diligence. I'm not talking about post-2006, I'm talking about the period during Cornwallis as well. I listened very carefully to your response on monitoring and the department is still saying that it has no mechanism for monitoring those business mentors and those mentorship arrangements that are being embarked on.
MR. GOUCHER: I guess, first of all - and I believe I'm correct in saying this - that the contract was between the nominee and the mentor. We provided the vehicle to put them together. Currently, we now provide oversight by contacting the company and the nominee
[Page 556]
on a monthly basis to make sure that there is an actual bona fide end-to-end mentorship going on. Prior to 2006, when it was in the hands of the private sector, the private sector provided the oversight that was required. I really can't comment on that particular side of it. As you know, there is litigation that's going on with that particular company now in the province. But if you're asking me, did we suspect there were some issues? Absolutely.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I guess that will come out in the court cases.
MR. GOUCHER: Absolutely.
MR. PREYRA: Again, I don't want to belabour this but the Office of Immigration was not just present at the table. If you read the language of your own Web site today, it says the business mentor, if approved by the province, that this is a preapproval with a screening, with a committee that the Office of Immigration formed and later matched with the nominee. In other words, you're both approving and matching. You're more than just an innocent bystander - or your office is more than an innocent bystander in this.
I want to move on - I think you've answered that question - to talk about specific cases that have come up. I haven't had a chance to get an answer from you in the House, so I'm going to ask it to you again. I have a letter here that your department sent to Mr. and Mrs. Karunanayake. The letter says: This is to inform you that the employment relationship between you and the company under the Business Mentor Program did not comply with our program policy.
There is a question of why didn't it comply and when did you find out? The more important part of this question is, your office is saying to them: It is my understanding there was no bona fide business mentorship, therefore, I regret to inform you that the mentorship has been discontinued.
There was no bona fide mentorship relationship so on both counts you're saying nothing was followed. But the conclusion in that letter says: This means you - that means that Mr. Karunanayake forfeits his entitlement to participate in the program and loses $100,000.
I don't understand the logic. You're accepting the fact that there was no bona fide relationship, that the program and policies weren't followed. We have already agreed that you were responsible for putting this partnership together and now you're saying that they lose $100,000 because of something that failed within the Office of Immigration. I wonder how you can explain that, sir.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm going to have to be limited as to what I can say. I'm not prepared to talk about individual cases and I'm not trying to avoid the question either. I hope you understand, I can't answer that question.
[Page 557]
MR. PREYRA: I want to touch on another similar case because there are three different situations in the same answer. Mr. Kermanshah got a similar letter. It says: The employment relationship between you and the company under the Business Mentor Program did not comply with our program policies. There was no active on-site employment relationship between you and the other party and I regret to inform you that this means you forfeit your entitlement to participate in the Business Mentor Program. You, too, lose the $100,000. How does the department justify that position?
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the questions that are being asked. I hope you understand, these are personal issues, things that I have no intention of going there with individuals. I'm sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might just comment. That's fine, Mr. Minister. We certainly appreciate that and we do enjoy, somewhat, an informal atmosphere here and your justification for not answering certainly suits the Chair and I trust the honourable member would acknowledge that as well.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I do, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I've deliberately been asking questions from people who have given us permission to ask and their names have been in the media. They have cleared the release and we have sent the minister a release of information form, I believe, when we asked these questions earlier.
Mr. Patel, as well, received a letter and in his letter it says: We are terminating this arrangement because it is our understanding, the employment relationship between you and the company under the Business Mentor Program was not a middle-management level.
Here it's terminated because it wasn't a middle-management level. I wonder, in light of your earlier comments, how did you determine whether or not something was a middle-management position? Keep in mind that this person was sweeping the floor and doing dishes and it was always meant to be a sweeping-the-floor and doing-the-dishes kind of operation. I'm wondering by what stretch of the imagination that could be considered a middle-management position and what kind of monitoring there was to ensure that it would be a middle-management position.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, again, I would actually love to be able to answer these questions. I actually had a long discussion with some of the people who he was actually talking about. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to be publicly relating their stories which they told me, which don't necessarily agree with what's coming across here. What I will say is, if the member has a signed waiver that he would like to give our department, we would be more than pleased to give him any documented documentation that we have on the individual, but we do require that signed waiver. He may be saying yes, they've spoken in the media and they've done other things, and I appreciate that but if we had a signed waiver
[Page 558]
from them, we would be more than pleased to give him the information that we have. I will, at least, offer that. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Minister, you are offering that to the member, obviously, through the Chair. I certainly would want to agree with that approach. I think all members, being honourable, would support such documentation and, in fact, the issue of bringing individuals' names to the floor of the Legislature and, in fact, the Red Room, which is an extension of the House, obviously, does cause a certain amount of uncomfortableness with members. I think the honourable member could respect that.
[2:30 p.m.]
Mr. Minister, my opinion would be that is a very reasonable offer to submit to the honourable member. So I would go back to the member for Halifax Citadel. Perhaps he would want to change his line of questioning or carry on, if he likes, but the minister has clearly indicated that he would require such documentation to proceed on that front.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I know the honourable member did indicate that he had the waivers and if you want to give them to us right now, we'll take them back and we'll try to get the information for you before . . .
MR. PREYRA: I don't have them with me.
MR. GOUCHER: You don't have them with you? We haven't received any either. I just wanted that for the record. We have not received any but if you would like to get them for us, or if he has them with him today, we would be more than pleased to try to provide the information.
MR. PREYRA: Just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I again listened very carefully to the response and the minister is going to release the files of those people. It is not our intention to have the minister release their entire file. We want the minister to defend the letter that his office wrote and nothing more than that. Obviously he is not prepared to respond to that. We really believe that he can respond to it based on the information that he, himself, has in front of him. It is not our intention to know the personal details of these nominees. I understand what the minister is trying to say here. Thank you, I will move on.
I want to move on to the question of the refund. Would you be able to tell us, Mr. Minister, how much money is there in that refund account at the moment?
MR. GOUCHER: First of all, there is no refund account. I think what you're talking about are the trust accounts because that money that's there does not belong to the province, it belongs to the immigrants. At the current time, and the last time I looked at it, I think, as of the end of March or the end of April, there was $68 million in one account and in the other
[Page 559]
account, which is the contested account with regard to the interest, there's about $1.9 million, probably almost $2 million. So it's probably $70 million between the two accounts but, again, the interest in both of those accounts, because of the change in the - I think I'm okay to say this - legal action has somewhat restricted our ability to be able to look at those, the interest on either one of the accounts as money that we could possibly look at, at some time in the future, until this whole issue of the legal action is resolved.
MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that $68 million belongs to the immigrants. How do you propose to return that money to those immigrants, Mr. Minister?
MR. GOUCHER: How do I propose to refund?
MR. PREYRA: You clearly don't want to call it a refund. How are you going to return it to the immigrants if it belongs to them?
MR. GOUCHER: At this point in time, the Residency Refund option is the only option that is on the table for many of the immigrants. The 210 or the 206 previous to the Residency Refund option who have gone through the program, the Residency Refund option is not applicable to them. They have gone through the program, their monies have been disbursed. So those who are still to come, still have the choice - and I know there has been some question on this - they have the choice of either the mentorship program or the Residency Refund option.
I think the main thing that the department is trying to do with the Residency Refund option is ensuring that the people who are taking advantage of the Residency Refund option want to stay in Nova Scotia. So that's why that particular 12-month waiting time.
MR. PREYRA: So 206 is the figure that . . .
MR. GOUCHER: Is it 206 or 203? It's 206, those are the ones you're talking about.
MR. PREYRA: We started with 850 then. So there are 600-something to be accounted for, which is where the $68 million comes from?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, there are about 600 or so.
MR. PREYRA: Yes. So that's my question, how do you propose to get that money back to the 600 or less immigrants who you now say own that money?
MR. GOUCHER: That money, when they get here, they will have the choice of the Residency Refund option or the mentorship program.
MR. PREYRA: They're already here.
[Page 560]
MR. GOUCHER: No, not all them, absolutely not. There are probably 400 who still haven't arrived.
MR. PREYRA: And do you know where they are?
MR. GOUCHER: We know where they're coming from.
MR. PREYRA: And have they been matched with mentors?
MR. GOUCHER: They're not here yet, we don't know.
MR. PREYRA: And do you know how many of those who came here are still here?
MR. GOUCHER: I think, as I tried to answer the question in the House, I could probably say no, but our retention rate is 63 per cent. So you could probably take a number off of that.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I want to get back to that question of a retention rate but in your introduction you talked about doing a better job of tracking those nominees. You don't know where they are and yet you're holding a significant amount of money in trust for them?
MR. GOUCHER: I guess under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, which we all hold so dear, it's not up to anybody to track or follow anybody in this country. If there are immigrants who arrived in Canada through Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, wherever it may be, and they chose of their own volition to go somewhere else other than Nova Scotia, there is not a thing that we can do about it because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows them to do that. I don't think, quite frankly, it's up to the department to track people within this country. Sure, we would love to know where they are and we would love to be able to track everybody, but that's just not the case. That's not going to happen.
MR. PREYRA: But, Mr. Minister, if you're holding $130,000 of a person's money, do you not think it would be wise to make sure you know where they are and if you're not admitting people into the country as citizens, would it not be wise to know where they are?
MR. GOUCHER: I guess this is pretty well the same as I said before. Some of the people have landed here and they're permanent residents already in Nova Scotia. Some have yet to arrive and we ask them for addresses so that we can communicate with them on a regular basis, you know, and that's the whole purpose of the Residency Refund option. Hopefully it allows us to be able to give them the option to stay here in the province. They also have the option for the mentorship program and, as I said before, there have been a few people who have taken the mentorship program as opposed to the Residency Refund.
[Page 561]
As far as tracking them, you know, I don't understand why it would be our responsibility. I mean I think it's our responsibility to make every effort to try to keep addresses so that we can communicate with them but outside of that, if people aren't willing to do that and if they don't want to do that, there's nothing we can do about it.
MR. PREYRA: I understand that but if I was holding $130,000 of someone's money, I would expect that there would be some additional bits of information. I could see why the Office of Immigration wouldn't be interested because they've got this windfall in the millions of dollars that they now don't have to disburse and we haven't talked about what happens when they don't come back to claim it.
We have been hearing stories of people who have been coming back to Nova Scotia to claim that $100,000. Even though they haven't been living here, they're coming back just to make that claim for $100,000. We have heard stories about people who are getting the $100,000 and are now leaving after getting that $100,000. Does the minister have any way of tracking either of those scenarios?
MR. GOUCHER: The thing being that people can come back to the province, but there's a trigger. There's the 12 months, of course, but there's also the 18 months. So if somebody enters through Montreal and they entered in 2005 or 2006 and all of a sudden they decided, well, you know, they've been living in Vancouver, gee, I think we'll come back here and we'll take up residency here for that 12-month period to get that $100,000. If they've gone beyond 18 months, they're not eligible for it anyway, but if they have landed and they can come back within an 18-month period and stay here for 12 months during that then, yes, they are eligible for it.
MR. PREYRA: Okay, let me take another tactic. So these people have now exhausted the 18-month period.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MR. PREYRA: What happens to the money? What happens to their $100,000?
MR. GOUCHER: Very simply, they forfeit it.
MR. PREYRA: Do you know how much of that money has been forfeited then, how much of that $68 million has been forfeited?
MR. GOUCHER: I'll know a little better when we get the Auditor General's Report.
MR. PREYRA: I don't understand that. Isn't the Office of Immigration responsible for monitoring that?
[Page 562]
MR. GOUCHER: Yes. I mean I could give you a rough number but it's nothing that we've substantiated at this point.
MR. PREYRA: But it is a substantial amount of money.
MR. GOUCHER: Absolutely.
MR. PREYRA: So, you know, I would expect that the Office of Immigration would track it, that we would have more than rough numbers, you know, because we are dealing with the budget, we are dealing with estimates. You know, the government supposedly prides itself on its fiscal responsibility, and here's $68 million that you really can't account for and we're waiting for the Auditor General to tell us the financial part of it and we're waiting for the federal census to tell us where these people are. I'm wondering what it is that the Office of Immigration will tell us.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, we can account for $68 million. We do have it. I mean you're saying we can't account for $68 million - I'm going to correct you, we can account for it. We have $68 million in the account. We know when people landed in Canada. We can basically take a look to see which ones will probably forfeit because of the 18 months, but you forget about one other aspect here and that's unfortunately the legal aspect. There are legal implications here with regard to the disposition of the money, with regard to who's eligible and who isn't. It's probably fairly - I won't say simple, but we can probably identify those people that we believe have forfeited their money. For us to say that they forfeited, you know, I mean there is a legal aspect to this, too, it's not quite that simple. I understand what you're saying but it's not that simple.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I understand the answer and I thought the answer to the initial question was that once that 18-month period had expired, then they lost the claim to it. I thought that was the official answer to my question.
MR. GOUCHER: And it is.
MR. PREYRA: I'll pass on that, Mr. Chairman, and maybe move on to another stream of questions.
I want to ask about some of the other streams. In particular, the community identified stream says that, you know, we want to select people who have long-established connections to a Nova Scotian community. Then it refers us to Appendix III which lists communities that are eligible for sponsoring immigrants. All of these agencies are economic development agencies. Again, it touches on my first question about this world view.
I'm wondering whether or not we have to include other communities in our definition, why the Office of Immigration doesn't mandate other communities, long-
[Page 563]
established communities, very stable communities, that have the ability to sponsor people and support them. I'm thinking here of the Lebanese community, for example, you know, that it would make sense to broaden that definition of community identified to make it possible for different streams of people to come and not just economic refugees in a way.
MR. GOUCHER: I guess, Mr. Chairman, through you, without question we work with our RDAs for community identification and it is not community sponsored, it's community identification. They identify the individuals and through the RDAs, we work with them. I'll say something here right now, I accept that idea and I think it's a good one and we'll pursue it.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I also want to ask about the family business workers stream. Again, this is an issue that has come up several times and I'm sure it has come up in the office as well. The family business workers stream includes a number of people who are eligible to be considered, son or daughter, brother or sister, niece or nephew, uncle or aunt, grandchild, and the question is, why not parents? I, for example, come from a family of 10. My youngest brother and my oldest sister are about 20 years apart. This family business stream will allow the oldest one to be sponsored as an uncle or aunt but not the youngest one as a parent, and I'm just wondering what the logic is behind that.
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. GOUCHER: I believe the answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a federal stream that identifies the parents and grandparents as well.
MR. PREYRA: Have we made any recommendations to the federal government about the stream because, you know, again it touches on our initial question. If we want to get citizens, if we want to get people who are going to stay here, then we have to pay better attention to the communities here. We've got to pay attention to family reunification and those are the people who are going to stay here, you know, the children, the grandchildren, the parents, and all that group.
If you get entrepreneurs here, I think they will contribute to the economic well-being of the province, and I agree with that completely, but they're also people who will see an economic opportunity and will be economic migrants. So it seems to me that those are streams that we need to look at, is the communities. We need to look at family reunification and especially, you know, given what's happening in Lebanon today, for example, it would make sense for us to offer some Lebanese families the chance to be reunited with their parents.
MR. GOUCHER: I think that family reunification is an absolute priority of the federal government right now. I accept what you say, I can't argue the point, I think it's
[Page 564]
extremely important, but it is a priority with the federal government as far as the family reunification at this point.
MR. PREYRA: I want to touch on Bill C-50. I know that it's not your responsibility because this is a federal issue. It's the Budget Implementation Act but it's an Act that will make fairly significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and has implications for Nova Scotia. I'm wondering if Nova Scotia has made any formal submissions to the federal government about Bill C-50 and its implications, or at least attempted to make any amendments to it that would strengthen Nova Scotia's position?
MR. GOUCHER: I guess probably about a month ago I did contact Minister Finley with regard to Bill C-50 and I will be very honest with you and tell you that one of my main concerns was any impact that it may have on the Nominee Program as we now see it, and I had the minister's commitment that it would not impact us at all. We also want to ensure that those people in the queue who want to come to Nova Scotia will be dealt with, try to expedite them in the best manner possible, but I did receive a commitment from the minister that it would not in any way impact our Nominee Program.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I was thinking more of our general immigration position and not just the Nominee Program. I was wondering if there was any submission made on changing the federal point system, for example, that allows people who want to come to Nova Scotia some preference here and whether or not we have any position on that.
