[Page 625]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we'll bring the committee to order and we'll go to the Liberal caucus, they have 28 minutes. We'll stay on my timepiece here because it's usually a little bit fast, the time being 4:07 p.m.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to continue where I left off yesterday. I was dealing with OHVs and, in particular, around the issue of how the enforcement officers are doing, what kind of patterns are emerging around both warnings and actual charges, to see if, in fact, there is some actual trend emerging since 12 does seem to be a limited number for probably anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 ATVs in the province. I know some, of course, are used on farms and in work environments and, in fact, may never be there to possibly have any kind of an offence or anything associated with them.
Also, the second part, I'm not sure if in the information I have there's actually a breakdown with where the RCMP may fit into giving some of the warnings and the charges, so if the minister could address that issue. I'm interested in the trend because basically outside of some RCMP work, probably some of our wardens may have dealt with this in one manner or another, but since 2005, this is a whole new approach as part of bringing OHVs under better control, both for safety, for the environment and for just the integrity of the use of that vehicle.
HON. DAVID MORSE: Thank you, honourable member. We do have some statistics for April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 and then April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 and now April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. In essence, these are statistics that are generated by our enforcement officers, these do not include the RCMP in them.
[Page 626]
What we saw initially was there were fewer incidents, which are generally complaint-driven, by and large, somebody in the community has concerns and they make one of our enforcement officers aware. We see that between the first year and the second year there was a dramatic increase in occurrences and warnings and charges, as compared to the first year. Then, happily, it's starting to settle down again.
What I take from this is that people are accepting that times have changed with the OHV action plan. To your question specifically about the ratio of charges to warnings, we did take a more lenient approach in the first year, there were three warnings for every charge. In the next year we did tighten up some and it was a ratio of 1.7 to 1. In this last year just completed, March 31st, that ratio has dropped again to 1.6 to 1. Our enforcement officers are more likely to charge people who are violating the regulations, but we're happy to see that there are fewer incidents. I see that as a good sign, that the culture is starting to adapt to the new reality for OHVs.
MR. GLAVINE: In regard to the charges, I'm just wondering if the minister could just point out which areas are a couple of the charge areas because there may be, again, a couple of those that education could be a key component in reducing that number. So I'm just wondering if the minister could talk about what seems to be a one, two, three type of charges that the officers are currently presenting to users.
MR. MORSE: Specifically there's no particular trouble area that jumps out. There are concerns with trespassing on private land. As the member would be aware, there was a change in the policy of one of our major pulp and paper companies as it pertains to access.
The type of charges are primarily to do with registration and helmets. I must say that I've noticed, on a non-scientific, random sample basis, that when I see people out on OHVs adjacent to the highways these days, they almost always have helmets. I do not believe that I could make that claim even a year ago, so we're making progress.
MR. GLAVINE: That's appreciated, getting that information. The minister is saying - and he didn't give me numbers or percentages there but the fact that you mentioned helmets, one of the areas that I raised in the House in terms of a question to the minister was around the advisory committee to the minister, that did not, for a period of time, have a physician or a medical advisor on the advisory committee. I'm wondering if the minister could update that particular area, to inform members as to what is happening in that regard?
MR. MORSE: Thank you, honourable member. We currently do not have somebody in that position and I would just add that the person who was there was getting a per diem, apparently from the Department of Health, which came as a revelation to me
[Page 627]
because I thought everybody was there as volunteers. We have sent a request out to the health organizations and we are canvassing to see if we can get a volunteer.
MR. GLAVINE: I guess that aspect does give me cause for concern. During the past 12 months we have had some deaths from ATVs in the province. I guess what I am concerned about here, even if it's not a doctor, that we have somebody on that advisory panel who continues to raise the issue around safety and is making sure that when the ATV association meets, as the minister has talked about, having a very constructive, a very positive gathering.
I think it's important that while the safety issues are raised, I think having the voice from the medical community is an important piece of that advisory committee. So I feel it is a deficiency not to have a medical person. If it's a doctor, great, but if we have somebody who is constantly letting us know - we know one of the people, of course, Dr. Natalie Yanchar, may have been absolutely unbelievably committed to the safety issue. She, in fact, has expressed to me not that long ago that there has been a significant improvement in the number of injuries of young Nova Scotians coming to intensive care.
As long as we have some fatalities and major injuries, the safety piece is of concern. I'm just wondering how the minister plans to address that and how he sees the need for a medical person on that advisory panel?
[4:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: I thank the member for his concern. We would like to see somebody, at least from the medical community, if not a doctor, we are canvassing for a doctor. I would like to speak to the injuries, the accidents that have taken place in the last year. I think it should be pointed out that when accidents do happen, we find that typically people are not in compliance with the regulations. So again, the education process, as we change the culture, we are making progress, I think things are better than they have been. It's certainly good to have that report back from Dr. Yanchar that she is noticing fewer emergency room visits for children. I do think that is, in part, and maybe in a greater part, because of the action plan. But having an action plan and regulations is no help if people still choose to ignore them. Regrettably, not everybody is in compliance, but we're working on them.
MR. GLAVINE: In terms of compliance and creating a much safer use of ATVs for touring and for day excursions and so forth, we know that trail development is going to be a very important piece of the future of ATVs, and in the province we know there are some issues and so forth around trails. What I'm asking first here, Mr. Minister, is how much was collected during the past fiscal year for fees that could go back into trail development?
[Page 628]
MR. MORSE: There was approximately $1 million, it was just a little under $1 million and that's the $40 registration fee. We are encouraged that more people are registering their vehicles, as they are required to do under the regulations.
MR. GLAVINE: And how is that money being disbursed, in terms of it going back into the trails? I'm sure there are some areas of the province where there haven't been management agreements put in place and therefore, they are not seeing perhaps a great investment back into trail development. I was wondering if the minister could just give a little bit of a profile as to what is happening in that regard?
MR. MORSE: Yes, thank you for that question and of course this is coming forward as recommendations from the OHV Advisory Committee. There are three basic components that are used to split up the $40 registration fee. Trail development is, by far and away, the largest component. We have already approved $800,000 for trail development and have just signed off on another $743,000, and that, of course, is since inception. We also make a contribution to the three OHV organizations - ATVANS, SANS and the Off-Road Riders Association, plus there's a small contribution towards the cost of operating the committee, which is somewhere up to $30,000.
MR. GLAVINE: So then the $1 million is an increase, you're saying, over the previous fiscal year?
MR. MORSE: I'm pleased that the amnesty that was provided to sign up before April 1, 2006, did encourage, and I'm going to say approximately 25,000 vehicles and it is actually holding there. There were quite a number who made sure that they got in under the amnesty period, so we accepted them without question, as long as they owned the machine.
MR. GLAVINE: Just to finish off, one of the big concerns that came out during the OHV Voluntary Planning meetings across the province and continued to be a major issue when the draft was brought forward and, in fact, continued for probably another year, was, of course, the impact on places like the Tobiatic wilderness.
Generally now ATVers themselves, through some education, have become more cognizant of the kind of damage they can do when crossing streams, operating in wetlands and bog areas. I'm wondering if Natural Resources, probably along with the Department of Environment, have noted perhaps dramatically less or considerably less reports of damage to our perhaps more sensitive areas in particular. We know that there will be some rutting and so forth, even on well-defined trails, but in terms of our more sensitive areas, I was wondering if the minister could make a comment around that?
[Page 629]
MR. MORSE: We're satisfied that there's a greater public awareness that it's not acceptable to be driving in these protected areas. Clearly the member makes reference perhaps to wetlands and barrens and sand dunes.
We do not have the specific statistics to provide the member. I can tell the member, as I have viewed our province from the air and it's really quite a breathtaking sight to see the province from just above the canopy, that there is still work to do in parts of the province. I know in the Cape Breton Highlands, I regret to say, you can see the ATV tracks in some of the wetlands, but we are making progress and we are going to continue to work on this and we're going to change the culture. We're dealing with the stakeholders and making them aware that this is very damaging to the environment and we're going to get there.
MR. GLAVINE: I thank the minister for that and I know there are still challenges around trail development. I know the minister is working on some of those and I will look forward to getting updates and progress reports on a few of the more troublesome areas that we've been dealing with. So with that, I'll end my questions around the OHVs.
MR. MORSE: Honourable member, I just wonder if maybe the next time we meet with the OHV Advisory Committee that perhaps an invitation should also be extended to the two critics, as we've done with the department. It's not within the department, we certainly bear a responsibility and I would have to confirm that with my colleague, but I think that you're asking very constructive questions, you care about what happens with machines and the impact they have on the environment. I know that you would enjoy having the chance to meet with these very fine people, or at least the chairman, he's a wonderful man.
MR. GLAVINE: I thank you very much for that offer and would be more than willing to attend. Again, as part of our education as MLAs, that can be very informative and I would appreciate that opportunity.
To move on to the forestry area, I first want to touch upon renewable energy and forestry. We know that if our forests are looked after and managed well, they can also be part of the renewable energy equation for the province. Just a few days ago, in fact, I entered a resolution in the House, commending Barrett Lumber for the way in which they were using chips to reduce their dependence on oil. In fact they had replaced 60,000 litres of fuel with a conversion to using woodchips.
So I was wondering, at this stage is there anything on the drawing board or the plans in the province to have forest waste material, where possible, used for energy production, if Natural Resources is, in fact, involved with any kind of planning around that area? Also, I'm sure there are other areas of the province where pellet plants for home fuel could also be part of energy solutions in the province, especially since all indications, from
[Page 630]
sources like the Ecology Action Centre, tell us that it, in fact, can be CO2 neutral in the use. So I'm wondering, for industrial purposes and home purposes, can Natural Resources point to some initiatives and view how the minister feels about this renewable energy source?
MR. MORSE: I thank the member for his question. He has generated a lot of discussion as we were anticipating what he was going to ask us. There's certainly a lot of activity with co-generation. First of all, it was good to see the commitment from Abitibi-Bowater when they bought Brooklyn Power plant, which basically uses the waste product to generate electricity. It's something that has been done by Taylor Lumber, which I believe is in Halifax County, and has been done for, as I understand it, possibly 20 years. They actually power the grid in that area, they sell to Nova Scotia Power. Of course part of Stora Enso's plan to make sure they remain competitive, and it's now being picked up by NewPage, included a very significant investment in a co-generation plant. I know that you asked about pellets but there's a lot to this subject.
Recently I know that the honourable member would be very pleased with the wonderful work that is being done by Minas Basin Pulp and Power. Again, it involves a co-generation, even though they do not cut fibre, they use old corrugated cardboard, they were still going to make use of that hog fuel to supplement their operation. As it pertains to pellets, this is an area which is much sought after. There's a huge market for these in Europe but we're quite interested in the Nova Scotia market because we've got some climate change commitments.
We've tried to be strategic, not to license what fibre might come from Crown land in a way that we make a long-term commitment to ship it out of the province, but some of our established sawmills have undertaken the initiative to try to get together a co-op arrangement and work together to become a real player in this area. We're working with them and we know that if it does not work out with them, there are others that are right behind them. That's as it pertains to the Crown.
[4:30 p.m.]
The other exciting thing about this is that of course this is the waste. When you talk about the hardwoods, only 20 per cent of the hardwoods are sawlog material. The other 80 per cent could be for firewood, but clearly pellets are a big part of that opportunity.
There's also a regional study that's going on in the Eastern Seaboard, including Nova Scotia, the whole question. So the member has touched on something which is of great interest to the industry and to the government.
MR. GLAVINE: Do we currently just have the one pellet plant in Nova Scotia? I think there is great opportunity here, both for domestic or provincial use, as well as the opportunities that could be realized as an export product, especially since we do not use
[Page 631]
the amount of hardwood that could be sustainably harvested from year to year in the province, I believe that is what the minister is presenting in the comment of the 20-80 current split that we have. So again, do we just have the one pellet plant and are there other investigations for other parts of the province around that?
MR. MORSE: There is only one currently creating pellets and that is the former MacTara plant, which actually continued to produce pellets even after it went into creditor protection. There is discussion between several of the larger sawmills in the province to work together and to basically make full use of this resource right across the province, right across Nova Scotia.
We have tried to be supportive of them and part of the reason why we're working with them is we see this as a means of getting them through a difficult time because they've been providing employment for a long time in the area and we want to work with those that are already there and have proven themselves to be good corporate citizens.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry, that does conclude the 28 minutes that was allocated to the Liberal caucus at this time, you can come back another time.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MS. BECKY KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Pictou West, my colleague, has offered me and I'm pleased to be here today, minister. I'm going to focus directly on McNab's Island. That's certainly a passionate issue.
MR. MORSE: It's a gem.
MS. KENT: It's a gem and I appreciate you saying that, it's a jewel in the harbour and certainly something we should have lots to be proud of. If I can, I'd like to go through my points, I have 10 minutes and then I can remind you of some of my questions, if you can offer the comments. I want to make sure that you hear all the things that I want . . .
MR. MORSE: You're telling me to make a list.
MS. KENT: Yes, please, just because I want you to hear the things that I'd like to have comment on, if we don't get the chance to hear all of your response, if we could have some follow-up after, that would be greatly appreciated, if that's something you do.
Specifically, the management plan for the McNabs and Lawlor Islands that was signed off by the minister, then Minister Hurlburt, in 2005. There are concerns that - there were a lot of meetings, a lot of stakeholder consultation, great work went into that plan and to have it now somewhat - the way it has been expressed to me certainly by local residents
[Page 632]
and Friends of McNabs, I know you're aware of the work that they're doing, it's relatively almost - it's sitting on a shelf.