MR. GOUCHER: There was no submission made.
MR. PREYRA: Should the province make a submission? This is an opportunity for us to, you know - and I see in the business plan that the office says it's going to take an aggressive position in lobbying the federal government for changes there that would help Nova Scotia, here's an opportunity for us to intervene, and it doesn't appear that we have.
MR. GOUCHER: I think, really in my discussion with Minister Finley, the most important thing, and the reason that we support this bill to the degree which we do, is it is an attempt by the federal government to clear a huge backlog of people who are waiting to get into this country. I think that's really important and I think it's equally important that those people who are in the queue waiting to get into Nova Scotia through the federal program are dealt with in the fastest manner possible. As I say, I did speak to her on it and we do support the bill, because I believe it is a good effort to try to reduce that queue and I think, if I remember, the number was around 900,000 who are currently in the queue. It's a huge number and something has to be done, and I hope that this does address it.
MR. PREYRA: Yes, I agree with the minister completely. Part of our concern is that - I think it's 950,000 but it doesn't really matter, it's a large number of people - but the backlog is being dealt with by removing those people from the queue. It seems to me that
[Page 565]
here's a pool of almost one million people who want to come to Nova Scotia. This would be a great opportunity for us to go through that list and say, if you come to Nova Scotia, we would welcome you, because these are people who are already in the screening queue. These are people who have demonstrated a commitment to coming here. The Province of Nova Scotia and the Office of Immigration hasn't really tapped into that pool at all.
MR. GOUCHER: You know what? It's a valid point but the truth be known, and I think we all know it, is that they're not all interested in coming to this province. However, in my discussion with the minister, one of my main issues was to ensure that those who are interested in coming to Nova Scotia be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible, to get them out of the queue. I agree with you, we need immigrants very, very badly in this province.
My discussion did cross that bridge with her, and I hope in the short term that does happen.
MR. PREYRA: Just a comment. It's my understanding, and I come from some of these parts of the world, that if they have a choice between dropped from the list and coming to Nova Scotia - I mean there are lots of good reasons for choosing Nova Scotia, I don't want to say that Nova Scotia is a last choice for anyone - I suspect that they would want to come to Nova Scotia.
I have a question again, still on federal matters. As you know, Citizenship and Immigration commissioned a study of retention and a report was released this week on Australian and Canadian immigration. One of the points they make is that we should do a better job of establishing credentials when people are in their home countries, so that people know when they come here whether or not their credentials will be recognized. We should test their capacity to speak English or French, that it would be more humane and it would be more efficient and more responsible on our part to establish these things in the pre-screening process.
Part of the problem with the Nominee Program, and our immigration problem in general, is that a lot of these highly skilled professionals come here and they end up driving taxis and working at menial jobs - not to say there's anything wrong with that but these people came here with the expectation of working in their professions and we denied them the opportunity. I was going to say if we're going to deny them, why not do it while they're still in their home country and established and we haven't uprooted them?
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, CIC has opened a foreign credential office to do referrals and information, to provide more information to them before they come. I'm going to be quite frank with you, I think it's an excellent idea.
MR. PREYRA: Could we be doing more ourselves, is the question?
[Page 566]
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MR. PREYRA: Let's say we've got 400 nominees at the moment sitting in this queue, are we contacting them and saying to them, you should know coming to Canada that the unemployment rate in Nova Scotia is this, this, and this . . .
MR. GOUCHER: To give them the information that, and we are doing that.
MR. PREYRA: . . . that we don't recognize doctors and engineers and lawyers, even though you might be recognized in your home country as such?
MR. GOUCHER: It's an excellent idea, but we are doing that.
MR. PREYRA: The other federal issue I wanted to talk about was the implications of Bill C-50 for refugees and reunification, people coming under family class and people coming under compassionate grounds. Those classes have now been really superceded, to a certain extent, by the other classes. I'm wondering whether or not the province is making any representation on bringing people to Canada, but particularly bringing people to Nova Scotia who are sitting in refugee camps or sitting in Canada as refugees, and whether or not we should try to protect our own interest, by protecting the interests of these groups of people.
MR. GOUCHER: We have been approached by Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the issue. We will be - and I guess the issue is how many we can absorb within the current system, in the social services, et cetera.
We are putting together an internal committee to review the situation and get back to CIC on it.
MR. PREYRA: Well, I'm glad to hear of it. I believe you mentioned it in your opening remarks as well, that there has been a significant decline in our refugee and family class immigrants. This will only serve to exacerbate the problem.
Again, getting back to my original comments, if we conceive of the world, at least from a Nova Scotia point of view, the people who are most likely to come to Nova Scotia are people who are going to come from those classes, family reunification, refugees, compassionate grounds, et cetera. If we allow those classes to be undermined, we, in fact, will be undermining our own chances down the road.
That's just a comment more than a question but I guess, in general, what I'm saying is that we believe the Province of Nova Scotia and the Office of Immigration should take a more robust role in the formulation of federal immigration and refugee policy because we
[Page 567]
have this pool of people, we have this federal infrastructure that's there and we should make better use of it.
I wanted to get back to your opening comments, Mr. Minister, about retention rates. The Budget Address said that we have moved our retention rates from 37 per cent in 2001 to 64 per cent in 2006. I looked everywhere for confirmation of that figure, and there have been different figures that have been used in different reports of the department. I'm wondering, given that you really don't know where some of these immigrants are and some of these nominees are, how do you know that 64 per cent or 67 per cent is the accurate figure?
MR. GOUCHER: The report was actually from a Metropolis study. The study was from the 2001 to 2006 census period.
MR. PREYRA: Yes, I have the study in front of me and the study cites the census report, and I looked for that census report and it's not there. The study says that the data is available.
Now, this is the university professor in me and I apologize for it. But I looked for a footnote, I went to look for a citation and found it a dead end. And I'm not sure, it surprised me because the position of the Office of Immigration to date has been, we don't have that data, it hasn't come out yet. The formal reports of the Office of Immigration have always said, we don't know yet and we'll know later. So this is quite a dramatic shift and I would be happy to receive evidence of that, if you can provide it.
I know that I've looked now for a couple of days since it was cited in the address and I didn't find it.
MR. GOUCHER: We'll be more than happy to provide that data for you, and we'll make sure you get that in a timely manner.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you.
I want to move on to talk about the entrepreneur stream. Again, a very exciting initiative and I commend the Office of Immigration for considering it and bringing it forward. If I can be mildly critical, it has been long-promised and I see now that it's supposed to be this Spring and we're halfway through Spring, so I assume within the next four to six weeks it will be released.
Again, as someone who has poured over five years of Office of Immigration documents that were released, this is something that has come up often, that instead of getting into that mentorship arrangement, instead of getting into the mentorship program, this is the program that we should have done. I'm wondering whether or not this entrepreneur
[Page 568]
stream will be made available to business mentors as part of a resolution, perhaps. So maybe it should be made available to them as part of a resolution.
MR. GOUCHER: I can tell you that the entrepreneurial stream probably would have been out by now and I think we would be remiss if we carried forward with very much right now without the Auditor General's final report. Hopefully that will be with us within a short period of time. I'm not sure when it is, but hopefully in June sometime, at least one part of it and it may give us enough to proceed.
Once we do have the AG's Report, I can tell you that we will be moving forward with the new stream as quickly as we can because I think you can appreciate, as well as myself, we're operating on six of eight cylinders right now and we do need that entrepreneurial stream . . .
MR. PREYRA: The Opposition is working on eight cylinders.
MR. GOUCHER: Well, we are, too, we're working on eight cylinders but we need the other two with that because the entrepreneurial stream, the economic stream is a huge part of our program and we do need it badly. But I do agree with you, it's a very exciting stream.
[3:00 p.m.]
MR. PREYRA: I think notwithstanding my earlier comment about the heavy emphasis on the economic aspect of it, I still remain with that caveat. It makes sense and it should have happened earlier, where if we were going to take $130,000 of someone's money, we should have offered them something for their money, we should have offered them something back or, at the very least, given them really meaningful work experience. This program goes a bit of a way to addressing that big gap in the program itself.
I still have some concerns about it. There is this question of the net worth. They have to have obtained, and interestingly legally obtained, a minimum amount of personal net worth of $400,000, including minimum liquid assets of $200,000. You know, we're casting the net in a certain pool and it's deliberate, we're trying to encourage economic migrants. That's quite a significant limitation on who can apply. Sometimes small-business entrepreneurs, people who have cottage industries, they have a real desire to succeed, they have a desire to work, they have a strong desire to come here and what we're saying to them is, if you don't have $600,000 or $1 million or whatever, you can't come here. So we're not really looking at entrepreneurs, we're looking for some wealthy entrepreneurs.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes. I think the reality is that, first of all, the program is still under review. I don't think there are any firm numbers that we've got at this point in time. There has been really great feedback through the consultation process.
[Page 569]
I think that whether we like it or not, there's a reality attached here. That reality is that to start a business up, you're not going to do it with $25,000 and you're not going to do it with $50,000. I think that's why you're seeing that those particular numbers are in the mix, because you're going to need that to ensure you have any hope for success.
You know what? I really do hope that everybody who comes here succeeds. The numbers, too, for that particular stream will probably be smaller than most. But we also have the other four streams, as well, and they are also - the skilled worker stream, the international graduate stream, I really hold a lot of hope for those, I really do. I look to those numbers to start increasing, as well, but I think there is that reality. I'm not taking away from it, but there is going to have to be some investment to ensure that they are successful. As I say, we've received feedback and it's varied. Some are saying the rural numbers should be lower than the core number, so at this point in time nothing has been decided.
MR. PREYRA: I appreciate your pointing that out because if it's one thing that I think has been a real education for me is in travelling through Nova Scotia, especially in rural Nova Scotia, they are being hit by this double whammy, if you want. On one hand they're not getting foreign migration, and on the other hand they have a tremendous out-migration of their young people and their skilled workers.
So in looking at our immigration policy and in framing some of these policies, we have to ask, will these people go to rural Nova Scotia? Will someone who has a $1 million business, will someone who is coming to Canada, to Nova Scotia primarily, for economic reasons, go to rural Nova Scotia and what would make them settle in rural Nova Scotia?
MR. GOUCHER: Well, first of all to your question, the RDAs are very important here in the rural areas, but also the statistics are starting to show that people are starting to settle in the rural areas and not the urban core areas. So, you know, I'm very hopeful for the new program, that you will see the rural/suburban areas starting to see more immigrants choosing to settle in these areas as opposed to the core areas; the current statistics are starting to show that those numbers are increasing.
MR. PREYRA: I want to move on to settlement questions. I believe I have five minutes left? Four minutes.
In looking at some of the settlement data, it seems to me that the Office of Immigration puts most of its eggs in the recruitment side of the equation but not in the settlement side. If you go to the Web site, if you read the immigration documents, there's a significant amount of money being spent by the Office of Immigration to immigrant settlement organizations. I must say, MISA is quite an impressive organization and the staff do well above and beyond what they're paid to do. Many of them are volunteers so this is not a comment on MISA or the work it's doing. But I'm wondering if the Office of Immigration should do more in terms of follow-up for immigrants who are coming here, in terms of
[Page 570]
tracking them and checking to see how they're doing, if the Office of Immigration could do more advance work with them to talk about Nova Scotia and what it offers and how they go about establishing credentials.
It seems to me that service would be better provided if the office itself was more in tune with what its own policies were doing. I think the policies have been generally good so it's not a criticism of the policies either, but it's a way of saying, you know, how are we doing with these people that we're recruiting, you know, how is our policy working?
MR. GOUCHER: I think that's a fair comment. First of all, the settlement organizations are required to file reports on a regular basis, and I'll also say that I just attended the MISA expo on Monday. It was a great privilege and I ran into a lot of old friends of mine who immigrated here from Cuba and other areas that I used to work with in the airline industry. I really do believe that, you know, the settlement programs are in large part best run by those who are geared and are able to provide the best for immigrants when they come into Nova Scotia. But there's another part to that too - and I accept your comments and I think they're very valid. We are also hiring four new FTEs in this budget, plus replacing two from last year, so there are six new bodies that will be in the department and that's a significant increase. So I think that will help as well.
MR. PREYRA: I noticed that but those are more policy-oriented positions. I'm talking about basic follow-up, basic tracking, simple things like calling up, meeting them at the airport, and saying how are you doing, welcome to Nova Scotia, this is what we can offer you to help you navigate your way through what is quite a - I mean we have a nice airport in Halifax but, at the same time, when you land at a strange airport and you're there saying how do I get into town, or how do I get my social insurance number, it's quite a challenge. The Office of Immigration is not there receiving them. It takes quite a significant effort for these people who are arriving to just find their way back to Halifax, if that's where they're going.
MR. GOUCHER: I think, you know, providing information is fine and I think ideally what you say would be great, but I don't think there's any government that could ever do that. We provide for settlement. Half of our budget last year, $1.8 million of $3.7 million, almost half - actually it was probably half, because it was a little more than that - went to settlement. This year we've increased our budget by $500,000 more, so we're going to be up around $2.3 million for settlement.
So I'm very pleased, you know, from the standpoint of settlement and the ability to try to integrate people into the communities. I mean in my own community I do see it as well. I've said it a million times, you know, Bedford 15 years ago, you would be hard-pressed to find an immigrant; now 30 per cent of our community - and I know the MLA for Halifax Clayton Park, as well, the same thing - and I'm very proud of that. The settlement organizations are so critical there because they're in the schools and they provide ESL programs, provided by volunteers, it's absolutely wonderful.
[Page 571]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That concludes the time for the NDP at this particular time.
The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you very much, and I welcome the opportunity to have an hour to discuss and have some questions back and forth with the Minister of Immigration. I think it's a very exciting portfolio that you have and I think there's an awful lot more we could be doing - not to say that there have not been strides made. I celebrated the fact that a minister was named and I guess initially - when was it, February 2005? I was at the announcement - I thought it was overdue. It was a great thing that we took steps to make it our business and to move forward on the agreement that, first of all, we had the agreement in place - which was 2003, I believe - and, secondly, that we finally saw the importance of naming a minister to be responsible. But we still have a long way to go and lots of work to do.
So before we congratulate ourselves too much, I do think it's important that we just talk about some of those challenges and how we can do better and perhaps learn from where we've been as well. I mean there are some things we have that are real advantages in this province, and one would be the universities and the opportunity to essentially bond with the international students who come to our doors and are here to get their education, which means they're going to have Canadian qualifications and be able to integrate, if they choose to stay here.
I say "if" because maybe they have compelling reasons to return to their home as well. But we know a lot of them would consider staying after having the experience, not unlike our students from outside of the province, from the rest of Canada, who come here and would like to make it their home because it's a formative time in your life and you make good friends and you put down roots. So I think we should be doing an awful lot more there.
I'm just going to ask you briefly the question I had posed to the Minister of Education the other day in the House. I'm sure that you took note of that question. It was relating to MSI and the availability for our students, the international students from the moment they arrive here in Nova Scotia, registered at our universities, to immediately get medical coverage. The cost is about $1,000 a year for them to seek private coverage and that's an additional cost on top of the higher tuition. I asked the minister if she would be speaking to her colleagues - this was the Minister of Education, but I think it equally has an impact particularly on Immigration, and obviously the Minister of Health - but have you had a chance to look at that issue and is there a way that we could simply do what Newfoundland and Labrador has done and give them coverage from the moment they arrive?
MR. GOUCHER: I personally haven't discussed this with the Minister of Education and also the Minister of Health, but I will tell you I'll commit to do that.
[Page 572]
MS. WHALEN: You know it really makes sense. One of the things we want is to be really competitive in keeping those students here and if we don't do this, we run the risk of having a province like Newfoundland and Labrador look better because they took it off, I believe, about a year ago, June 2007.
MR. GOUCHER: No, I don't think so.
MS. WHALEN: This is MSI, they're immediately covered by the health plan in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. GOUCHER: No, she thought they were here, too, but I don't believe they are.
MS. WHALEN: No, to clarify - and this is important for the executive director to know - to qualify for MSI you have to be here 13 months, consecutively. That doesn't even allow the students to go home. A lot of them have a long way to go, they're apt to be gone for a month, they're not allowed to do that. They have to be here consecutively. So, you know, it's still a bit onerous and, as I say, there's a $1,000 fee in order to do it. The number of foreign students, just to put it in perspective, we've got almost 5,000 shown here from 2006. I think I used the number 4,000 when I posed the question, but it's showing here for the Halifax region, 3,300 in 2006 and more elsewhere in the province. So it's a significant number of students.
We want to help them as much as we can to be here and it's an issue that has come up through the international advisers at university campuses. The people who are doing the hand-holding that my colleague spoke about at the university campuses have responded and do their very best to help those international students integrate, and that's one of the issues they've raised as being problematic. If you look at it, Newfoundland and Labrador, as I say, has taken that restriction off completely and I think, again going to the competitiveness factor, we need to be there.
MR. GOUCHER: As I say, I'll commit to make sure that we do discuss that and I appreciate the question.
MS. WHALEN: I'm glad you're now aware of it, fully aware.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: And it may require some work with the other ministers, but please, do take it up. Again, as I say, I think there's such an opportunity here. Now, I understand the federal government is allowing the international students to work longer, that they now have more than three months to find a career in their field, which was an awful lot of pressure on them because we know even the Canadian graduates have a hard time finding their career
[Page 573]
jobs within three months of graduation. So that's a positive thing and I hope that we are responding to that, as well, and encouraging the students to stay as much as possible.
[3:15 p.m.]
Are there any specific programs you have in place where the Office of Immigration liaises or coordinates with the university campuses? That would be in terms of attracting those students to stay - do you do anything proactive?
MR. GOUCHER: Thank you for the question. The off-campus are allowed to work, I believe, 20 hours and they've also formed a working group with all of the universities to review this and study it.
MS. WHALEN: So was the initiative there from the Office of Immigration to form the working group?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, it was.
MS. WHALEN: Okay, I just wasn't sure how much of a connection there is. I know you're aware of those students, but have you reached out to do something? Again, here's an asset, an opportunity that we have and if we just sit back and assume that it's going to work properly and the students will somehow eventually get connected here, you shouldn't be leaving that to chance.
My point is that you should take an active role and I believe, hopefully, you'll have the resources to do it because it's not enough. The universities do their thing but once the students have graduated, their interest is on to the next group that's coming in, clearly. So it has to be government.
MR. GOUCHER: I guess there are regular information sessions, as well, that they also hold. As I said before, I agree with you 100 per cent, I think the international graduate stream is critical and I think it's one that I hope we see in the future really take off.
MS. WHALEN: Yes, so do I. One of the things that I think frames a lot of our discussion around immigration right now is really the federal emphasis which has been on highly educated and professional people. I don't know quite when they went to this but recently we just had a study out that showed that this generation, or this current group of immigrants are the least happy, the least satisfied of immigrants over many years. The reason for that is that we're going overseas, seeking out doctors, lawyers and engineers and professionally qualified, university educated people who we think are the best, the cream of the crop, and we invite them to Canada. When they get here they're not able to take their role, to fulfill their professions. They face tremendous hurdles.
[Page 574]
It's really discouraging and I think they exhaust a lot of the funds they have, even though they may be well-educated and well off, when they get here they exhaust their funds. I've seen it in my own community with professionals who have come in, bought homes, bought cars, put their children in university and whatever else and in a year's time, when they still haven't got their job as a professional accountant, lawyer, doctor, or whatever it may be, they are starting to really suffer financially.
I think part of the problem and part of the issue I would have is with the federal government's very short-sighted approach to this because if you haven't bridged them to the Canadian society, into the professions, you've not done your job.
So it takes me to credential recognition because that, to me, is - if the majority of the people we're looking for are people who need credentials, then we've got a no-win situation. So with the credential recognition we've got before us right now, a bill that's called Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, my first question to you is, why wasn't that an Immigration bill and why didn't you keep the focus on immigration?
MR. GOUCHER: We were part of the discussion on it but the actual lead on it was Labour and Workforce Development. It is a labour-mobility issue - it's not just an immigration issue, it's a labour-mobility issue as well.
MS. WHALEN: It may be a mobility issue for across Canada but I think the crisis is in the immigration area, that opening up greater mobility will be nice in other ways but if you had a bill that actually addressed the needs of immigrants, it would be more effective and be easier to move it forward.
MR. GOUCHER: I really can't comment outside of that. I mean we're very supportive of the bill. There's some misunderstanding, I think, within some of the areas that the government is trying to interfere with, the credential recognition or the validation process within some of the areas, but all we're trying to do is ensure that - and I look at immigrants - to ensure that they have timely response to questions with regard to their professions, and most importantly to me is that they have the avenue for an appeal and that the appeal is dealt within a timely manner by the specific profession, be whatever it is.
MS. WHALEN: I think the minister may be aware that I had brought in a bill that was called Access to Regulated Professions Act - the word "fair" is now in front of it. The bill I brought in was in 2006 and it was specifically aimed at immigration and how you can better recognize the credentials for the immigrants who come here and it's patterned after a very large Ontario bill that again was aimed at helping their 150,000, I think, annual immigrants to Ontario, again to make it a smoother transition and a better place to be.
I felt that if they, with their literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants, are doing a better job at credential recognition, then we had better get in the game because we're
[Page 575]
getting only 2,500 people a year and if they know when they get here that it's a lot easier, more transparent, open and clear if they move to Ontario, then they're going to be gone to Ontario because that's going to save them a lot of time and confusion. Our system is confusing and obscure and, depending on the profession, some more than others.
I should, while we're talking about it, I guess hats off to the professional engineers in Nova Scotia because they've done a tremendous job. So I don't want to suggest that all professions are really difficult. I think they have moved mountains to improve their processes and I understand that something like 40 per cent of the engineers in Nova Scotia are originally trained elsewhere, which is really something. I think I'm right, or close to it anyway.
I'm not saying that some professions haven't responded but it's such a crippling shortfall that we have right now, and the bill has not come in smoothly. As you know, I don't know that it's going to go forward at the moment or whether it will be sidelined or changed. It just seemed to me that if we could keep the focus on immigration and yes, you need better mobility and we could have another Act or another approach for Canadian mobility. But I know in my riding, I have people moving in from across Canada, too, and I'm not getting complaints about how they're dealing with the situation, I'm having a lot of complaints and a lot of really disillusioned and unhappy people who came here with certain expectations that haven't been met.
So do you have any plans for credential recognition or any plans that you might be able to advance separately and for immigrants?
MR. GOUCHER: I think, as I said earlier, we're increasing our investment in settlement, we've injected about another $0.5 million in the budget this year. We want to invest that into the settlement programs for language, specific for professionals for training, so that it makes it easier for them and provides them the skills so that they can access their chosen profession.
The other thing, too, is I would also mention, I understand in speaking that the legal profession has also been absolutely incredible as far as their response to this bill and their access to their profession; they've been very, very supportive.
MS. WHALEN: I don't know if they're supportive of the bill specifically. They may be doing a good job.
MR. GOUCHER: They've been very good.
MS. WHALEN: I think they've joined in with some of the other groups with concerns. I think, by way of context, the concerns really arise because there was poor consultation. It might have been better had you kept it in your hands, I'm not sure, but the
[Page 576]
professions don't feel that they were properly brought in the loop. The Ontario example that I referred to, which is a very big, comprehensive bill, including a commissioner who reports to the Legislature on an annual basis - it's like an ombudsman that they can go to for any problems - and having all the clarity that we talked about, when that bill was introduced for 35 professions in Ontario, there were no complaints.
The Opposition response to the government was, what took you so long? When I found that out, I felt, well, there's nothing wrong with this bill in Ontario, so the difference has got to be consultation because they have very big, very powerful, regulated professions. I think there could be a model there, is what I'm saying, in the way they approached it. It might have been helpful if that had been done to the extent that it was done there.
MR. GOUCHER: I think we used their legislation probably as part of our model.
MS. WHALEN: I think it was looked at, without a doubt, but I just feel it's so critical, I don't see us doing anything that's going to make a difference. If this bill doesn't move forward or it has to be re-crafted, again, we're no farther ahead. So are there any plans at all that are going to - I mean you say you've got some language professional training, and that would probably be through MISA?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, through the settlement agencies.
MS. WHALEN: Well, can you tell me then, have you increased the amount of funding for that kind of activity?
MR. GOUCHER: As long as we get the budget through, yes.
MS. WHALEN: Well, give me the numbers, if you wouldn't mind, last year to this year.
MR. GOUCHER: Settlement would be about $2.3 million.
MS. WHALEN: And last year?
MR. GOUCHER: It was $1.8 million. It's a significant increase for us.
MS. WHALEN: Okay, that's a pretty good increase. There's a big job to do, though, and you're boasting about the number of people who are coming, so we've got a lot more people to put through. So that is one point of it, but I still think there's so much more that needs to be done, I'm not sure that we're getting to it.
On this $2.3 million, can you tell me how many agencies it's going to, how many different groups?
[Page 577]
MR. GOUCHER: Just bear with us one second.
MS. WHALEN: MISA, I imagine, would be the number one. I imagine the minister has visited them all, no doubt.
MR. GOUCHER: Okay, for 2007-08, the African Diaspora Association was $25,000; the Atlantic Metropolis Centre - it was a conference - was $1,000 . . .
MS. WHALEN: That's research.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes. The Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, $5,000 . . .
MS. WHALEN: Research.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes. The Department of Education, which is the ESL program, $0.25 million, it was $250,000 . . .
MS. WHALEN: You're giving them $0.25 million, okay.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes. The Entrepreneurs' Forum was $50,000; Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, $55,000; Greater Halifax Partnership, $38,000; Halifax Immigrant Learning Centre, $293,700, and that was language as well; the Halifax Public Libraries, $65,700; the HRSB Adult ESL, $35,100.
MS. WHALEN: Directly to the HRSB?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: That's not very much, really. That's less than one teacher. We'll talk about ESL after.
MR. GOUCHER: That's for adult ESL, though.
MS. WHALEN: Oh, it's adults, okay.
MR. GOUCHER: That's not for the children. I think the $0.25 million, basically, is there for the schools. The Metro-Region Immigrant Language Services program . . .
MS. WHALEN: Where it shows you how much it has gone up for the schools, for example, the $250,000 for education, ESL, that's flat from last year, am I right?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
[Page 578]
MS. WHALEN: Is there a reason why there was no increase there, because you know that's a critical area for young people arriving, for families?
MR. GOUCHER: Well, we give it to the Department of Education and they spend it as they see fit. I can't give you another answer other than that. We've got a good budget but we've got to make it go to all of the agencies, so the ESL program, it has been $0.25 million and I think the Department of Education was $300,000 - no, $250,000 from last year . . .
MS. WHALEN: Was it your money, though? Or did they match your money?
MR. GOUCHER: They matched our money.
MS. WHALEN: Okay, because it wouldn't be much good if you just flow it through and you both count . . .
MR. GOUCHER: No, it was $0.5 million.
MS. WHALEN: Do you have any idea where the Department of Education allocates the $250,000 and your $250,000?
MR. GOUCHER: No.
MS. WHALEN: Maybe Ms. Mills could look that up while you're answering some other questions.
I think that the need around language and settlement is a key thing and I believe some of the provinces with more immigrants get a lot more federal money to do the work that they've been doing, or have had more federal grants to do it. Is that true, or are we on an equal footing with other provinces? It's whether or not the federal government provides us, here in Nova Scotia, an equal amount of support for our settlement services, as they do in other provinces, with more immigrants - you know, comparably?
MR. GOUCHER: There is a formula but CIC has increased the federal money this year by about$5 million. I think the total amount for Canada was $122 million.
MS. WHALEN: And we've increased by . . .
MR. GOUCHER: I stand to be corrected on that one by $1 million or $2 million, but I think it was around $122 million.
MS. WHALEN: What do we get here in this province for our . . .
[Page 579]
MR. GOUCHER: We get $5 million.
[3:30 p.m.]
MS. WHALEN: And it's up somewhat from last year - quite a bit. And how will CIC use that money? Will they give it to the Office of Immigration? Do they give it directly to settlement agencies?
MR. GOUCHER: It's spent by them directly.
MS. WHALEN: It would be through grants? I don't imagine they use it for their own office - contributions or grants.
MR. GOUCHER: We do take part in the committee.
MS. WHALEN: So can you tell me what you expect the impact of that $5 million to be, or the increase that you say is significant? Are we going to see a difference in the services offered? Is there any way to know what they're going to do with it, or what is being done?
MR. GOUCHER: We do have a chairman on that committee and we do believe that it will have a significant impact with the settlement organizations here locally.
MS. WHALEN: Will somebody monitor that? Would that be your job to monitor the impact of it? Anybody's job?
MR. GOUCHER: CIC has the direction on the money. We sit on the committee and help make recommendations.
MS. WHALEN: Well, I think we have a real shortfall in settlement services, so hopefully it will go to the right and appropriate things.
I'm going to leave the ESL just for a moment, I wanted to go back to the credentialing. MISA has quite a number of working groups with individual professions, and it's pretty difficult for them to do 52 because I think there are 52 skills and professions represented in the bill that's before us. Those working groups have been effective in sort of changing attitudes and helping individual professions to work through their issues of credentialing. Can you indicate whether or not the department has played a role in that - or the office, I should call you an office?
MR. GOUCHER: Obviously we provide funding. We do sit on a committee but we have the association of trained professionals, as well, which is a new organization that is supported by MISA, I believe.
[Page 580]
MS. WHALEN: Supported by MISA. But you provide some funding to them for those projects and perhaps have a representative there, okay. I think in the absence of a bill that's going to help us, we may need a lot more emphasis on those kinds of working groups and probably more resources, because one person or two people working in MISA can't sit on all of the committees that are needed and really map out some of the improvements that could be done.
Again, I go back to the fact that I think it's just urgent, these families that have come here with a lot of university experience and education are so discouraged that they cannot take their place as professionals in our society and a lot of them are going home. In Clayton Park - probably in your riding, as well - there are a lot of families who, the mums are here and the children and the fathers are returning to their own countries to earn a living because they can go back to the Middle East or go back to another country, resume the work they were doing there, and be recognized and be professional. That is a sad situation.
We have to find a way, I believe, to do all we can to help them get their credentials. So maybe if I could put a plug in for more work through those collaborative arrangements, we might get there.
MR. GOUCHER: I have to totally agree with you on that one.
MS. WHALEN: As I say, sometimes just meeting a few people, it's a window into a world that's prevalent in our immigrant community, so I think we need to know that.
So we've asked about that, we've asked about international students - the nominees, I'd like to touch on them just briefly. I know you did have some time with my colleague, talking about the Nominee Program and the different categories, and specifically the economic category which has been the focus of an awful lot of attention and a lot of concern and embarrassment, as well, to our province, to some degree.
I know I've had a chance to speak to the minister a couple of times on this and I really feel that it's in our best interest to put it behind us as soon as we can and to make amends to all parties that are involved, whether or not they had successful mentorships, because a few may have, a great many may not have. I don't think we should be separating them into two groups and we did the division of the numbers, 800 in total, 200 came early, and I stress that the early arrivals were the guinea pigs - they tested a program which we are calling a pilot program. Now that it has been changed, it has been referred to as an original pilot program.
I make the point that most pilot programs have a real scrutiny applied to them and this one did not. It did not have the spotlight shone on it the way it should have. However, whether they came early and believed in Nova Scotia and paid their money and went through a mentorship, or have come later and are either in this queue or have arrived here
[Page 581]
and are choosing other options, I don't think we should be separating them into different groups, because we don't do ourselves any service as a province. What we want, as a province, is an opportunity to really help everybody who has come here and help them to stay. If they feel completely demoralized, a lot of them will leave.
I think it's probably something that the minister and the staff are aware of but cultural differences make quite a difference in how people respond to this situation. Some of them feel embarrassed and stupid, they feel that they've been duped. They feel that they've lost face. There's a feeling of almost being disgraced by being stupid enough to come here early and put the money down a month or six months before; had they waited this wouldn't have happened to them and they'd have the money in their pockets. So they feel it very deeply and they feel wounded by the fact that they signed agreements.