What I was specifically looking for is some sense from you of when we can get some clearer detail on an implementation of that plan. I wonder, first, quickly if the minister could tell me, have you actually visited the island?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MS. KENT: Good, I'm glad to hear that. In the plan . . .
MR. MORSE: And actually I'm going to make a qualification, I touched down on the island but I took the opportunity to fly over it in a helicopter a couple of times. I wanted to understand some of the historic sites. As a child, my parents used to take us to the beach there and we would look for crabs.
MS. KENT: I'll speak to it at the end but there are a couple of opportunities coming up and maybe you can go over and help collect some garbage or maybe do a tour. There's a couple of opportunities coming along, but certainly I would love to . . .
MR. MORSE: I've gone on those garbathons before.
MS. KENT: Really an opportunity even for us to go over together would be great, to show you around.
Specifically, on Page 55 of that management plan there is a long list of the goals, and I think it is referenced on Page 55, it might be Page 56 - within a three year period. Three years have passed, roughly, and there seems to be bits and pieces and attempts made at addressing some of what is in that long list. In particular I'll note the range pier, the wharf, the removal of the wharf, that was removed last year. We're wondering, when is the plan to put that back? Had great meetings when I was the municipal councillor with the consultants involved. We're looking to know when we can expect to see that pier, that wharf put back.
Unfortunately, it might be an example - the way it has been expressed to me - of how the first notion is to demolish it, take it out, but there doesn't seem to be a plan to put it back. Fort Hugonin, of course, I know that has come to a positive conclusion, we appreciate the end result in that and your contribution to that, Mr. Minister, very clearly, but we don't want that approach to be the norm, to act first and then find out later what the ramifications are.
Another example, Mr. Minister, is bits and pieces, the cement slab that has been put in behind the caretaker's property. This slab has been left there. The intention, to our
[Page 633]
knowledge, is that it would be a maintenance shed. When could we expect to see some form of that finished?
On the management plan, I spoke of the consultation that went on. The Park Advisory Committee, frankly, for a long time, it is my understanding, they didn't meet after the plan was established. There have been some recent meetings. They are frustrated, I think there's one as early as next week. The biggest frustration from them is they don't have a clear vision of how they understand the province to be moving that plan forward.
I did have a chance, Mr. Minister, to speak with your deputy, Peter Underwood, at the Friends of McNabs annual dinner and it was great to have a chance to talk to him. At that time he had suggested that this government recognizes that really McNabs Island/Lawlor Island, is sort of an exception in a world of its own regarding a park, it doesn't fit into what you typically envision as a park. Frankly, that's encouraging to me because I don't think it does either. With that, I know that managing it and moving that management plan forward and working within all the government departments will have challenges.
We talked about the potential certainly for Natural Resources, Tourism, Transportation, Education, Economic Development, Health Promotion, there are opportunities for all of those departments to be involved. I want to know, are you part of those discussions, are you recognizing that maybe that is an approach? Are you willing to maybe move that idea forward?
The reason I'm asking that is, if that's what's being discussed in your departments or in your meetings, if that discussion is slowing down the movement of the management plan and it actually has some potential to be successful and really have teeth in it, great, let's move that forward. If that's just going to be sitting there and mulled over and talked about as yes, that's a great idea, we really should be approaching, as a way of just ignoring the plan, that's a waste of time.
I think that the idea of it is great, I think that unfortunately it might slow things down a little bit, but at least if there are all those departments talking about it, then I believe the issues and the assets that island has to offer will much more able to be fulfilled through that, and that plan will be able to move forward if all those departments are really prepared to come forward. My understanding is that it would be your department that would have to move those discussions along.
I'm just going to wrap up and offer you a chance to offer some feedback on it. The caretaker, specifically, used to be designated to the island for a significant period of time. That has changed over the last year or two. Our perception was that he or she - I'm not sure which it is - spends very little time on the island now, certainly very little compared to what the former caretaker did. I want to know, does this caretaker now also cover other parks?
[Page 634]
Is it a timing, a scheduling issue? Specifically, how much time is he or she supposed to be spending on the Island and attending to the things that are there?
The last thing, Mr. Minister, is around the camping. Camping at the lower end of the island, the lower field near the tea house, was supposed to be an interim measure. Campers are coming to us, certainly coming to me as MLA for the area, they're coming to Friends of McNabs, people are interesting in going to the island, campers specifically. What now can campers do? Where can they camp on the island? I'll leave it at that and I'll just make a note at the end when hopefully I'll have a minute.
MR. MORSE: Wow.
MS. KENT: Wow. I told you I want to get it all out there so you can have a chance to mull over it.
MR. MORSE: The range pier was a safety concern and that's why it was taken out. There have been significant investments in McNabs Island and I can tell you that compared to the other provincial parks they would be jealous if they knew the proportion that went to McNabs and Lawlor, but that does not mean it's as much as we'd like to do. Maintenance shed, that's the concrete slab, is to be completed this year.
MS. KENT: This year?
MR. MORSE: Yes. That is a dedicated staff person and we will look into your concerns that perhaps the time is being spent on other responsibilities. To the whole question of the island, the deputy and I and other staff have talked about this as a unique opportunity. We are excited by what it presents us. I mean it's this pearl, it's got all the history, the culture, it's right in the centre of the capital, the major urban centre of the province and we think there's really opportunities there. We've talked about working with other departments and encouraging government to help realize its potential. I'm not sure if that answers the member's question.
MS. KENT: Are you prepared to move that forward?
MR. MORSE: We've talked about this, we've strategized how this might happen.
MS. KENT: That's my worry, it's just being talked about.
MR. MORSE: We strategized how we could make that happen and that's how you get things done.
MS. KENT: I understand that.
[Page 635]
MR. MORSE: First of all you have to recognize there's an opportunity, then you figure out how to realize on that opportunity.
MS. KENT: The range pier, I didn't really get a sense for me. I know you've spent money taking it out. Do you have any kind of sensible plan to put it back?
MR. MORSE: We're not anticipating that going back in in any particular time frame but we knew that it had to get out of there because it was a safety concern. We did work on the wharf and I think it's the other side of the island, the Garrison Pier.
MS. KENT: Yes, the Garrison Pier. Campers? Do we have a sense right now of where campers can go? As an interim measure they were designated to be in the lower field at the tea house, that was intended only to be very interim.
MR. MORSE: The member is correct, that is an interim measure until we get the permanent campgrounds in place.
MS. KENT: Are there any discussions around the permanent campground?
MR. MORSE: Well, I mean it all flows from the whole opportunity. If we had millions of dollars that we could invest in our provincial parks we could do so.
MS. KENT: So to be very clear right now it is still only the tea house and the lower field where campers are allowed to be? That's correct?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MS. KENT: Okay, I'll just take one more minute, if the minister is not aware of the McNabs and Lawlor Islands beach cleanup on Saturday, June 1st, the Friends of McNabs asked me to put a plug in for it, to meet at Murphy's on the Water or certainly a boat operator from Eastern Passage would be happy to go over with you and bring you lunch. I would certainly appreciate it if given the chance to go over to the island with the minister. Once you have the chance to put your feet down and be on the island, it will grab you and you'll understand why we're pushing so hard to make sure lots of people get to experience that. I thank you and with that I'll pass things along to my colleague for Hants East.
MR. MORSE: I want to thank you for your enthusiasm, honourable member, it's nice to see.
[4:45 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
[Page 636]
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I hope I get credit for my enthusiasm as well when I'm done. I want to say hi to MacAulay, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Myers, my sympathies to him for as many departments nearly that have been in here, he's been here. I'm not sure if they let him go home at night or not. Just a couple of issues really for me. Not being the Natural Resources Critic anymore, I leave it in the capable hands of my colleague, the member for Pictou West. I think I'm just going to ask for my first item just to enlist your support for an initiative by some of the ATV users in my area. In particular I was approached by David Meehan. . .
MR. MORSE: Is this Brushy Hill Road?
MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure if I know, it's the road toward Long Lake, there's a piece of land that Wagner Forestry had us looking at, that I think is now before the Municipality of East Hants, as a part of a property for development. There is a roadway through that which is a right-of-way of DOT, which I think all of the departments have had some input into, it was a surplus right away.
MR. MORSE: To the Department of Transportation?
MR. MACDONELL: Right. So, DNR staff have been working with this group as a trail for ATV use. I know that this group is not feeling like they're being forgotten by DNR - I want to make that point - I think they're very pleased with the way staff at DNR are helping them with this initiative. I think really the request that they would like me to make to you is that they don't want to be left behind. There's some negotiation going on between them and Wagner, as far as another piece of Wagner land that they could possibly use for a trail to compensate for this piece of Crown right-of-way. I think they're worried that if those negotiations go south, if things don't work well, that the province just might wash their hands of them and let Wagner's off the hook when it comes to compensation for this piece of right-of-way that the ATV users are trying to negotiate with in terms of getting some other access.
MR. MORSE: I want to thank the honourable member for this. I am personally familiar with the file. The member's right, there was an issue there with the road being declared surplus by the Department of Transportation, but before that they would just basically deed it over to Wagner, they checked with their sister departments. We took exception to just relinquishing the road. We agree that it's important to have those trails and this was a successful one.
We had been in negotiations with Wagner on an alternate trail and the discussions have got to the point of possibly a land swap. Wagner does not want to give an indefinite easement and we're not prepared to sanction this unless we know that the OHV community will continue to have access. We are making good progress and actually, the Chairman of the OHV Minister's Advisory Committee, Laurie Cranton - you would know him to be an
[Page 637]
excellent person to fill those responsibilities - thanked me personally for sticking up for the OHV community and not just letting it be overrun by a huge development, which I know the honourable member wants to see happen, we all want to see the development happen but there are people that have rights that have to be protected before this is done.
MR. MACDONELL: Thanks for that, minister, I guess we're on the same page. I didn't get the impression that it was Dave Meehan who I was speaking with, but he certainly is pleased with DNR and the staff and the way they've been helpful and actually sticking up for the ATV users. I think their end goal is they don't want just a right-of-way over a piece of Wagner land that at some point the land will be sold to somebody else or whatever. I think they're actually looking for a piece of land that will be dedicated ownership. It looks as though if Wagner's were to get the right-of-way that is presently there that they have been using, the surplus right-of-way, they're going to own that. So it would seem only fair that the same consideration be given to the people who are going to be giving that up in the future. So yes, I really just wanted to send that message. It sounds like the minister is there anyway and I want to say I appreciate that and I know they would.
MR. MORSE: Can I just put in a clarification. I know that at the recent OHV meeting at Oak Island Resort, I was specifically thanked for doing this and I'm just contemplating whether, in fact, it was Laurie Cranton or maybe somebody from that OHV community, but there was an acknowledgement that somebody actually stood up for them and that this was a new experience.
You know sometimes we do things that do not please the OHV community, sometimes we do things that do not please, say, the residential communities. Just as long as it's seen on a balance, it's fair and that's what we try to do.
MR. MACDONELL: I think the club that has kind of taken the lead is the Long Lake Loggers, that is what they go by, but the Hants East Drift Climbers is the one that Dave Meehan was representing, so for sure, I think they are thankful and appreciative of the DNR's approach in this regard. I think they're not feeling left behind or that somebody is not speaking for them, so I really just want to touch base with the minister on it and be clear that we're both clear on where they're hoping this will go.
My second intervention is, I know you have correspondence from Art Redden, who lives - if I had a good arm I could hit his house from my office in Enfield. I think years previous we raised the question, more related to hardwood stumpage, I think, when volume agreements are tendered and given out there are some species that those who get the tender aren't interested in. So it was the inability of others to kind of get access to those particular species, whether softwood or hardwood, while they're in a licence agreement. You can tell me if I'm using the right terminology, volume agreements or whatever
[Page 638]
Anyway, I know that's part of the thrust of his letter, the fact that there were parts of these agreements or partials that have gone to tender and the companies that got them didn't make use of all the timber that was there and I guess he had people who could have, and had difficulty in trying to access that. I think his view was he should be able to go to DNR to access that and DNR's view was that the licensee would be the person to go to. So do you want to fill me in?
MR. MORSE: That's correct, if it's under licence, clearly we have to work with the licensee. I did receive a copy of the letter that was sent to the member for Pictou West, who is the DNR Critic, and the member for Pictou West did discuss this with me. We came to an agreement that some things were confusing in Mr. Redden's letter.
In one paragraph he says we're not allowing it to be accessible and then in the next paragraph he acknowledges that, in fact, it was made accessible. In one paragraph he indicated that there was no return because of the cost of harvesting the fibre. Anyway, he said he should have the right to be able to harvest the fibre and then he explains basically how there was no return for harvesting the fibre. So we're working on just trying to identify what is concerning him.
I confess that as somebody who is not an expert in this area, but somebody who does care, we're doing our best to decipher his concerns and we're going to work that out with the member for Pictou West and respond to him, because the letter was actually sent to him.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay. Well that's a good point. I just wonder if it's out of the way if someone just picked up the phone and gave him a call.
MR. MORSE: We want to, first of all, analyze exactly what he said in his letter and I've asked my staff to try to decipher some of the contradictions, actually, in the letter. In one paragraph he says we're not doing something and then in the next paragraph he acknowledges we've done it and all the nuances, you know, with the lingo, it's hard for me to follow the logic, not being a contractor or a forester. So I've asked for, I guess, an analysis of his concerns.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, well that's sensible enough, I think.
MR. MORSE: I'm doing my best.