Some of them, the ones I feel most sorry for, are the ones who have done it even as the program was changing, who were still just arriving to their mentorship offices or places of work, at the time or at the very moment when the option was being offered to others. You can just imagine how you would feel, that karma was definitely not with you and that you had made a mistake.
I think what we want to do is start again, wipe the slate clean, say the program failed and try to give back to all of the immigrants the money that they invested. I think were that to be tax dollars, I wouldn't be saying it. I'm saying it because I believe there's money in the funds and we know there's a large trust fund in place. With my colleague you were discussing how many may have left; I think there's a good number of them who did just forego - they saw it as an avenue to arrive in Canada, paid the $100,000, chose the place where they would prefer to live and they've gone there. We may not have tracked them because of their freedom of movement but I think there are a lot of them here in the country. There should be a way of finding out roughly how many there are.
At any rate, if they're still overseas, maybe you could find out how many are overseas, and then the difference are here because you know whether or not they've left their home countries. That should be at least one - I understand once they're here, they're free to move but the one marker should be when they actually relocate to Canada, that their passports are signed and they've arrived.
Anyway, I believe a lot of them chose to forego the money because it has been said that this is a program that appealed to more wealthy people and those who really had the deeper pockets would be the ones who wouldn't have hesitated to do that.
I think some of the people who were perhaps less wealthy are the ones who came here and played by the rules and had borrowed money. Some of them said they borrowed money to make those payments and come here. So that is their wealth, if you like, had all been invested in the opportunity to start here.
[Page 582]
I would like to see, and I think it's important to ask the minister again, if there's any way that prior to the Auditor General's Report coming back and their analysis of the funds, if there wouldn't be some way that the government could signal to those people who are sitting here and some of them leaving - the evidence is that some of them have already left, I've heard of a couple of Japanese families that have gone elsewhere. I mentioned to you the other day that a number of the members of the NAABEX organization had said they wouldn't continue to play a role because they're planning to leave.
So, because as this languishes they become more disillusioned and more discouraged, is there not some way to make a statement that would say that provided the funds are available and provided that it's not taxpayers' money and provided that your home really is in Nova Scotia, we will be doing the right thing by you, essentially, giving them some reassurance that we will be considering them for the refund of their money so that they can go on and create their own businesses or create their own lives? It's a gesture.
MR. GOUCHER: Thank you. If I just may say, I know that you mentioned, and I do have to respond to it - and I appreciate your comments, I really do - you said the program was a failure. I don't view the program as a failure. Any time you have a program that brings 800 people, plus their families - we could probably say that each one of them probably has four minimum - into this province, I don't think is a failure.
Yes, without question there are issues with the program and I am not going to sit here and try to look you in the face and say there weren't, because there were. Those are in the court system now, some of them, and others we're trying to deal with.
From the standpoint of the Nominees Adversely Affected By Exclusion - I think that's correct, NAABEX, and I guess it's okay to use the name - I met with Mr. Friedman, the representative, no fewer than three or four times at least - I think three - and he's an absolute gentleman to deal with. He represented, I believe, 77 nominees at the time and basically came in with his heart on his sleeve, a very, very fine man, and I don't know any other way to put it. I tried to deal with him in the most open and honest way that I could.
What I ended up telling him, and I'll say it here, was that the door is not closed. Once I have the Auditor General's Report and I have an indication from the Auditor General as to what the report shows, at that point in time I'll be able to take it forward, if there is a case - and it's definitely not a promise or anything, but I'm just saying the door is not closed. I made that commitment to Mr. Friedman and I hope he passed it on to his nominees. Once the Auditor General's Report is in, we will do our best to have a look at it and hopefully, someday put this behind us. But at this point in time we are waiting for that report, that's the best I can tell you.
MS. WHALEN: Well, I think they would be happy to hear that the door is not closed, that's a little bit of a gesture.
[Page 583]
MR. GOUCHER: Well, I did say that to him.
MS. WHALEN: Well, now you've said it publicly, so that's good to hear.
Again, just going back to whether or not the program is a failure, I think it had so many flaws, if I could, Mr. Minister, that I think it's fair to characterize it as a failure. It was abused. It may have had the right components, it certainly sounded like it was unique and different and offered some good experience for newcomers, but in actual fact it was abused by a lot of parties along the way. It was twisted and perverted and has collapsed. The very fact that you're still offering it as an option is a great surprise to me, and an even bigger surprise that anybody would select it after all the publicity around the difficulties. I understand that a couple of people have actually asked for that over the refund option. Is it true you've had a couple of families still choosing the mentorship program since it was offered - four families?
MR. GOUCHER: Four, yes.
MS. WHALEN: Double the number. I think that's a bit astounding. I hope they've been well briefed on all of the difficulties that earlier people had because if I were working in your office, I'd be very reluctant to sign anybody else up because there are so many difficulties and they may very well change their minds and they'll be in the list of NAABEX people coming to visit you.
It is one that I think, again, in terms of wiping the slate clean, it would be better to close the book on that program.
MR. GOUCHER: I think in fairness, those four individuals, it was made very, very clear to them the situation. I mean that would be the first thing we would ever do, and those four individuals knew and signed a disclaimer with the department on that particular program.
MS. WHALEN: The other part I'd like to really appeal to you for is that we don't go on a witch hunt when this comes back about who had a good experience and who didn't, which companies were good and which abused the system. I know there were good companies, there are a number in my riding that have had the mentorships and really did it in good faith, tried their best. But if we start going through each file, one by one, saying, who told the truth, who twisted the truth, or who was absolutely upfront and who wasn't, first of all, you're going to have an endless process, your staff will be tied up in knots. We won't be moving forward where we should be going, which is moving on the other programs you've talked about, re-establishing an economic program, all of the other really exciting and necessary opportunities that are before us.
[Page 584]
[3:45 p.m.]
I would just urge the minister, and it would be great if you could tell us today, if your intent might be to just treat it in a blanket way so that we can move on. I don't believe we would do ourselves, our business community, the attitude towards immigrants - it's so important that we sustain that positive attitude towards immigrants - I think all of that would suffer by what I'll describe as a witch hunt, if we have to go through case by case by case.
MR. GOUCHER: Well, I guess characterizing it as a witch hunt, I hope I'm not the witch. I think first of all, if I could, I just want to clarify one thing. When we refer to the Nominee Program, the Nominee Program is just one stream of the economic program - just so we make it clear publicly that there are four other active streams still operating . . .
MS. WHALEN: For the record, yes. I'm referring only to the troubles around economic . . .
MR. GOUCHER: And I'm sure you were. With regard to the issue of the review on the files and the term witch hunt . . .
MS. WHALEN: Well, I'm worried about that. It's not that you've done it.
MR. GOUCHER: No, no, and that's okay, but once we get the Auditor General's Report back and we have a look at what the Auditor General recommends and says and we can put everything in perspective, I can tell you, sitting at this table, and I can tell you as minister of the department, I have no intention for anybody in our department or in this government of going on a witch hunt for anybody.
There may be things we're going to have to do, to make sure that certain terms and conditions were met, that maybe the 12 months they're still living here . . .
MS. WHALEN: Well, I think the residency requirement is important to all of us. I think the Immigration Critics would agree with that, that what we want are people who have made a commitment to our province.
MR. GOUCHER: I'll give you a commitment, I mean that's not me, it never will be me and nobody in my - as long as I'm here in this department. I have wonderful people who I work with and they treat immigrants and immigration with the greatest respect and need, as I do. When we make a decision on this, be it yes or no - and again, I'm not saying which way it will happen - but when we do make a decision, everybody will be treated with the greatest respect and decency.
[Page 585]
MS. WHALEN: One other question that sort of is attached to this is, when we get the Auditor General's Report, which was something that I had asked for and I believe the Auditor General's Office is the best to look at this, but once we get that report, what's the impact going to be of the outstanding legal case against the province? Is that going to then be another impediment for us to make a decision?
I know there's a certain amount of money in dispute but will we be able to make a decision when you get the Auditor General's Report or will we then be faced with - now that's settled but we still have this other big question?
MR. GOUCHER: It's a difficult question to answer because it changes sometimes daily. The initial stream - and again I've got to be careful talking about this and I think you can probably appreciate that, but I'll try to answer it as tactfully as I can - the initial stream or the initial interest that was in dispute was, of course, money and there was no way, because of the legal aspects, we couldn't touch it. Subsequent to that, there was some change to it - I don't want to go into the changes, but there were some changes to it that restricted certain other monies.
I would hope that at the end of the day, when the Auditor General's Report comes in and we can make an assessment of the Auditor General's Report and where we go, that certain of the trust fund will be unencumbered. However, again, that's going to need a legal decision at that time as to what dollars we would have access to. That's about as . . .
MS. WHALEN: But as I said, you don't see the lawsuit as being another complete roadblock to resolving our issue with the 200 - well, in fact, 77 nominees who live here in the province. They are the only ones who are really being left out of the equation at the moment.
MR. GOUCHER: At this time, I would probably say it's not a complete roadblock. However, who knows what's going to happen and we're going to have to take legal advice again as to what we can do and what we can't do because it can change. I don't know any other way to put it.
So I would say simply that I would hope, at that point in time, that the legal response we get would be one that would allow us to move forward, if there is something to move forward on.
MS. WHALEN: Can I ask if you have any idea how the time frame will go for this lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer but I know the courts get backed up. Any idea what you're anticipating as a time frame?
MR. GOUCHER: Three to four years.
[Page 586]
MS. WHALEN: Three to four years is a reasonable guess.
MR. GOUCHER: Those are the figures. I've heard four more than three.
MS. WHALEN: Yes, that's too bad.
My other concern is that your department is going to be - the staff that you have are going to be really - what's the right word? - distracted in dealing with the pressure of complying with not only our internal look at everything that has gone on in the Public Accounts Committee but also, and even more so, all of the work around the legal case. Can you tell me how many staff you have just assigned to kind of manage these two processes?
MR. GOUCHER: You're talking about how many staff we had actually involved in the document review? Is that what you're asking for?
MS. WHALEN: I would think it's a full-time job for somebody - who is doing it full time?
MR. GOUCHER: We actually, believe it or not, had to second individuals as well, so it was a full-time job, basically, for everybody. When you think that there were approximately 15,000 documents that were forwarded and every one of those documents had to be gone through before they were forwarded, it was - I can tell you, and I'm being very frank, walking into my little office that we have and seeing people working full time, going through the reams and reams of paper to put it in a state to be able to forward it to Public Accounts, so it was pretty well a full-time job.
MS. WHALEN: And that would be sort of parallelled with what you're doing for the legal case as well?
MR. GOUCHER: No.
MS. WHALEN: You haven't gotten there yet?
MR. GOUCHER: No.
MS. WHALEN: That's yet to come?
MR. GOUCHER: No, our program staff won't be involved in that at all.
MS. WHALEN: Not at all? Would the Department of Justice be taking over there?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, they would. They'll be working with the executive director.
[Page 587]
MS. WHALEN: So it's just Public Accounts that has taken these countless hours through the winter here.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: Okay, that actually just brings me to your staffing assignment. Can you tell me your full complement of staff?
MR. GOUCHER: There's 18 right now and four new FTEs coming up.
MS. WHALEN: So four new FTEs. I noticed in the budget under salary and benefits, it said it was going up by $400,000.
MR. GOUCHER: Which page are you on?
MS. WHALEN: I don't have the page, actually, I have it in my notes. It just said from one year to the next, one estimate to the next. It shows up salaries and benefits - I don't have the detailed stuff, we have pretty general . . .
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, the increase is the four additional FTEs for staff.
MS. WHALEN: And that's the $400,000?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: So I was just going to ask exactly how many positions, so four. Is that going to be adequate to take you to where you need to go with new programs, with the additional funding that's coming in?
MR. GOUCHER: I think it's going to allow us to address in a more timely manner and respond to applications that are put in, yes. Ultimately, I hope we see our staff doubled in years to come and I hope it's sooner than later because that means we're going to be successful in what we do, but at this point in time I think it will address the need. It also includes an international marketing person to help us on the overseas market.
MS. WHALEN: That's among the four?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: Has there been any thought about marketing our province as part of a regional approach - us, New Brunswick, P.E.I., or Atlantic Canada?
[Page 588]
MR. GOUCHER: We work with the Atlantic Provinces, through the Atlantic calculation table, and also we're coming up with something they're calling the "Atlantic Canada look" so that when we go to the international fairs, we can try to work together in attracting immigrants to the Atlantic Canada area.
MS. WHALEN: I think it's a way to leverage your funding a lot better. Are you responsible for the funds that are going to the Department of Economic Development, funnelling through to the RDAs - I think it's RDAs. Some of them have $50,000 each, I think, to do their own immigration plans, were you aware of that?
MR. GOUCHER: No.
MS. WHALEN: You should ask your colleagues at Economic Development because the RDAs are doing immigration recruitment. I guess they're trying to make up a plan. Some of them have done it jointly, for a region of the province.
MR. GOUCHER: I think, in fairness, we were aware that it was happening, we weren't aware of the amount.
MS. WHALEN: I'm thinking it's $50,000 and that would allow them to make their own plans. It may be a good way to go, but I would certainly ask that you be coordinating with them because - really, there's no question, something like 85 per cent of the immigrants come here to Halifax, or HRM metro area. It's fine to try to get people to meet needs in other . . .
MR. GOUCHER: It's actually down, it's actually 76 per cent, 24 going - which is good.
MS. WHALEN: Okay. I noticed the number of children, it was 84 per cent of the children, I did see that, to be honest.
But anyway, just looking at your staffing component, I think, at one time anyway, Manitoba had around 70 employees working in their provincial Department of Immigration. Do you know if it's still roughly the same size?
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, they had the federal staff devolved to them as well.
MS. WHALEN: Well, we could do the same thing. I think the difference is that they made a real commitment and they staffed and resourced an office to the extent that was needed and they've had a lot more success than we have had. We've now had, as I say, since naming a minister, more than three years pass since signing an agreement, more than five years have passed with our nominee agreement. I don't think - and I know it's your job to boast and tell us how well it's going and the numbers are up and that's good, but they're
[Page 589]
not up to nearly the extent that we're seeing in Manitoba, which are now saying they will get to 10,000 immigrants a year. That's not their families, I believe that's - is that not total? Okay, 10,000 people.
MR. GOUCHER: I think in fairness, we have another seven years to get to that figure.
MS. WHALEN: Well, we've had an agreement for five.
MR. GOUCHER: But it took them 10 years to get there.
MS. WHALEN: The numbers in Manitoba, here it says, since 2001, they've had almost 80,000 - it's 79,018 immigrants to Manitoba, so in a seven-year period. That's pretty impressive, if you ask me. That comes from a newspaper article and I'm not sure what year that was done - it was done in 2007 so that was, in fact, in six years. It's pretty phenomenal for a province that's just over one million people and we're not - I think they're the province that we would like to emulate, but we're not on track yet with where they've gone. So clearly their idea of resourcing and staffing and ramping up the support within the bureaucracy, so that you could really get something done, has paid dividends.
Now, we made a mistake and started with the co-operation of a private-sector company and we were going to do it without any money being spent by the government. A different approach, I admit, and one that, in hindsight, I doubt if the current minister would ever recommend. But we have a long way to go and I think we should be looking at those kinds of numbers that Manitoba has achieved.
Manitoba has had real success in one area you haven't mentioned today, and that's refugees and refugee sponsorships, rather than what you were talking about, community identified. Refugee sponsorships are really local people or groups that say, I will take responsibility for that incoming refugee and their family. It's a two-year commitment, I believe, where you say that you'll ensure they have a place to live, that they get settled and so on.
Individual immigrants in Manitoba themselves, after they get settled - and they're not wealthy people, they just have jobs and get settled - they're nominating refugees to come and join them. Last year they had, I believe, 1,000 of those arrangements in Manitoba; we had two or three in Nova Scotia - maybe you can give me a figure for Nova Scotia's refugee sponsorships.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, and I think they are organized through the churches in Manitoba, a large number of them.
MS. WHALEN: Some are individuals, though, who step up.