MR. MACDONELL: I'm not acting surprised. I think in terms of, Mr. Redden, I know a former employee of DNR, so I don't know if that wins you any points when you retire but certainly - whenever you iron out where you think you're going, it will probably be a piece of paper that he's going to get but I just wouldn't mind if anybody was to give
[Page 639]
him a call and say, we got it, weren't really clear but you want to kind of go over that with me and maybe that would go a long way to helping to iron things out.
I have just one question about the change in regulations for off-highway vehicles. When it comes to private property, do users of ATVs have to have written permission from the landowner to go on their property, still?
MR. MORSE: Yes, but it's how we define written permission that we've tried to make it . . .
MR. MACDONELL: Not written?
MR. MORSE: We've tried to make it more comfortable for the landowners because oftentimes they are reluctant to sign a piece of paper, but they didn't mind agreeing to put up a sign. Well, if you put up a sign, that's been deemed a form of written permission. So the landowners apparently have been getting some legal advice and it seems to be prevalent right across the province and it did make them reticent to agree to sign a piece of paper.
MR. MACDONELL: So what was the legal advice, regarding liability?
MR. MORSE: The form of legal advice was just to be cautious. I'm not a lawyer, I can tell the honourable member that before I was minister, I remember lawyers coming in and trying to explain this to us at caucus and I made a real, concerted effort to try to understand what they were telling me. I can assure the honourable member, I was no more knowledgeable after they came than I was before. So I just take it that it is very complex and hopefully I know a little bit more today than I did then but there seems to be some confusion.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, well I just know from landowners who contacted me when I was the critic, they definitely wanted some avenue and to leave the onus on them to put up signs that say "No ATVs", was to me not - you know when I leave my property, I know where my boundaries are so if I'm going on somebody else's property, I know I'm not on mine. So I don't think the onus should be on somebody else to say no, don't come here. I think the onus should be on me to knock on their door and say, can I come?
MR. MORSE: This would be for established trails before April 1, 2006. This does not give somebody the right to just willy-nilly drive over your property if you've not given permission and the onus is on them.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you.
[Page 640]
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: We're trying to strike a balance and there's just a gazillion landowners in the province and effectively, through our good intentions, we were basically shutting down the trail system, so we tried to find something that worked for everybody. I, in no way, condone people abusing the rights of property owners who do not want ATVs on their property and if they go on their properties they should call the department and we will work with them to enforce their property rights.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, thank you, minister. I see my colleague from Pictou East is chafing at the bit, so thanks very much and thanks to the staff.
MR. MORSE: And thank you for your enthusiastic questions. Thank you for caring about all the issues that you brought forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we're moving along to the member for Pictou East, he's going to pick up the reins, now.
The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, it's a pleasure to have just a few minutes with you and staff. I must say that in the year and a half that I was Critic for Natural Resources, an excellent rapport was developed between the two critics, my colleague, my friend for Kings West and you and I developed a tremendous rapport which I understand is continuing to the member for Pictou West as well.
There's one concern that is overriding in Pictou County. I have had an opportunity to raise small issues with you and have them resolved very easily. The real concern that I have today is in relation to Neenah Paper and the announcement in February that the mill and the land would be sold. There was a tremendous concern from workers that they would, in fact, be sold separately. Now we hear that they are definitely being sold separately. The concern is great in Pictou County and I'm just wondering if you can give us some insight on the status at this time?
MR. MORSE: I'm not able to go into the specific discussions that we've had with Neenah Paper, other than to say that we've certainly had those discussions. I'm advised by Neenah Paper, actually their CEO, that they have negotiated a successful sale of the plant without the land. There were certain contractual obligations that were in place that supported the plant being able to continue, that were able to be included with this agreement of purchase and sale.
[Page 641]
That's good news for the people of Pictou County, it's good news for everybody who fits in that chain because this is not just the plant in Abercrombie, that is just part of the chain. We've got numerous sawmills and all the contractors and of course it spins out right throughout the community. There are 290 really good-paying jobs at that plant.
So we view it as a positive development that they were able to identify a purchaser who wants to continue the operation of the plant, that has the confidence in the major customer for the pulp that comes out of the plant.
As I told the critic and the member for Pictou West which, of course, houses Neenah Paper, when NewPage, and then it was Stora Enso who had challenges, we worked with them and we came to a resolution and there is some good news today financially about NewPage. When Bowater Mersey had challenges, we worked with them. We were advised that part of the work we did with them was, in part, the reason why there is still a plant operating there today, which is no longer up for review any longer, which is great news for the people of Queens County.
As the member would know, we've worked with Minas Basin Pulp and Power, that's another plant that was very much in danger of having to shut down. I would tell the honourable member that we are doing the same with Neenah Paper. I'm not able to predict what the outcome will be, but I can tell you that I'm impressed with them, they care. They want to see that plant continue and within the realm of the possible, which are always the parameters that surround the negotiations, we're going to do the same with them.
MR. MACKINNON: Just a few weeks ago there was an almost "be on standby" given to the union and it was on a Thursday and Friday. It was expected that an announcement was going to be made on one of those two days and that wasn't forthcoming.
The situation is - I'm wondering what kind - and I know you can't put all the cards on the table here, but I'm wondering what kind of coordination there has been between your department and the Department of Economic Development because this issue is something that both departments should be up to their necks in because it is so vitally important to this province.
MR. MORSE: I do understand the Department of Economic Development is in discussions with them. I have not been part of those discussions but in terms of the whole land holdings that are still part of Neenah Paper and the 70 per cent of the fibre that they got from their former land holdings comes from that existing block of land. They actually kept the best forest land with the sale to Wagner Forest Products, they kept the best for the plant and they sold off the more marginal forest land to Wagner for Wagner's purposes.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm sure, Mr. Minister, of the 500,000 acres that were, in fact, sold to Wagner that there were very good holdings included in that. My concern is that I'm
[Page 642]
wondering, in fact, if your department is looking at some of the sensitive land holdings that are in the remaining approximate 500,000 acres with some interest?
It seems that in relationship to the Bowater Mersey situation of a while back, there was certainly tremendous interest in preserving pieces of the holdings for future use of Nova Scotians. There just wasn't that same interest in the 500,000 acres that went to the Wagner group. So I certainly hope that the department is taking a different stance than it took with the Wagner holdings.
MR. MORSE: There's still 475,000 acres, approximately, held by Neenah Paper and just to clarify my comments and, in no way to diminish the value of the Wagner lands, it's just that the best lands from the point of view of a secure supply of fibre, were kept by Neenah Paper and that's what they're now trying to divest themselves of. They have invested extensively in those forests, the silviculture value in those lands is considerable, some of the finest lands in the province.
So we are aware and to your point about perhaps some of the ecologically-sensitive gems that are contained in that 475,000-odd acres, about 12 per cent have been identified as perhaps candidates for protection. We have had that discussion with them, with the Crown Share Land Trust that has been set up with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, which also includes the Department of Environment and the Department of Natural Resources. We do not control the trust, by the nature of the trust it's controlled independently of government.
I would suggest that those are candidate lands for consideration. I'm not going to be able to give the member all that he wants for answers but I hope the member takes some comfort that we are very cognizant of the importance of this 475,000 acres, that we are aware of what's there and it's a very valuable piece of land. We are going to do all that we can to make sure that the fibre supply is secure, both for the Abercrombie plant and the sawmills that work with them.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, it's not personal comfort I'm looking for, I'm looking for some comfort for the workers of Neenah and some diminishing of the concerns that they have. When we look at the Wagner Web site, there was a promotion of future residential and commercial uses of the 500,000 that they had actually obtained. We're very concerned that forest management may not be always the number one concern of a potential buyer of the lands.
Another concern that I have is, I guess it was a 99-year agreement that was made with Scott and there are also Crown lands that are involved in the process here as well. It's my understanding that with that 99-year agreement, those can be turned over to an entity as well in sale, which is another concern.
[Page 643]
MR. MORSE: We would anticipate they would ask for those lands under licence turned over to the owner of the new mill. Clearly, we're very concerned that that mill continue, we want that mill to thrive in Abercrombie. It's pivotal in the whole value chain in Central Nova Scotia and you cannot take that mill out without doing tremendous collateral damage.
I want to go back to the 290 highest-paying jobs, I think, in the area. I think they pay better than Michelin. That in itself would be reason enough for government to do everything within our power to ensure the continued operation of that plant by securing the supply of fibre. It actually involves something like 1,700 jobs directly and indirectly. It's absolutely crucial.
These are rural Nova Scotia jobs and I know the member is speaking up for his community and not for himself personally when he advocates that everything be done. Member, it's good to be talking to you again in this capacity. I certainly did enjoy the year and a half where you were my critic, you were a very fair and constructive critic.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Certainly there are other issues that other departments would have to address. Workers keep telling us that there are pension concerns and other matters that they have in relation to a new entity. I guess my time has expired.
MR. MORSE: I just want to tell you that I'm aware of these concerns and I am impressed by the responsible way that Neenah Paper is addressing all of its responsibilities to the people that depend on the continued operation of that Abercrombie plant.
MR. MACKINNON: I certainly will be looking for a transcript of what was said to pass along to workers. We just want to ensure that in the long term, in the years down the road, that we are, in Pictou County, left with more than the responsibility for Boat Harbour, which the province now has.
[5:15 p.m.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Minister and welcome to your staff, Mr. Gilford, is it?
MR. MORSE: Mr. President.
MR. PARKER: Oh, I'm sorry. And, Ed MacAulay, welcome, you were not here yesterday, your deputy minister was here. Pleased to have you both here and all the staff.
[Page 644]
I want to pick up where my colleague has just left off. There's a big concern in our community on Neenah Paper and most of the questions have been asked, but I guess we're just hoping your department and the Department of Economic Development will do everything and all that you can to facilitate a sale there. It's very vital that that business remain viable and have a proper wood supply. It's a large employer, as was pointed out, in our community and we're hopeful it will be a smooth transition to a new buyer. Obviously they've made the decision to sell and I understand it's in the process. Anything your department can do to facilitate that, the better.
MR. MORSE: I would like to acknowledge that you have brought these concerns to me. You've handled them in the most appropriate manner and it's important to be constructive at these times. As the MLA for the area and representing the Abercrombie plant, I wanted to acknowledge you have let me know this is a huge concern, but you've also been very constructive in the way you've accepted what assurances I am able to give and respecting the fact there's a limit to what I'm able to say. I just wanted to acknowledge the working relationship.
MR. PARKER: Okay. I guess my only question that hasn't been raised was around the Crown lands under lease to Neenah and certainly there are Crown lands under lease to NewPage, previously Stora Enso. At the time of a sale like that, the Crown land belongs to the people of Nova Scotia, administered by your department, by government, is it that when a new company comes in they would just automatically take that over from the previous company? Or, is that an opportunity for government to look at and say, the 99-year lease, I understand, with both of those large companies, we're halfway through that, how does that work with government? Can it be sold simply as an asset of the company, in reality it's under lease, it's really an asset of the Province of Nova Scotia? What's the role of government in cases like that?
MR. MORSE: We own the land, but under the Act, with Stora Enso there was a stipulation that we cannot unreasonably withhold permission to turn it over to the new buyer. But, it was part of the negotiations with them and we did use it to the advantage of the people of Nova Scotia. We wanted to make sure the new owner would continue to provide the good employment that came with the Port Hawkesbury plant. I would tell the honourable member that the same applies with the Neenah Paper plant.
We want this to be a successful transition. We understand why Neenah Paper has decided to divest itself of the plant. I'm very comforted by the lengths at which Neenah Paper is going to make sure it remains a viable entity into the future.
MR. PARKER: Is it considered an asset of the company that they're selling to a new owner or is it considered an asset of the Province of Nova Scotia? It obviously has value, it's worth something, so does the province have authority over it or is it just simply part of what the company is selling to the new buyer? Whose asset is it?
[Page 645]
MR. MORSE: The asset is that of the province, but it has some encumbrances on it which go to, originally it would have been Scott Paper, that under certain conditions they would have access to the fibre on those Crown lands. So, it's not a given that it's turned over to the new one, but it cannot be unreasonably withheld. We use that clause to make sure that we're getting the type of corporate citizen that we need to operate that Abercrombie plant.
MR. PARKER: So it's not a new lease at the time it's sold? The 99-year lease, or whatever it is, continues until it runs out with the new owner?
MR. MORSE: It rolls over to the new company, but, again, the province owns the land. What the company has is the right to harvest fibre off the land under certain conditions. We would hold any new licence holder to those conditions, that being that we want to see a viable mill at Abercrombie operating for many years into the future.
MR. PARKER: That's the desire, I think, of all of us who want to see it profitable and operate for a lot of years to come. Again, just one final question on the lease, then, if it was a 99-year lease, it's about 43 years, is it, since the company Scott Paper set up there?
MR. MORSE: In 1965, that would be about right.
MR. PARKER: So we're approximately halfway through that lease. So the new company that buys it will have the balance of that lease to adhere to, another 47 years or whatever?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. PARKER: Okay, I'll take that. We'll move on because my time is flying on here.
I want to come back to the issue that my colleague, the member for Kings West was talking about on ATV-designated trails. I appreciate the offer to perhaps sit in with the Off-highway Vehicle Ministerial Advisory Committee, when the time comes. Right now I get calls at the office on occasion and I'm sure your department has been getting them, they're saying that we're paying a $50 fee for a licence and I think $40 of that goes toward designated trails. The $10 fee is for the actual administration of the licence. So the question that people are asking is, where is my $40 going? What designated trails are out there? Where are we at with that?