[Page 590]
MR. GOUCHER: Do you know what? I think when you look at the Nova Scotia Immigration Program, one of the things that I'm really looking forward to and I'm very excited about is the Immigration Advisory Council that we are creating. I think it's something that you, as a member of the House, actually also promoted.
I'm looking forward to participation from people like GHP. The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities, we allowed a seat for them, which I think is so critical, so that we can communicate with them and stay on the same wavelength. I think this is going to help us, especially from a business and an immigrant entrepreneur standpoint, because hopefully what we'll do is attract people. We've had almost 50 applications . . .
[4:00 p.m.]
MS. WHALEN: For refugee sponsors?
MR. GOUCHER: No, this is for the council . . .
MS. WHALEN: Oh, this is to sit on your committee, I'm sorry.
MR. GOUCHER: . . . and I look forward to, at some point in time, having these - I'm going to call them experts, because they probably have a whole lot more expertise than I do when it comes to the issue of immigration. But it will be wonderful to have them, especially for our overseas efforts, as well, where we can hopefully take entrepreneurs with us and people from maybe the Greater Halifax Partnership, or NSBI, or somebody else who, instead of our people being able to offer them good information - not handing out trinkets but offering them good information - you'll be able to say, here's somebody from the GHP, they have some positions here that may be available in the province and they can probably help you. That's what we really . . .
MS. WHALEN: How many are going to sit on that council?
MR. GOUCHER: Nine, and that's including UNSM. I believe we're going to ask NSBI to just come as an observer, but to have them there.
MS. WHALEN: And the Greater Halifax Partnership as well.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes - no, but I'm just saying that . . .
MS. WHALEN: They are a possibility.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes.
[Page 591]
MS. WHALEN: A possibility, but definitely NSBI will be present, UNSM is definitely a member.
MR. GOUCHER: Yes, UNSM as well.
MS. WHALEN: Okay. I know the applications have now closed, as of . . .
MR. GOUCHER: May 15th.
MS. WHALEN: Oh, we're not quite there yet. So I'm just asking where the idea came from and why wasn't it done sooner?
MR. GOUCHER: Well, it was in the Immigration Strategy but to be very blunt about it, I guess in a lot of ways for me, personally, probably unlike yourself, it comes from the municipal background and the desire to work with advisory committees. I've always believed personally that you get wonderful input from people who are volunteers, in large part, who sit on these committees and provide you the expertise that you need that you really personally don't have. So I guess in large part that's where it came from.
MS. WHALEN: So you took a personal interest, okay. No, I'm pleased to see it happen. I think it might have been helpful right along the whole way, so that's why I wonder maybe why we didn't get there sooner.
I just wanted to go back to your staffing again and talk about some of your line items that we've got here. The operating costs are going up by $400,000 within your office. Can the minister just outline for me, what are the contributing costs that are going up, because that's in addition to the $400,000 on staffing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could I, while the minister is looking that up, just confer with the caucuses that they did agree on a two-hour and 10-minute time limit on this estimate?
MS. WHALEN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have approximately five minutes left and that would take us to 4:10 p.m. and I want to give the minister a couple of minutes to advance his resolution. Anyway, I just thought I'd point that out. I thought that was my understanding as well. Thank you very much.
MR. GOUCHER: The additional costs, of course, are for the office, for the new employees, for a new records centre, things like that, that we require for the new positions.
[Page 592]
MS. WHALEN: Because I have so little time left, I just want to go to ESL for a second. I have the figures for the Primary to Grade 9 school in my riding, which is the Park West School. I know that your school, Bedford South, is pretty similar, they are experiencing a huge number of ESL students.
In January, this year, I spoke to Park West School. They had 87 students who needed ESL in one school; 65 per cent of them are defined as very needy, their English is really very little - six to eight new students, on average, a month coming in who need ESL. There are one and a half ESL teachers. I spoke to one of them, they get only two sessions with the students, one-on-one, 40 minutes a week - two sessions times 40 minutes, with very needy students, dozens and dozens of them.
I want the minister to know that $250,000, frozen the same as last year, matched by $250,000 from the Department of Education, is not beginning to meet the need. The more the department boasts that it's thrilled with the numbers that are increasing in our province, the more children are coming in here, the more moms and dads who don't have language as well, but it's often the mothers, very isolated at home, a small $35,000 going to the Halifax Regional School Board is not enough to reach the mothers at home. We've had people - not at the Public Accounts Committee but at one of our committees - who pointed out that the mothers can't go out for ESL unless you have child care in place. You've got to put that in place, that's part of the package, or the mothers stay home and they miss the window of opportunity to get any ESL because they become Canadian citizens and they don't ever get the language training and assistance they need.
There are a lot of implications around that in terms of people becoming happy, settled, feeling at home here in Nova Scotia. The children are the avenue, obviously the reason most of the parents are here, is that they want their children to succeed in the future. So providing support for ESL is the very first step.
The schools are not well resourced and HRM has used some of their own supplementary funding that we know comes in through property taxes because they've seen it as a priority, but it's still that minimal. If there's any supplementary funding here, then it's even less in your school in Bedford South.
I think it's a critical area and I would ask the minister to look for more money, find more money for ESL because if I were a mother and my children weren't getting any help and weren't getting settled, they would be moving. We'd be going to Ontario, where there's more help.
MR. GOUCHER: I live it every day. As I've said probably to you in too many speeches, Bedford South, like your school, has 32 nations - you may have more - 70 languages, dialects. My grandsons, all of his friends, in large part, are immigrants, all of them.
[Page 593]
MS. WHALEN: That's the story in Clayton Park.
MR. GOUCHER: But it's wonderful.
MS. WHALEN: It is, it's a . . .
MR. GOUCHER: Sorry - these young people are thriving. Anyway, I appreciate that, and it is a fair comment . . .
MS. WHALEN: They're thriving, but please find more money. That is, to me, a crisis area.
MR. GOUCHER: Thank you, I appreciate it.
Two minutes? If I could, I'd just like to take a moment to thank my critics. I don't take the questions lightly, I don't want you to think that they're asked and they're forgotten because they aren't. I do appreciate it and I appreciate the effort and the work that both of you put into it because it's one thing for me to sit here, it's quite another thing for the critics to be able to research and develop the questions. I do appreciate it and everything that has been said here that we've committed to looking into, we will, I give you my word on that.
Mr. Chairman, I thank everybody for the time and for allowing us to be able to present our budget and, again, thanks to both of my critics.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E18 stand?
Resolution E18 stands.
Resolution E43 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E43 carry?
Resolution E43 is carried.
I thank the minister and the caucuses and we will, I believe, quickly move right into the next mode of operation, which would be the Department of Natural Resources. Thank you for now.
[4:08 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[4:10 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
[Page 594]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I understand the minister is ready to go. We'll commence with the estimates of the Department of Natural Resources.
Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $84,638,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. DAVID MORSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I am pleased to present the 2008-09 budget and business plan for the Department of Natural Resources.
Before I take your questions, I'd like to introduce a couple of my staff who are already here with me today and give you a brief overview of the department's work. The staff who are with me today are: Deputy Minister Peter Underwood, who is here on my right, and Weldon Myers, who's no stranger to this room, the Director of Financial Services, Resources - CSU, to my left. We will be joined by other members of my staff as we go further on into the estimates.
Mr. Chairman, the mission of our department is simple: To build a better future for Nova Scotians through the responsible management of our natural resources. Our responsibilities include: the implementation of policies and programs that ensure the effective administration and operation of Crown lands and provincial parks; the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife populations, habitats and ecosystems; environmentally responsible and sustainable exploration, development and management of mineral resources; the implementation of forest management policies aimed at maintaining sustainable forests and ecosystems; and the protection of those forests from fires, pests and diseases.
We accomplish these initiatives with the help of a dedicated and professional staff who work in the parks, offices and also out amidst the elements across our province. As many of you are well aware, I am proud of the role my department has played during the past few years in acquiring some amazing properties that will help Nova Scotia become a cleaner and greener place to live and raise our children.
During the past year we purchased coastal gems like Carter's Beach in Queens County and property adjacent to Blomidon Provincial Park. We also continue to partner with groups like the Mahone Islands Conservation Association, also known as MICA, and Nova Scotia Nature Trust and Nature Conservancy of Canada, to make strategic investments in land that will help this province meet its goal of protecting 12 per cent of the land mass by 2015. And that is no small task. Our society is strong and often there are competing expectations for land use.
[Page 595]
Thanks to concerted efforts over the past several years, Nova Scotia's Crown lands now total over 25 per cent of the province. But that still means we hold the second lowest proportion of Crown lands of all of the provinces and territories. As our urbanized areas continue to expand, the Department of Natural Resources faces several challenges. There is a need to maintain industries, like forestry and mining, which are vital to the economic well-being of our rural communities, and there is the need to preserve the habitat for our ecosystems and, of course, the requirement for more and more land to be made available for our environmental protection and recreational needs.
We are meeting those challenges. In 2007-08 we financed more projects through the province's Habitat Conservation Fund. That funding is supported by hunters and trappers when they purchase the mandatory $3 wildlife stamp on all hunting licences in Nova Scotia. Last year some $146,300 was awarded to partner organizations for projects to sustain our wildlife and wildlife habitat. In fact, since the conservation stamp program began in 2001, about $850,000 has been directed toward wildlife conservation. We invested $500,000 to help Ducks Unlimited Canada maintain water control structures vital to Nova Scotia's wetland preservation work and the ongoing sustainability of our wildlife habitat.
[4:15 p.m.]
We added three birds and two plants to the province's endangered species list, but we were also able to move the peregrine falcon from the threatened category to the vulnerable and that is progress. Some of those species are receiving assistance from the 12 conservation projects, worth a total of $82,000 by the Nova Scotia Species at Risk Conservation Fund, raised through the sale of conservation licence plates.
Let me also quickly note that during this past year my staff, along with Feed Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers & Hunters, Eastern Woods & Waters Magazine and novascotiahunting.com continued to support the greater needs of Nova Scotians through the Hunters Helping the Hungry effort. This program allowed hunters to contribute deer and moose meat to Feed Nova Scotia simply by dropping it off at a participating licensed meat cutter. I'm pleased to say that more than 775 kilograms of game was made available to Feed Nova Scotia by some of the province's 44,000 licensed hunters in the 2007 hunting season.
While we are talking about hugely successful ventures, I should note that the Shubenacadie Provincial Wildlife Park recently earned the Central Nova Tourist Association's Attraction of the Year Award for its stellar work in attracting more than 100,000 people each year to enjoy the wildlife park's pathways, trails, wildlife and habitat displays and the associated Ducks Unlimited Greenwing Legacy Interpretive Centre.
[Page 596]
I must move along to a brief discussion of our provincial parks and the resounding success of the new reservation system implemented for the first time last year. That system allows people to reserve specific campsites at provincial campgrounds by phone or on-line. It was greeted warmly by people. In fact, on April 2nd, the first day of reservations for the season, it tallied a whopping 324 call centre reservations and 212 Internet reservations, compared with 244 total reservations during last year's opening day, a very significant increase.
Importantly, that computerized system allows us to note that there will be more than 50,000 overnight stays at provincial campsites during the 2007 season, 800 more than during the 2006 season, and about 25 per cent of the reservations were made by people from outside Nova Scotia. The province has continued its commitment to ensure all visitors have a chance to enjoy our national park settings by updating the campsites at the two parks.
Five Islands Provincial Park is a spectacular coastal park along the Fundy Shore and Battery combines the coast with a taste of history at St. Peter's. It continues to encourage the volunteer efforts of our campground host and Parks are for People programs, to ensure that visitors are given ample opportunity to find plenty to keep them happily occupied.
For this coming season the department has made a few more significant changes. We've extended the camping season by at least one week at nine parks and we've increased the basic campsite fee from $14.96 to $16, to better help cover the escalating operating costs. Let me make it clear, however, it is an ongoing battle to keep up with the demands for aging infrastructure while respecting our users' desire for improved service.
There are few places where the divide between industrial-based needs and those of alternate community interests have been so vocal in recent months as in our minerals industry. Mr. Chairman, a wide variety of mineral-related products are manufactured in Nova Scotia, including gypsum, salt, coal, clay products, Portland cement, ready-mix concrete, brick, marble, building stone and slate. It seems, however, that the extraction of minerals from our earth continues to cause consternation within some of our communities, even though those communities would be very different places without the minerals that are used to build our homes, roads, and provide our other daily supplies like power.
The mineral industry in Nova Scotia is responsible for more than 5,000 well-paying jobs, many of them in rural communities. It contributes about $400 million per year to gross domestic product.
In the past year we were pleased to see great progress in the ongoing reclamation of lands currently being worked by Pioneer Coal. We have also completed, with the federal government, the groundwork needed to operate a single, clear, effective, underground coal-mining regulatory regime, while not compromising either level of government's legal
[Page 597]
position with respect to resource ownership and jurisdiction in the offshore. If Xstrata and its partners conclude that the Donkin Mine can be built, we can be assured that government has done what it needed to do to provide for that possibility.
This past year was a banner one for exploration, with some $10 million in expenditures. Our department is particularly excited, therefore, to now have in place the foundation for a new, state-of-the-art mineral and petroleum titles registry. Phase I of this project will, in the coming year, provide electronic access to the registry, giving users access to maps and records that were previously available only on paper. When it is completed, this registry modernization will allow users to submit their mineral-rights applications, notifications and other documentation on the Internet, allowing around-the-clock availability of the system and eliminating, for many, costly travel to our offices for submission. The implementation of this system could not have come at a better time, as escalating commodity prices are expected to continue to keep exploration levels high.
Like the minerals industry, the forestry industry is a traditional resource industry that is facing changing times and much of that change has been difficult. My department has worked with the Maritime Lumber Bureau, the Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia and others, to find creative ways of supporting the industry while continuing to comply with the Softwood Lumber Agreement.
In October 2007, we announced the Forestry Transition Program, a multi-faceted program that has already gone a long way in providing appropriate measures that allow the industry to sustain itself during the current market downturn.
During the first year of the program we have invested some $2.5 million to acquire more than 1,500 hectares of land, the first acquisitions under a $20 million, five-year program that allows the province to purchase parcels of industrial forest land from viable forest companies; presented the Forestry Safety Society with its first of three $70,000 cheques towards improved education and safety in the industry; provided a one-time payment of $2 million to the Maritime Lumber Bureau for legal costs it assumed on our behalf during the Softwood Lumber Agreement negotiations; invested nearly $4 million in silviculture programs for small woodlots; and begun the first payments in the three-year additional commitment to the Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia's Gas Tax Road program.
We also worked closely with industry on a task force that has recommended measures that could continue to provide the forest industry with a level and fair playing field while - and I emphasize that this is critical - continuing to respect the conditions that allows this province and all of Atlantic Canada to respect the parameters of the Softwood Lumber Agreement. In the coming year, in addition to continuing our implementation of the forestry transition program's ongoing components, we will be working in concert with other departments to ensure that the new community development trust can be used to
[Page 598]
support the ongoing health of an industry that is one of the economic foundations of this province and that continues to be a key rural employer.
But we are looking to the future in other ways as well. We continue to work with federal authorities and industry on methods to mitigate the brown spruce longhorn beetle. We invested $0.25 million in research being undertaken at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College on needle retention for our Christmas tree industry. In August 2007, we also announced $570,000 over two years for a program aimed at increasing the number of small, private woodlot operators who use uneven-aged forest management methods on appropriate parcels of land, all the while we are seeking informed debate on how to better add value and move the industry forward as one of the key components in our three-year Natural Resources Strategy development process.
Just this month the strategy development process reached another milestone as members of the Voluntary Planning Citizen Engagement Committee began hosting meetings right across the province as part of their public consultations for Phase I.
I would like to reiterate again here what we have been telling Nova Scotians all along: this is their opportunity to have input, to help shape the future for our minerals, forests, provincial parks and biodiversity. Under the guidance of the Voluntary Planning team, citizens will have an opportunity to tell us what they hold dear. When the Citizen Engagement Committee has completed its work by December of this year, we'll have a good sense of what the public values and a strong foundation on which to build upon as we embark on Phase II. That phase, which is due to begin in January, will be when we get experts to provide their perspective. The ministerial panel that will be created will take the foundation that is laid in Phase I and will engage stakeholders and make its recommendations for an action plan. By October 2009 we expect the department to have all the input it needs to develop a full-fledged and forward-thinking strategy that will guide the future for our minerals, forests, provincial parks and biodiversity.
Mr. Chairman, I said I would offer only brief remarks and I want to leave plenty of time for any questions from my honourable colleagues, but there are a few other things I'd like to mention. This Spring we've undertaken public education campaigns that are aimed at showing the public how best to interact with and preserve the natural resources we value. We launched a new tree identification program that provides landowners, teachers and students a new and interactive way of learning about our native species.
We are ensuring that Nova Scotians understand that it is vital that they not try to rescue young wildlife and we have begun a comprehensive campaign that shows the inherent dangers presented by grassfires to personal property, to our wildlife habitat and to the firefighters who are called to battle the blazes, including the almost 39 per cent of our wild land fires that were attributed to arson in 2007.
[Page 599]
We continue our good work in the challenging initiatives as one of the lead government departments for implementation of Nova Scotia's Off-highway Vehicle Action Plan. As I mentioned last year, few other files better exhibit how we can manage all things more effectively by working together collaboratively. That is why I'm so pleased with the ongoing and developing relationship with the OHV Ministerial Advisory Committee, a group of dedicated Nova Scotians who represent off-highway vehicle riders and their associations and industry, those concerned with environmental protection, tourism, safety and private land interests.
Mr. Chairman, these people are offering this province their time and expertise, their efforts at understanding and compromise, in order to help government and Nova Scotia move closer towards not only the regulatory needs, but the lifestyle commitments for healthy, responsible, off-highway vehicle use by all Nova Scotians and they have come a long way.
We also continue to collaborate with our colleagues in other departments in such important joint projects as climate change, coastal management planning and effective implementation of new tidal power initiatives. Once again, I would like to mention the integral role staff make in all of this department's initiatives. As you know, in December 2007, members of this House voted unanimously to extend collective bargaining rights to seasonal and casual workers in the Nova Scotia Civil Service, a move our department enthusiastically supported. Without this measure, we were at risk of losing valuable, experienced workers. Like many other departments, we are struggling now with the financial and human-resource challenges that come along with implementing this change.
DNR is also, by the way, the host department for the Resources Corporate Services Unit which provides financial, human resources and IT-related services not only to our department, but to the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Environment, Labour, Energy, Finance and the Emergency Management Organization. So our work on this front is extensive.
[4:30 p.m.]
Mr. Chairman, through sustainable management we are able to support the many competing demands placed on our natural resources. Our balanced approach supports sustainable economic growth. It also enables us to meet our protection and conservation-related responsibilities. This support will be the focus of this department's programs and activities for the upcoming year, and I thank you and certainly look forward to your questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We will commence questioning for the next hour by the NDP.
[Page 600]
The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. DARRELL DEXTER: Welcome, Mr. Minister, and welcome to your staff. I would begin by just saying that I have always found the staff of your department to be very helpful and to respond quickly and ably to questions that we may put from time to time, and I thank them for that. I have a limited set of questions and then I'm going to turn this over to my colleague, the member for Pictou West.
This may seem like a strange place to start actually, and I acknowledge that to begin with, but I wanted to ask you about wild turkeys. As you know, there is a proposal before your department that has surfaced a few times and I'm just curious to know. I mean, I guess I'm like everyone else, I've received the literature and as it turned out, their last annual general meeting was actually in my riding, so I went just to find out what it was all about. It was interesting. I now know a lot more about wild turkeys than I did when I went. So I guess my question is really, what is the status of that proposal? Is it actually being considered, or have you just received it and you have it in a file somewhere?
HON. DAVID MORSE: Thank you for the question. Like the honourable member, I've learned quite a bit more in the last month or so about wild turkeys and then I also had the pleasure of sitting next to Tim Olive, who was a former minister, and during that time I learned quite a bit about wild turkeys, some five years ago, when ultimately it was turned down because there did not seem to be a decisive position that would allow us to allow that to happen.
I have been approached again by that organization. I must say that I'm impressed by the credentials of some of the people who approached me. They seem to be very knowledgeable in the areas where they would need to be. I have taken note of what has gone on in Ontario and, in fact, witnessed some of the wild turkeys up there on a recent trip to visit relatives.
MR. DEXTER: They're not relatives who are wild turkeys. (Laughter)
MR. MORSE: We have certainly not taken a position but if they want to bring this forward, we would, you know, give it the appropriate consideration.
MR. DEXTER: Well, I'm not really sure what that means. They have put a proposal before the department. I mean what they're looking for, as I understand it, is the establishment of test flocks within the province and I guess that's what I wanted to know, is whether or not that's under active consideration and, if so, when would you expect that to go ahead and under what conditions, those kinds of questions?
MR. MORSE: To the member's question, we actually had this discussion this morning. Because I had been approached verbally, I inquired as to whether it was in the
[Page 601]
department. We were not aware we were going to get this question this afternoon, we would have gotten that answer. I'm not aware whether there's actually a letter initiating the process but if there is one within the department - I just got confirmation and maybe the member might like to table the letter.
MR. DEXTER: What I have is a copy of a letter that seems to be copied to everybody in the Legislature from the Wild Turkey Federation, dated February 21st. Essentially it appears to say that the proposal is attached but it wasn't attached to the copy that I got, but I assume it was attached to the one that went to the department. I'll tell you why I'm interested in this. I mean I understand that there have been concerns in the past with things like parasites and, you know, that those kinds of things had been raised.
So the last time I had an opportunity to look at it, I actually was having a conversation with Bob Bancroft and I asked him about this. He said to me that the problem they have is they believe there are flocks being established currently in the province, but they're being established in a haphazard way. People are bringing in wild turkeys and simply they may be around their premises for awhile and then they get loose and they get into the woods. So that's the kind of way that things are happening and that's not a very good way for something like this to occur. What he was suggesting to me was that the best way is to actually bring in fertilized eggs and then you have a flock that is essentially raised completely within the province and, therefore, is not subject to parasites that it would have picked up outside of the province.
So I guess that's why I'm curious about it. I'm curious about - and I guess your answer is going to be that you haven't seen the proposal so you don't know where it's at, but I guess I was just interested to know how far down the road the department has gone in terms of assessing this proposal, or even the possibility of this happening. I don't really know where the objections are coming from so I'm asking this question in an open-ended fashion.
MR. MORSE: Well, actually, when we went through it last time, there were some concerns from the Department of Agriculture. As a result of what has happened in the past, I have had discussions with the minister. I understand that one of the concerns was that the wild turkeys might be a carrier of avian flu but I am told by somebody who is very credible that it just cannot be in their genes, they just are not carriers of the avian flu. It's always good to get the scientific answers. As to where they would come from, I think that's, you know, perhaps putting the cart before the horse until we decide whether we want them, but I do know that the initial recommendation was to try to bring them from Ontario or something, an area that was as geographically close as possible to Nova Scotia.
I do know that they have taken really well to the Ontario and Quebec areas particularly closest to the United States. It has really been rather a dramatic transformation and I know in the Ottawa area, which is not even an area where they're the thickest, in
[Page 602]
morning sometimes you can wake up, if you're outside the city, and you've got a great big flock of wild turkeys roosting in the trees. They're active apparently in the morning and the evenings and this really intrigues me, but to the point as to where we are, discussions were held this morning with the deputy and senior management. We are prepared to entertain the request that the member has pointed out in the February 21st letter and we did this after doing a little scouting with the department that last time had some concerns, and they may have concerns again but at least we took the precautionary step of checking with them.
MR. DEXTER: Well, thank you very much for your answers. I'm sure they'll be following up with the department to find out where this is going to go, what the time lines are and what the process will be.
I have one last question which isn't related to this, but is related to the trip that you and I went on through the Bissett Road park area. I know, at that time, there were requests that they had made with respect, specifically, to some funding to clean up the park. I just wondered where that was and whether or not the department was able to help them out and whether or not there will be further help this year.
MR. MORSE: I spoke to the executive director afterwards, asked him to personally view the area in question. I think there is an acknowledgement that there was some done but because of the heavy blowdown from Hurricane Juan, it was blocking out the chance for regeneration and potentially was a fire hazard. As I understood it, he did view the site. I know that I extended some contracts to try to consolidate some of the contracts for that area so they could get the economies to scale, to make it worthwhile.
I was left with the impression that there was going to be more done - probably not as much as those very gracious hosts wanted to have done, but I was left with the impression that more was going to be done than what would have been the case if we had not made the trip that day. That was a good day. I enjoyed our hosts and enjoyed your company, honourable member, and it was interesting to see the Poorhouse graves, as well, which is part of our history in Nova Scotia.
MR. DEXTER: Thank you, and I'll turn it over to the member for Pictou West.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Minister, and to your staff. I certainly welcome this opportunity to dialogue on a number of Natural Resources issues. I guess, first of all, I should say thank you to you for the opportunity over the past year or so to sit down and meet with you and your staff, your senior staff, a large number of them, and have the opportunity to get some first-hand answers on various issues. I would hope that we can continue to have that dialogue.
[Page 603]
There are a number of issues here and I'm probably going to be jumping all over the map but I do want to say that, I guess, the stewardship of our natural resources is very important to me. Coming from a rural background, from a family farm and a family woodlot, and still being a woodlot owner, a lot of these issues are near and dear to my heart. So it's a good fit for me, I guess, from a critic point of view.
I guess maybe I want to start off with, in the Estimates Book, if I could, there are a few questions there and then I'll go on to some particular issues after that. In the Estimates Book, itself, on Page 18.2, I think it is, it starts with your estimates. Just a few questions there that I would like to get some clarification on, if the minister has the same page. I guess first of all, around staffing, I've noticed that senior staff and down through the list there, Salaries and Employee Benefits, and so on, that seems to be considerably down from last year. Is that because there's less staff in the department, or is there a transfer of staff to other areas?
Just, for example, on Page 18.2, Senior Management is listed at $479,000; last year it was $654,000. On Page 18.4, Salaries and Employee Benefits is down a little bit; there are other areas where it's up. I'm just wondering if there's some explanation as to why salaries seem, generally, to be down overall. So I'll start off with that particular question.
MR. MORSE: First of all, I want to say that the member's comments about the critic meetings that we have periodically are shared by me and the department. We enjoy that opportunity. We find it extremely constructive and we find that you, your Liberal colleague, and your researchers have always been very respectful of that opportunity and have conducted yourselves with the utmost integrity afterwards and that we have been able to address what potentially could have been some difficult issues in a constructive manner, in the best interests of the people of this province. So I want to thank you for your role in making that possible.
[4:45 p.m.]
There are two significant things that are different in the Estimates Books. Number one, our legal services have been now moved to Justice, where it used to be shown with our senior administration. So that accounts for the drop. Number two, there are 16 FTEs that got moved out of our corporate services unit to the Public Service Commission. So I think that probably accounts for the majority of what you're asking about.
MR. PARKER: Okay, the second question then, I guess also on Page 18.2. Renewable Resources, $11.866 million, is in line with what was estimated last year but the forecast for last year is $15-plus million, about a $4 million difference there. How is it that last year was up so high compared to the estimate of last year? The $11 million this year, is that accurate, considering you spent $15 million last year?
[Page 604]
MR. MORSE: We're working on your next question before we give the answer to the first one.
MR. PARKER: Well, it's all the same question, I guess.
MR. MORSE: We're just anticipating the next question and I've got . . .
MR. PARKER: Basically, I'm just wondering why Renewable Resources was up so high last year.
MR. MORSE: There is money in there for the Forestry Transition Program. So that is the difference and that, of course, was not anticipated at the time we voted on last year's budget.
MR. PARKER: Okay, I guess that was my question, where was the transition money. I guess that's where quite a bit of it is, then, in Renewable Resources, in the forecast.
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. PARKER: Okay. That explains it, I think, Mr. Chairman. If that's the transition fund, then that's why last year it's up to $15-plus million as compared to $11 million.
MR. MORSE: To be specific, there was a little over $2 million that went to cover the legal bills for fighting the whole Softwood Lumber Agreement dispute.
MR. PARKER: The Maritime Lumber Bureau.
MR. MORSE: Yes, and that went through the Renewable Resources account and this year, under Regional Services, you will note that there is a fairly significant increase and that covers year two of the Forestry Transition Program and explains most of the difference.
MR. PARKER: Okay. I'll come down to Page 18.3, Grants and Contributions. Again, it's down by more than $4 million. Can you explain that? It's down to $17 million as compared to more than $21 million.
MR. MORSE: The two items that we just spoke of before with the Forestry Transition Program, the $2 million for the legal costs and $4 million for the enhanced silviculture program, it's about $6 million, and the increase from $14 million to $21 million is mostly accounted for by that $6 million. Going forward this year, we're not anticipating paying out the legal costs again, so that explains why it's at $17 million as
[Page 605]
opposed to $14 million in the previous year. So that's the anticipated ongoing enhanced silviculture program.
MR. PARKER: Okay, thank you.
The next page, Page 18.4, Program Expenses, operating costs are way down compared to the estimate last year, only one-third or less than what it was this year. Why would that be?
MR. MORSE: I'm advised that's the legal services being transferred back to Justice.
MR. PARKER: But in previous years it had been almost $300,000 each year and this year's it's only going to be $80,000.
MR. MORSE: And that's the reason, legal services.
MR. PARKER: Okay. On Page 18.5, Corporate Services Unit, Operating Costs, it's under $1 million this year; last year it was $1.6 million. What's the reason for that?
MR. MORSE: That would be the 16 FTEs that got transferred to the Public Service Commission.
MR. PARKER: Okay. Let's take a look at the other book, then, the supplement - I guess it's the Supplementary Detail. On Page 18.3, again some of these figures are far different than the previous year. I guess, first of all, under Renewable Resources Administration, the first line: last year, in 2007-08, it was estimated at $189,000; it actually ended up costing us $2.26 million. That's quite a difference.
MR. MORSE: Again, that's the Maritime Lumber Bureau legal services that was covered under the Forestry Transition Program. Of course, when you plug it in somewhere in the system, it pops up in different areas more than once.
MR. PARKER: I see that Reforestation is way down this year, about $605,000, and last year it was $1.3 million, so it's only about one-half this year. Is there some reason that we're only spending half as much money on reforestation?
MR. MORSE: As a result of the downturn in the sector, the demand for seedlings has gone down and our provincial nursery has been scaled back accordingly. That explains the drop.
MR. PARKER: So it's about half of what we spent last year on reforestation.
[Page 606]
MR. MORSE: I regret to confirm that the demand is down by about half, which is consistent with our exports to the United States which, of course, is overwhelmingly our major market. The industry has really been devastated over the last year, so if you're cutting half as many trees, you're going to plant half as many trees.
MR. PARKER: Although on the other hand, there's lots of land out there that has been cut over that was never replanted, that probably could use reforestation, but that's another matter. But there is land, as we know, that was never replanted that probably should be.
MR. MORSE: The first choice is to have natural regeneration. If that does not take, then we go to plan B. But it's encouraging to see that the industry is out there using silviculture, it has made a dramatic increase in the generation of wood fibre. We certainly encourage the small-woodlot owners to follow suit and we're trying to assist them through the Forestry Transition Program.
MR. PARKER: Okay. Coming down the same list on Page 18.3 is Forest Protection. I see we're actually budgeting for less money to protect our forests this year, as compared to what was actually spent last year. Do you anticipate that there will be less forest fires this year?
MR. MORSE: There was a bad stretch last year. We brought in a fixed-wing aircraft from Newfoundland and Labrador and that's a really expensive proposition, so it's our hope that's not going to be necessary again in 2008. But that's one area which this is strictly an estimate and I'm advised that the department is allowed to bring whatever resources are necessary to do the job.
MR. PARKER: So it's in flux then, it could go up or down, depending on the number of fires we have.
MR. MORSE: As I understand it, the minister is able to bring whatever resources are necessary to do the job.
MR. PARKER: A little further down the same page is Wildlife Administration. This year you're estimating about $320,000 and last year it looked like over $1 million was spent, so about a third this year in the budget, compared to last year. Is there a reason for that?
MR. MORSE: There has been a transfer of some of that line item to administration, the renewable resources administration, which you would know is also higher.