MR. MORSE: You're right, $40 of the annual fees goes into a trust fund with the Minister's OHV Advisory Committee and the committee collected approximately $1 million each of the last two fiscal years.
[Page 646]
MR. PARKER: So there is $1 million, or $2 million now in the fund, or has some of that been spent on designated trails?
MR. MORSE: Absolutely, $800,000 was invested in 2007. Minister Barnet and I signed off on the recommendation from the committee for an additional, I believe, it's another $743,000 recently and it is spread all over the province. Of course this leverages other monies because they can only apply for a maximum of 50 per cent. So if they apply for $50,000 and they get $50,000, they've just committed to at least $100,000, so good things are happening with trail development.
MR. PARKER: Okay, so the money is being collected and it is being used around the province. I want to ask in particular, in the county that I come from in Pictou, the Gully Lake Wilderness Protection Area is a great resource in our community and it is used by a number of people but there is also a major ATV trail that goes right through that protected area. My understanding is there was up to five years to find an alternate trail around the wilderness protection area. Can you give us an update on whether anything has started in that regard?
MR. MORSE: The Department of Environment is responsible for the protected wilderness areas but we did have a briefing, actually, the last time that we met with the Minister's OHV Advisory Committee and they talked about some of the ongoing discussions to try to come to a consensus on trails and where it would be appropriate to have a trail and where it would not be appropriate to have a trail.
I regret that the invitation to you and the member for Kings West was not a month ago, because I think you would have very much enjoyed the Department of Environment's presentations and the comments from the Minister's OHV Advisory Committee. There are negotiations going on and this is a huge undertaking across the province, to try to come up with a province-wide trails system that is going to be reasonably acceptable to Nova Scotians, those who drive OHVs and those who prefer not to have OHVs too close to their properties.
We're making great progress. That committee, with their trails subcommittee, has been just an absolutely integral part of this. They are now telling me that they feel that we're leaders in the country.
MR. PARKER: But you can't give me a particular answer at this point, then, on the Gully Lake property? If you can't, that's fine, I can get it from you later.
MR. MORSE: We can check with Environment and get an update from them.
MR. PARKER: That's a local issue I get from time to time, people ask me what's going on with the Gully Lake - some people call it the Trans-Canada Highway through
[Page 647]
there, the major trail that hits up towards Cumberland County and it has been there for a long, long time. But now that the designation is for wilderness protection, it's our understanding that it's not supposed to be there, in time it'll be an alternate trail. So I guess we'll wait for an answer on that.
I'll move to some other issues here, then. Forest harvesting, I guess is an issue that has come up more than once. I know there are rules around riparian zones and wildlife clumps and boundaries and so on, but still there's a number of, I guess, abuses of cutting practices from time to time. I guess the most notorious example was the woodlot next door to Bob Bancroft in Antigonish County. There was some major siltation there, there was some damage to fish habitat and some deep, deep ruts. You've probably seen the pictures, the same as I, there's some really serious problems there with machines that are causing a lot of damage to our environment. Nobody wants to see that but, unfortunately, it has been going on.
There have been pictures from Cape Breton Highlands, from down near Keji and other part of the province. I have some pictures here, you've probably seen them, too. They're not very pretty - Liscomb Game Sanctuary, near Kejimkujik - have you seen these pictures, Mr. Minister?
MR. MORSE: I may have seen some of them, I'm not pretending to remember all of them.
MR. PARKER: Next door to Bob Bancroft and so on, there's a whole long list of them here - Southwest Margaree in Cape Breton and so on.
MR. MORSE: One of the advantages of being able to fly over the province, it's a way of just checking on what is happening there and yes, you do see the harvesters out there and they're clear-cutting. You can see that by and large, they're leaving the separation distances between the harvest and the waterways. You're seeing the wildlife clumps, the refuges. You get to see the regeneration. After a time those forests just look so lush. I'm not saying that it's pretty when they clear-cut them.
MR. PARKER: No, I'm not saying in particular about clear-cutting but just that sometimes - and it takes only one bad apple to cause problems for many, but there are some deep rutted problems out there that are caused by maybe working in the wrong season or not obeying the regulations that we do have. I'm just wondering what enforcement the department has to go after so-called bad apples and keep them in line, because like anything else, there are laws and some people will break them and if you don't keep on top of people it will continue to get worse.
[Page 648]
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: When these new regulations were brought in in 2001, there was a learning curve, just like the ATV action plan. This was all of a sudden coming in and telling some private woodlot owners basically how they were to harvest their forests, or tell the contractors that are harvesting a forest on behalf of the landowner. We tried to work with them, it was a matter of education initially, we just say that there was a learning curve. We are pleased with the level of compliance. You're right, there are some who work outside the regulations and where we get complaints, we follow up on them. But it's a lot better today than when we came in here and we told private woodlot owners, all of sudden you're not able to just do what you please with your forests when you harvest them.
MR. PARKER: Do you have dedicated staff within the department who would actually go and check to make sure that the rules, the regulations are being followed? Or is it on a case-by-case basis, when you get complaints?
MR. MORSE: This is a combination of our technicians and our enforcement staff, so we've got about 74 enforcement officers, depending on the time of the year, who are all capable of laying a charge or encouraging somebody to comply, plus we've got the forestry technicians. So we share out the responsibility within the department.
MR. PARKER: So since 2001, do you know how many charges have been laid?
MR. MORSE: We'll endeavour to get you that information.
MR. PARKER: But from time to time there are charges?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. PARKER: And I assume it's a fine that the contractor or the operator has to pay? Is a fine the penalty?
MR. MORSE: First of all, our concern is compliance, as opposed to fining them. We want them to abide by the regulations. This is not a money-generating exercise, it's a good forestry practices program and there has been a huge culture change.
MR. PARKER: Okay, well I guess my time is almost up and I just want to take my final few seconds to thank you, Mr. Minister, for your answers that we've had over the last couple of hours, counting yesterday and today. I look forward to working with you and your staff in the months and years to come, or whatever time we're in this position, and look forward maybe again to when we have a chance, with the other critic, to come together with you and your staff, so thank you again.
[Page 649]
MR. MORSE: Thank you again, honourable member. It has been a pleasure and we look forward to continuing that relationship.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The time has now expired for the NDP.
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the second hour on estimates and will, during this time, probably concentrate to a good extent on forestry which, in terms of natural resources, I know perhaps doesn't equate with mining in terms of the actual generator of income for the province but nevertheless, geographically covers an immense area of the province.
First of all, I was wanting to get a little bit of a response from the minister on how you view the GPI Atlantic Report. I'll let the minister put a little bit of his view on that report because it definitely points out some challenges and I'm just wondering how you would respond?
MR. MORSE: First of all, I think it's important to welcome a different point of view, in terms of measuring what we're doing with our forests. I know that the department is not necessarily comfortable with all the measures taken by GPI Atlantic but I think in general, they are taking a creative, outside-the-box approach to what we're doing with our forests.