MR. PARKER: Okay. On the second last line there is the Shubenacadie Provincial Wildlife Park. You are budgeting about two-thirds of last year's forecast and certainly far
[Page 607]
less than what was budgeted last year. What's going on with our Wildlife Park? Are we spending less money on it?
MR. MORSE: A lot of these line items have had the administration component taken out and transferred to the top line, so administration has been taken out of there. That's probably a better measure of the variable cost of actually running the Shubenacadie Provincial Wildlife Park.
MR. PARKER: Over to Page 18.5, I notice the regions, their administration is much, much higher. Is some of the cost from the Central Region Administration being transferred to the regions? For example, Central Region Administration is $1.8 million, last year it was less than $300,000; Eastern Region Administration is $1.4 million, last year it was only $250,000; and Western Region Administration, the same thing. So are administration costs being shifted to the regions out of the central?
MR. MORSE: I'm advised that the seasonal casuals that were allowed to unionize - and we're very pleased that they now have a greater sense of job security - have been moved to the Central Region Administration in this instance. So there has been a change in their status and it has also involved a change in how we record that cost.
MR. PARKER: Okay, thank you. Can you tell me how many employees are in the Department of Natural Resources, how many full-time employees?
MR. MORSE: Well, that depends on what day of the year. The department has a very significant seasonal labour force, as you'd appreciate at this time of year. When we start opening up the parks, we man the fire service and those other seasonal aspects of the department which dramatically affect our number of FTEs. We're getting a . . .
MR. PARKER: I guess the number of full-time and part-time, both, and then in total, what would it be?
MR. MORSE: There are 864 full-time equivalents but you have to understand that a full-time equivalent may represent several employees, because they're full-time equivalent. So if you're looking for one definitive number, that would be the number but I can tell you that there are a lot more people working for the department in July than there are, say, in January.
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. PARKER: So there are 860 who are full-time equivalent and with part-time, then it could be 1,100 or 1,200, somewhere in that range, I'm guessing.
[Page 608]
MR. MORSE: That's about correct. So I mean the number of full-time positions in the department year-round is less than 864 but by the time you hire on for the summer season and convert that to FTEs, you come up with 864. So you're right, about 1,100.
MR. PARKER: I'm going to leave the Estimates Book now and get into some other issues and some other questions. Again, I'll be all over the map but they're all Natural Resources issues.
MR. MORSE: I'd have to say, honourable member, you're going to be hard-pressed to keep up with your Leader, that was a fascinating opening question and it was . . .
MR. PARKER: Well, it was very interesting and maybe some feathers will fly here on this, too, I'm not sure, but we'll not go down that road with turkeys any further. (Laughter)
I guess, first of all, I want to go to a question that I raised with you in the House, around the Category 7 Quality Improvement Silviculture Program. To me, that's a great program, it's one that a lot of woodlot owners are very interested in, uneven-aged management. To me, what we have is a good start but it seems like there's much, much more demand for the program than dollars allocated. I think it's $570,000, of which about $443,000 was actually for the program; the rest was for educational programs and administrative costs, I guess, to bring it up to the $570,000.
I know this past Saturday there was a Category 7 demonstration in Kemptown, in Colchester County, and there were a large number of woodlot owners there, I'm told - I wasn't able to be there. They're looking at the basal area of the cut and there are still some problems with the regulations, to try to get them figured out exactly, but there's a lot of interest in the program. A lot of woodlot owners would like to take up this Category 7 program. In fact, I understand there are a lot of applications that at this point there are no dollars for.
I think I did ask you in the House but is it possible to get more money for the program, to allow more woodlot owners to work on their own lands or to hire somebody to take up this uneven-aged management, try to get back to, I guess, the original Acadian forests and really diversify their lands? I think there's benefit in it, that it ends up more value added on their properties, and in the end it helps our whole economy. So I guess we need more dollars in that program and I'll ask you what the prospects of that are.
MR. MORSE: The prospects are excellent, once the Legislature passes the budget. There was a kick-start, I guess, of $570,000 put into that program. I think the importance of the education component should not be lost on us, because this does represent, I guess, an alternate way to manage your woodlot. The member is absolutely right, the response to the department has been a very positive one.
[Page 609]
I also want to point out that in uneven-aged management, it also allows the opportunity to have a more diverse forest, as well, so it's not only selective harvesting but also a more diverse forest.
Honourable member, before we go any further, I want to make sure I don't forget to acknowledge that I believe this is the first time since I've been a minister, and I've been a minister for a few years, that one of my critics has started off by actually going through the Estimates Book. For somebody who cares about how the numbers come together, I want to say that I appreciate the time that you took to go through the Estimates Book and ask those questions.
MR. PARKER: Okay. The uneven-aged management program is one that a lot of woodlot owners are looking for and you're right, it can diversify not only our forests, it can diversity our economy. It's going to add value to rural Nova Scotia and it's what woodlot owners want, they're asking for this program, and we'll end up with a mix of hardwoods and softwoods, we'll end up with a mix of ages in the woodlot, from young to old, and it really adds to our natural capital. We're adding value to our province by doing this program, I believe.
So again, I guess we need more money in the program, I guess is the bottom line. The silviculture program that we presently have is a two-year program, we're more than half-way into it, and the province is paying $12 million, I think, over those two years on private lands. The majority of that, though, is going to even-aged management, not uneven-aged. Is it possible to divert some of that $12 million to the Category 7 uneven-aged management program? There's only $570,000 allocated to the Category 7, out of the $12 million - can we get some of those dollars available to help with the Category 7?
MR. MORSE: The answer is clearly yes, because a lot of that $12 million is the enhanced silviculture program; instead of having the registered buyer pay one-third, we've covered the whole amount for those two years.
I also want to just make a comment about the state of the province's forests. As I understand it, in the past quite often the harvests were something called high-grading, where people would go in and cut the best trees. Well, in a sense, that's the worst possible thing you can do for the forest because what it leaves is the seed stock is now all of the trees that were left and this has created a difficult legacy. One of the benefits of going in and clear-cutting a forest, is that you may be able to have a better seed stock come out of it, and hopefully that will lead to perhaps different options in the future. But we have compromised the quality of our forests by virtue of the decisions that were made long before you and I ever thought of getting involved with public life.
[Page 610]
MR. PARKER: It's true, high-grading from past decades, from past centuries really, has caused real problems in our woodlot although today many of our forest practices are still causing problems in our forest industry, I believe.
I guess just one final question on this Category 7, then. We recognize that the forest owners want the program, I think the department recognizes the value of the program to the forest industry, do you anticipate that there could be a larger amount of dollars allocated to the program - $570,000 is not nearly enough for the demand that is out there.
MR. MORSE: There's some discussion with the new silviculture monies which, as the member has pointed out, are enhanced because of the Forestry Transition Program. So yes, there is room there for more. That was not a for-all-time allocation and I think that we've got to be mindful of what the woodlot owners are asking for, so absolutely, honourable member.
MR. PARKER: Okay, well, I would hope the department is able to try to meet that demand because the need is there and I would hope that more dollars would be allocated to help diversify our forests even more than they are today.
Anyway, we'll leave that one alone and I guess the next question I want to come along to is the Ship Harbour Long Lake Candidate Wilderness Area, 14,000 hectares. I know there has been some trading of lands in order to make that happen and I understand there's a formal review underway - I guess it's still in progress, I believe - and a socio-economic study to determine how it's going to all fall into place.
But I guess the question is, how soon can we expect Ship Harbour Long Lake to be designated - how long before that will happen?
MR. MORSE: This is a public process and while it is Crown land, it is led by the Department of Environment and they are the ones who are responsible for doing the public consultation.
We have expressed concerns that a broad stakeholder group, including the mining sector, which has some active claims in that area - and that was discussed before we signed the agreement, that there be continued access to some of the more established OHV routes and how they want to handle that, by either leaving it outside of protected areas, but these were some of the discussions that were had leading up to the signing of that agreement. I must say there was an awful lot of empathy on the part of all parties to finally be able to sign that agreement, I guess it was last November.
MR. PARKER: So where is it in the process right now? Is the public consultation process still ongoing, or how far away from designation?
[Page 611]
MR. MORSE: I'm not comfortable answering those questions because it's being driven by the Department of Environment but we did agree that this was an appropriate use of those Crown lands, subject to the condition that people who feel they had a legitimate claim - whether it's a mineral staking that's under development or a long-established OHV trail through the community - be given the appropriate consideration. Also the Aboriginal community is required to have the appropriate consultation.
So these are some of the things that maybe would be just a little bit different than what it has been in the past, but at the end of the day we're looking for a very sizeable, new protected wilderness area.
MR. PARKER: I guess most people hope that's going to happen and I look forward to the day when that is a designated wilderness area.
MR. MORSE: Excuse me, the deputy has just tapped me on the shoulder and indicated that the Minister of Environment went on the record as saying it would be done within a year, so I guess we're looking at November.
MR. PARKER: Okay, that's good news. I'm now going to come around to a topic that I guess is somewhat controversial in that every year it raises its head in the forest industry, and that's the one of herbicide spraying. I know we've had some conversations on it before and I'm sure when the season comes again this year, we'll probably have some conversations on it again.
Anyway, in Pictou County and Kings County and Lunenburg, in lots of areas of Nova Scotia, it has been a very controversial issue and you're either on one side or the other, so it seems. But people in communities, more and more so, are concerned about their environment, they're concerned about forest practices certainly, including clear-cutting, but the one that raises the most ire and the most concern is herbicide spraying.
I know it's also in conjunction with the Department of Environment but it's still a Natural Resources issue, certainly. I guess the present system is that the contractor goes out and he asks for a permit from the Department of Environment and he has to notify the landowner, he has to have certain setbacks for watercourses and certain setbacks for boundaries and notifies the people within a kilometre, or whatever the radius is.
But it seems to me what's really missing, and that's what people are saying, there's no public consultation. Yes, they're notified, there's something in their mailbox when they get home from work - oh, they're going to spray in my neighbourhood - but there's no chance for the public to have input and that seems to be the one part of the puzzle that's missing.
[Page 612]
Of course, as you know, there are many people who feel there are alternatives to spraying, whether you use less clear-cutting, which would therefore give you more natural regeneration, maybe larger seedlings to begin with, that could compete with the vegetation around it. Manual weeding has been suggested as a way to combat the problem; smaller harvest areas or more light in the woodlot. There are a number of natural methods that can be used that wouldn't allow the need to spray.
I'm sure the issue is going to come around again under the present policy, but the one big thing that people have been asking for, how come I don't have any say in what's going to happen in my neighbourhood? So I'll throw it back to you and get a response to that.
[5:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: I'm not sure that I'm the right person to be answering that question. The decision to license Vision, which goes by many other names and is mostly used in agriculture, is an important part of the forestry sector. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency - PMRA - is an agency appointed by the federal Department of Health. They're the ones who reviewed the literature, as has been the case with the Environmental Protection Agency. I know that in the European Union they've also accepted the use of Vision, glyphosate, also the World Health Organization, so all of the leading scientific evidence has confirmed that they feel this is safe for use in Canada - actually, globally.
I know that I had some very compelling letters many years ago when I was Minister of Environment and I took the initiative of actually writing the federal Minister of Health, Anne McLellan, at the time, asking her to have her staff comment on some of the very specific concerns which were quite overwhelming to me, because I'm not a scientist, and these people seemed to speak with a lot of authority. I was really rather amazed, both by the speed of the response, the thickness of the response and the thoroughness of the response. It went into not only each concern that was brought up, but they even went into the cases that were cited in support of their conclusion, and I would just tell the honourable member that I was quite satisfied that due diligence had been done and I can only accept that it is a safe product.
You've spoken of a buffer zone, that's something that really goes to the application. Again, that's the Minister of Environment who determines the boundaries. I know that it can be a very emotional issue for citizens, and I respect their concerns, but I'm not able to deny people the use of a legal product. In terms of the application, I have to defer to the Department of Environment.
MR. PARKER: It certainly is an emotional issue and I'm sure people on both sides of the issue are quite adamant about their position being correct. As far as the scientific evidence, I think there's evidence out there certainly that supports, again, both sides of the
[Page 613]
argument. I think there's some scientific evidence of a link to various diseases but there's also evidence that it's harmless. I'm not a scientist either, so I don't know what to believe, but I know you can build your argument on evidence that's available on-line to support almost any theory.
I'll ask you this, then. I know the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association has been suggesting the idea of intensive forest management, which is basically clear-cut, plant and herbicide spraying as necessary, but their suggestion that if more lands were made available for intensive forest management, perhaps in areas that are away from residential areas, or if land was set aside in more remote areas for intensive forest management, that might - I guess the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association is not suggesting that, but they are suggesting that more land be set aside for intensive forest management.
I guess my suggestion is, could that land then be away from residential areas, which would create less conflict with people and their pets in the neighbourhoods? We have areas I can think of, like Dalhousie Mountain in the county I come from, areas of South Mountain. There are lots of areas - Trafalgar in Guysborough County, and so on - that are well away from general residential areas. Has any thought been given to allowing that type of intensive forest management in areas that are not right in the middle of residential neighbourhoods?
MR. MORSE: I can tell you that there's a process that's going on now with a group from the environmental community and the forestry sector, called the Colin Stewart Forest Forum - you've probably heard that term before. They are trying to help advise us as to how we might reach the 12 per cent of protected areas by 2015.
This has led to some very interesting trade-offs between the members of this group, because on one hand we've got some very committed environmentalists who want to make sure that representative landscapes in sufficient quantities are protected across the province and they are passionate about this; on the other hand we've got - I'm going to say 15,000, because I think the numbers are probably down today - people who are involved with forestry in the province, who have a vested interest in making sure that sufficient wood fibre can be taken off the land to support their businesses and their jobs.
One of the trade-offs has been a recognition on the part of the environmental community that if we're going to have to get just as much wood fibre off of the Nova Scotia land mass, that if we're going to then set aside more in protected wilderness areas, which basically protect trees, that means we're going to have to be able to grow more on the residual, which means intensive forest management. So it has been an interesting experience to see them have that debate, plus they're trying to identify what is representative of the various ecosystems in the province because it's not just a matter of saying we want 12 per cent and it doesn't matter what 12 per cent - it matters absolutely what 12 per cent. So they're having that discussion.
[Page 614]
That's not going to be the end of the story, that's just going to be, if you will, the starting point, but it has led to an exchange of information. I think that before we make those decisions as it pertains to Crown land - and it may not all be Crown land that makes up the 12 per cent - I think that what the member brings up is clearly something that is worthy of consideration.
MR. PARKER: I guess finding that balance between protecting ecologically sensitive lands and having the fibre for industry to continue to provide the jobs in our rural economy, that's vital, that's important, there's no question about it.
Like I said, it's all about finding that balance. We recognize that the environment is important but so also is the economy. But I guess that intensive forest management, really, you can grow as much fibre on far less land if it's done in an intensive way, which therefore frees up other lands for environmental protection and also for residential neighbourhoods where people can enjoy their peace and quiet without having to worry about herbicide spraying or other methods of forestry that they're not happy with.
So again, I guess it's about finding that distinction between the two but allowing both to really happen. The conflict that occurs when herbicide spraying is right beside you, and you have a family and children and pets, it's not anything we want to see. I, as a member, don't want to see it and I don't think you, as a minister, want to see it. Somehow we have to find a balance that allows both to happen but not right beside each other. Somehow there's got to be some geographical distance between the two.
I think we sort of agree on that but it's just a matter of finding a way that will make it happen and, therefore, less conflict in our communities.
MR. MORSE: I think it's also important to point out that there are over 30,000 private woodlot owners in the province and they actually are the main source of wood fibre. The control that we have over the application of Vision, or pesticides, is basically through the work of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency as to what products they approve as safe for application, and the mode of application which is regulated by the Department of Environment.
So we have, by times, taken that into consideration with Crown land but we are greatly compromised as to what influence we are able to exert over the private woodlot owners. I mean this is their own land and it's a legal product and as long as they apply it within the regulatory framework that's put in place by the Department of Environment, that's their decision. It may not always make for harmonious relationships with the neighbours, but that's where we are.
MR. PARKER: Okay, there are challenges, I fully agree. I want to, in the few minutes I have left, move on to a related topic, around Crown lands. We, the people of the
[Page 615]
province, own a lot of land in this province. I asked, I think, one of your staff members for an update on what are the actual dollars we get out of our Crown land levies, or what are we getting . . .
MR. MORSE: Stumpage?
MR. PARKER: Stumpage fees, yes. I think the figure you gave me was around $4.7 million that we received last year.
I guess that now, as a province, we're picking up a big portion of the silviculture fees for the next two years, are we getting true value out of our resources, the people's resource, the Crown land - $4.7 million in stumpage fees, $6 million a year that we're spending out in silviculture, is it a net loss that we're getting off of our Crown lands? I know that $6 million is going towards the government's share of private lands, but are we getting value for the people's resource, is my question?
MR. MORSE: Well, I think that we are getting the appropriate value but what we also get, by determining our stumpage in this manner, is it's based on what's happening with the private woodlots and that keeps us in sync with the Softwood Lumber Agreement. I mean that's the whole key to having open access to the U.S. market is the way we determine our stumpage.
In other parts of the country where the stumpage is much lower, they have extra costs of entering the United States market. This is unique for Atlantic Canada - it's not Nova Scotia, it's Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, we're treated as a region, and because of the disproportionate amount of private land ownership and the way the government determines stumpage rates, they see us basically as free-traders, and that's what allows us to have that unimpeded access to the American market. I think we export something like 90 per cent of our fibre to the U.S.
MR. PARKER: You know it's a debatable point whether we're getting true value for our Crown resources but I guess as you know, recently Stora Enso - now NewPage - sold off their Crown lands, or the value of those Crown lands, to - Stora sold them to NewPage, and I believe Neenah is in the process right now of finding a buyer that their Crown lands, too, will be gone to a new buyer.
At the time when there's a sale like that, is it ever government's policy to look at it and say, well, we shouldn't just allow these assets to be sold, it might be an opportunity to look at other methods of allocating out our Crown lands?
MR. MORSE: When this proposition came up about the possibility that Stora Enso might be selling the plant and, indeed, NewPage eventually did buy it from them, we did look at what our obligations were, as a government. Back at the time they built the plant
[Page 616]
there were commitments made to the company and as long as certain due-diligence commitments - basically being responsible stewardship - were met, the province was obliged to shift the licences to NewPage.
We knew that was a bargaining chip for the province but, clearly, all of the reasons we wanted to have Stora Enso in the Strait still hold true today. It was nice that there were certain expectations of the new owner, but certainly we have no reason to believe this new owner is not going to honour those commitments.
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. PARKER: Are you considering multiple use of our leased land? Is that something under consideration by the department, similar to what Quebec and other provinces have where they lease it out to a major leasehold but also some of the lands are subleased, I guess you could call it, or multi-leased? Is that something under consideration?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time for questioning by the NDP has expired.
MR. MORSE: Can I just answer that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, I'll give you another minute.
MR. MORSE: We are driven by the stipulations in the legislation and it limits what is able to be done with those lands. Maybe we can pick that up next time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister.
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to ask some questions to the minister. First of all, I want to thank the minister and the deputy and his staff for several occasions during the past year when we've been able to have more timely access to information that I think supports our work in the critic role, and also a timely response to people who are asking us questions around natural resources issues. So that has been much appreciated and I hope it will be a practice going forward as well.
I wanted to first of all, in taking a look at the budget for Natural Resources and right away you're presented with an estimate and a forecast of the past year and an estimate for 2008-09. So how is the forecast developed when it's presented in the April budget? It's a figure fairly considerable more than the estimate. If you move into the forecasted amount, does that have to get Cabinet approval? What actually transpires?
[Page 617]
I've asked you two questions, Mr. Minister: how do we move from the estimate having a $6 million, $7 million or more figure; and, if we move towards the forecast as an actual, does that have to be monies approved by Cabinet?
MR. MORSE: There are a number of factors that come in here. One, of course, is the numbers are now done on a gross basis, so the netting is gone and now those revenues that come in go to the Department of Finance, so it tends to inflate all of the department's numbers, but it has been adjusted in the Estimates Book so that should mitigate that distortion. Two, we do have the Forestry Transition Program, which is about $4.3 million in this year's estimates.
At the end of the year we did take advantage of the opportunity to fulfill commitments that we knew we were going to have to honour with third parties - Ducks Unlimited is one example. The wetland infrastructure prior to - I think I'm going to get this right - 1986 is in a state of disrepair and there is no U.S. federal funding to assist them and they were coming out to the provincial governments and ACOA to partner, one-third, one-third, one-third. As an example, at the end of last year we made that $500,000 commitment.
The honourable member was very kind with his opening comments and I want to say that while I believe our critic meetings are probably good for the critics, they're also good for the department, they're good for the government and, most importantly, they're good for the people of Nova Scotia. The honourable member has been exemplary in the way that he has always conducted himself in those meetings and with the information he was given, it has been very constructive and I think we're very fortunate to have two such very fine critics.
Previous to the NDP member becoming the critic, the member for Pictou East was also of the same vein. I wanted to get that in the record. I also take note that the member starts with a financial question, so this is a real treat for me . . .
MR. GLAVINE: So in reality, then, just to continue back where I was going, the forecast will be the actual, if you wish, for this year, or is likely to be? Can we assume that, that the actual amount will be in the $6 million to $7 million range, over and above the estimate that was made in the budget last year?
MR. MORSE: This, we think, is a reasonable estimate of what 2007-08 will be. The extra $6 million goes to the Forestry Transition Program. We get about $4 million in additional silviculture and $2 million for the Maritime Lumber Bureau legal costs.
MR. GLAVINE: Which was a Cabinet-approved expenditure.
[Page 618]
MR. MORSE: Yes, and to the member's question about how does this happen, we submit our budget requests, we defend them. There's an allocation within government which ultimately requires the approval of Cabinet before it goes to the printer and the Auditor General, who also scrutinizes the numbers.
MR. GLAVINE: Just as a curiosity, perhaps more than anything, when we're talking about natural resources and we're talking about wildlife in the province which brings in revenue through licences, some fees and so forth, what kind of dollar figure would Natural Resources be able to realize against the expenditures which it puts into its staff requirements and its program development? Again, just as a proportion and a ratio of expenditure through its budget in relation to what it's able to realize through a natural resource which is sustainable, if we adhere to good practices.
I'm just wondering, is that significant in relation to what is spent through the Department of Natural Resources?
MR. MORSE: I believe the question is, what revenues do we anticipate being generated . . .
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, exactly.
MR. MORSE: . . . now for general revenues, because they're going to go to the Department of Finance.
MR. GLAVINE: That's right, sure.
MR. MORSE: We're estimating about $8.5 million here and another $1 million in hunting licences, over and above what's shown here in the estimates on Page . . .
MR. GLAVINE: Or even if that could be provided, Mr. Minister. I was really looking at a ballpark figure.
MR. MORSE: You're asking for the revenues that we generate.
MR. GLAVINE: That's right.
MR. MORSE: We will get you a list of those revenues. It's in the estimates - we're trying to get you an answer.
MR. GLAVINE: That's fine, if we can move on. I'm prepared to get that at a little later date.
[Page 619]
MR. MORSE: Page 2.11 in your Estimates Book and, in addition to that, we've got about - it's about $8.5 million, and the game and fishing licences are included in that number.
MR. GLAVINE: So roughly 10 per cent, then, of your budget can be brought back into the general revenues of the province.
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. GLAVINE: Okay, I just wanted to know what kind of proportion there was.
MR. MORSE: I think it's good to understand those relationships.
MR. GLAVINE: Okay, since I've been involved, not just as the Natural Resources Critic but probably coming to Province House as an MLA, I think the Natural Resources Strategy is one of the more significant developments, I believe, around Voluntary Planning.
While we know Voluntary Planning made a significant contribution to the change of direction around ATV use or the off-highway vehicle use in the province, the Natural Resources Strategy, I think many, many people now are looking for this document to become perhaps a monumental shaper of policy for the future and when we're looking at forestry, we're looking at potentially pointing the way and shaping the way for decades to come.
I'm just wondering if you could give us at least a brief picture of how the process is moving along.
MR. MORSE: This past Monday night Voluntary Planning had its first public meeting in Pugwash. They are going to 26 sites across the province. That is basically to determine what Nova Scotians' values are as it pertains to our natural resources. That's that backdrop - how do we feel about our natural resources, what do we want done with them? That's the big picture.
That should be done up by the end of this year, by December. We're looking for a report back from them to share what they heard from Nova Scotians.
Phase II is going to be driven by a panel. It's my expectation, at least for forestry and minerals, and I would say probably for all three, that it will be a three-person panel in forestry and mining, or minerals. There will probably be somebody appointed there from, say, the environmental community, there will be somebody there from the industry. Hopefully, between them, they can identify a very credible third party to be chairman.
[Page 620]
They will take the information from the first round, Phase I, which is being gathered by Voluntary Planning, and then go and speak with experts to further scope out some of the topics that come up and give direction.
With that information, that will be condensed into what will be a strategy. I want that strategy run by the panel before it goes to the minister. I am not so presumptuous as to assume that I'm going to be minister for five years, by the time this is done. With their endorsement, I'm looking for that minister to have the confidence that this fairly represents what was heard during the process, and then that will go to Cabinet.
MR. GLAVINE: So in terms of the panel at Phase II, will these be mainly designed and preplanned meetings with stakeholders in the industry?
MR. MORSE: Stakeholders, absolutely, but we're looking for experts here, people who clearly have an expertise in the area. We want them to enhance the process and borrow on their knowledge and experience to help us eventually shape what's going to be the new natural resources strategy or strategies.
MR. GLAVINE: So in essence, then, the draft will be - or what comes out of the first phase will perhaps be filtered a bit by the panel, but probably won't go back for a public look before it goes to Cabinet.
I was looking at the model that was put through with the off-highway vehicle strategy, which seemed to have some merit in it, but that's not the course of action you'll be using?
MR. MORSE: No, the panel - and I like the idea of the panel because it gives some independence from the department and the minister, and it also brings a knowledge base to the process and to structure it in a way that it brings balance and that is intended to protect the integrity of the process for all stakeholders: the public, though Phase I; the industry; the environmental community; and the department. I want it to be fair and ultimately whoever is the minister who receives these recommended new, natural resources strategies, has to have the confidence that those strategies fairly represent what was heard throughout the process.
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: So is there a clear funding proposal for the next few years around what the strategy will require?
MR. MORSE: It's about $400,000 spread over the three years. It's not without some financial consequences, it's a significant amount of money to invest in something that, you're right, is going to be critical to where we go as a province.
[Page 621]
MR. GLAVINE: So that would be the ballpark figure, I guess, if you wish, for this process.
MR. MORSE: Yes - $150,000 for Voluntary Planning and about $250,000 for the balance.
MR. GLAVINE: And it is a process that hopefully will get good input from Nova Scotians. We've heard my colleague from the NDP today talk about a number of controversial areas that have been raised by Nova Scotians over the past decade. So hopefully we'll see many people engaged in the process.
My questions there were a little bit specific, but really Voluntary Planning is a process that I really feel has tremendous merit, so I'm glad the department has - and the internal reviews, and so forth, are valuable, but I think to allow the public of Nova Scotia to have a hand in putting some of the values that we have around this natural resource and that can clearly impact on the future, is very critical.
MR. MORSE: Sometimes we forget who owns those natural resources and it's not you and I, honourable member, it's the public.
MR. GLAVINE: Which brings me to one of the last Voluntary Planning sessions we had in the province and the consequences of moving to legislation around the OHVs. It's an area that is, indeed, still going through some transitions and growing pains but I think good progress overall has been made.
I wanted to bring up the area of enforcement on the OHV trails. Many of the trails, as you know, are considerable in length and remote and sometimes difficult to manage, but I was wondering if you could provide some information as to how enforcement officials have been doing. What has been that pattern around the number of fines and warnings and targeting more difficult sites?
I know we've had some areas in the province that have provided more of a challenge for the supervisors and I believe it's 12 members - is it 12? - in a force that has been applying the OHV regulations.
MR. MORSE: There are 12 enforcement officers who have been hired specifically for enforcement of the Act. It is a huge shift in our culture and I think the opposing cultures are starting to come to terms with the fact that there are a lot of people out there with machines and they need a place to drive, and I think those with machines are coming to the conclusion that they have to be respectful of the rest of the public.
I do want to make comment about the recent OHV meeting at the Oak Island resort where the ATV, snowmobile, off-road vehicles and the Nova Scotia Trails Federation met
[Page 622]
and talked about progress. What really impressed me was Laurie Cranton, who, of course, is the Chair of the OHV Ministerial Advisory Committee and we're very fortunate to have Mr. Cranton in that capacity. He's a wonderfully unifying force. His comment was there was not one negative comment all day and if you think about where we were not too long ago, that's pretty amazing.
So you basically have your naturalists, who are in favour of trails - and some of them, of course, want OHV trails as well - and you've got these three OHV communities. The comment was made to me that Nova Scotia is very quickly becoming the role model for the country, because we did step up and address an issue which some felt was getting out of control, and it's really nice to have those comments.
Are there more specific questions about the enforcement? I know initially it was a bit of a challenge but the enforcement officers are trying to encourage compliance, and sometimes there are better ways of doing that than slapping somebody with a big fine.
MR. GLAVINE: I'm not so much looking for statistics to be critical of the enforcement officers because I know there's a very, very important balance still of some education, as well as when there are flagrant violations of basic areas of safety around speed, around use of the helmet, and whether the OHV is in proper running order, for example.
So I just wanted to get a little bit of an update on, is there some trend or pattern emerging around the warnings or fines that have been given out by the enforcement officers?
MR. MORSE: I'm not sure whether we're going to have it for this section of estimates but the request has gone out to get those numbers and we will have them tomorrow, if not today.
MR. GLAVINE: That's great, that's fine, I'm okay with that.
One of the areas that has surfaced, and I'm sure the department is well aware of it, and probably my critic opposite as well, is that bringing the ATV community together with SANS perhaps, has been a little bit more challenging. When you get trails that want to be used by both and we get that defined period of December 1st to March 31st when some of the trails can only be used by SANS, and we're living in a time, as we saw this winter, with varied weather that had the trails, in fact, open and suitable for OHVs and even sometimes a very small amount of snow that led to even some grooming problems, is that going to remain hard and fast or will there be some flexibility around that?
[Page 623]
This is one of the few times that I now get calls, when people are pushed off the trail a little bit. Who do I call to lodge a complaint, if it's from the snowmobiler's point of view and the OHV'ers feel they should still have access to the trail?
MR. MORSE: The honourable member is not the only one who has had those sorts of letters and telephone calls. What has taken place is that in order to provide SANS - the Snowmobile Association of Nova Scotia - with a means of generating revenue in exchange for a service, which is groom trails, we have designated them.
The honourable member is right, there is a learning curve here. We sometimes inadvertently discover that we have compromised the rights of other people who were depending on those trails, such as trappers as an example, hunters and trappers who may use them late in the season.
So what we have been doing is we've been going back to SANS and bringing this to their attention, asking them to make some sort of reasonable accommodation. We're not trying to micromanage this, but just as we basically gave them the authority to manage those trails and to charge fees, there is also an expectation that they try to accommodate other legitimate uses. So we're working through the system and I think we're making progress.
MR. GLAVINE: I only have a couple of minutes, but the problem is really around the beginning and the end, the edge seasons, if you wish. That would be an area that if some flexibility could be built in here, I think there would be a lot less pressure even for the department, around the number of calls that are received. I was making it from the point of view of both a comment and getting some sense of where the department may, in fact, still be looking at this area for some possible change or dealing with the issue.
MR. MORSE: We're trying to nurture that kind of dialogue and we've been pleased with the response that we've gotten from the various snowmobile clubs thus far. If we're not feeling that there's a reasonable sense of co-operation or empathy for the concerns of, in essence, the disenfranchised OHV community, then we've got the ministerial advisory committee - and actually, Trish MacNeil who has joined us here is about as familiar as anybody . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That concludes the time allotted for the estimates debate today. I'd like to thank all honourable members for taking part.
We stand adjourned.
[The subcommittee adjourned at 5:58 p.m.]