I think it's good to have that discussion, I think you need to have the different points of view. I think the timing of the report could not have been better as we launched the Voluntary Planning public consultation stage of our natural resources strategy.
They did acknowledge that we're making genuine progress, that's the quote they used in, I think it was the second sentence of their press release, but they go on to say that there's a lot more that they think needs to be done. They recognize that the work we're doing with the Category 7 silviculture - that's the uneven age management and a more diverse forest - they recognize that the clear-cutting is, in their view, moving in the right direction. There's less clear-cutting today than there was five years ago, in 2001. We just appreciate that there are people out there who care what has happened with our forests and they make comments and I think they've tried to be constructive. We hope people read their report and give it consideration, both before and after they go to the Voluntary Planning public meetings.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the introductory quotes to the report goes like this: "Our forest industries are in danger . . . We're overcutting, seriously overcutting. We're clearcutting on steep hillsides that cause erosion . . . You get a heavy rain in the spring, it's like flushing a toilet, and then in the summer there's not enough water, the salmon get
[Page 650]
sunburned . . . In the past ten years, the crown lands have been raped and the crown land should show other people how the forests should be managed." That was Dr. Wilfrid Creighton, 1998, former Deputy Minister, Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forests.
I wonder how you put that into context with what you hear from people within your department? Obviously you have people right across the province, just like I get to talk pretty frankly with people in the Kentville office, a couple who I know on a personal level, they are within the department. They, in a quiet moment, raise some real genuine concerns and that's why in my opening remarks I welcomed the Voluntary Planning piece that is set in place.
How do you react when you read that? It's pretty stark, it's pretty hard-hitting and really challenges us about the future because GPI, and that's why I asked the minister for a general response first, if you take a look at the percentage of the age cohorts of the trees in the province, we do need to take account and perhaps be somewhat disturbed by this. I'm just wondering how you respond to that remark; it was stated a decade ago.
MR. MORSE: The first thing I want to say is that I met Dr. Creighton at the official opening of the Green Wing Legacy Project at Shubenacadie Wildlife Park. It was one of my first public functions. This gentleman came up to me, without any assistive devices, shook my hand, introduced himself as the former Deputy Minister of Lands and Forests. After a brief introduction, I think 10 seconds, he proceeded to tell me how we could fix all the things in the department, starting by getting people away from their computers and out in the forests. I've met Dr. Creighton who is now, I think, probably 104 and has recently been recognized as the world's oldest curler. I would just say that I really enjoyed Dr. Creighton and his daughter.
That's just a little bit of humour and I know you weren't looking for that in the response, but he does have some opinions and we look forward to having that poured into the mix as we go through the strategy review process.
The report also says, however, that Nova Scotia has less clear-cutting than a decade ago, more sustainable selection harvesting and more land under protection. So when they say there's genuine progress, I guess Nova Scotians are going to have to tell us what they want to see in their forests and also bearing in mind that we only own, as a province, about 25 per cent of our landmass. When we start talking about infringing on people's rights as to what to do with their land - which is what we did in 2001, we said it's not okay to harvest within so many metres of a watercourse, it's not okay to just clear-cut everything without leaving some wildlife refuges - we are dealing with private property owners who have traditionally had pretty much free rein with what they did with their land and their forests.
[Page 651]
MR. GLAVINE: A very similar statement was made by DNR, a position paper in 1997. Their reference was that forest stands are being harvested while they are still immature. Softwood harvests have exceeded the sustainable supply level and over-harvesting is a potentially serious problem demanding immediate attention.
That's from the experts in DNR. Sometimes now we'll often hear - and maybe it's a little bit like Dr. Creighton - from people out in East Dalhousie or Lake Paul or Mark Balser on the North Mountain, when their comments will go something like; gee, you know it's a good day when I see a pulp truck go by or a pulp truck in particular, and the logs are more than 8 inches in diameter.
There's no question, we are cutting more and more immature stands. So how are we going to bring about a greater balance to this? I know exactly where the minister is coming from when he talks about the private Crown land conundrum that we have in the province. We need to have some leadership on this issue because I've even heard, it's a perverse statement, Mr. Minister, that we sometimes now hear and I find it almost difficult to echo, that one of the best things that may happen to us, as a province, is, in fact, if the downturn leads to a closure of a mill or two, or the logs are no longer required in the United States at the rate that we've been harvesting them over the past three or four decades in particular.
So I'm just wondering how the minister reacts to those kinds of statements that we are hearing way too often. I'll give the minister my own view and I don't think for a minute that Irving closed the mill in Weymouth because they weren't in an economic situation - there was less profitability in what they were doing, although that is one of the arguments, because they were having to go further and further for their logs but, at the same time, I have had the opportunity to fly over southwestern Nova Scotia. I was at a presentation by the College of Geographic Sciences and looked at their satellite imagery of southwestern Nova Scotia. Now I don't have to be a professional forester to realize that there are some real troubles in that area. I'm not sure if it's over-cutting, if it's under-silviculturing, that we haven't been replacing at the level that we have been cutting. I'm just wondering how the minister reacts to some of those comments?
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: I'm getting a wealth of advice here to go with what I've learned over the past couple of years. The 1997 report did identify that there was a problem. As a result of that, we dramatically increased the amount of silviculture and I guess it even went from the point of something like $3 million a year to $17 million a year. That's almost like tending a vegetable garden; if you let it go to weeds, you do not get much of a crop and if you do take good care of your garden, you're rewarded richly. In essence, that's what we've done.
[Page 652]
Around 2000 we implemented the $3-a-cubic-metre and the private woodlot owners to go to the silviculture fund, which is now being entirely picked up by the province for the two years as we go through this trough in the cycle. The forests have responded dramatically.
Yesterday the question came up as to just where does the fibre come from? There has been a bit of a transition because it used to be about 8 per cent or 9 per cent from Crown land, which is always of interest to me because we only own 25 per cent of the province, but it just shows how much was coming from the private woodlot owners. But with the downturn in the market, I think that a lot of the private woodlot owners are holding on to their timber until they can get a better return. So there has been a bit of a shift here, and I'm going to the question of sustainability, too, but I think this is relevant; from the private woodlot owners it's now down to 53 per cent but it's still the majority of the source of fibre.
The industrial lands, which as an example would be the Abitibi-Bowater lands, Neenah and NewPage, that is now up to 15 per cent, but it's not that we're taking more off the Crown lands, it's that we're taking less, or Nova Scotians are taking less off the other lands. So you crunch the percentages today because of the depressed state of the industry, it changes the percentages. So 53 per cent for private, 32 per cent for industrial and 15 per cent for Crown.
Now, in terms of the sustainability, this is something that is a concern of the department. I'm not sure if the member asked me this in estimates last year or the first year . . .
MR. GLAVINE: Something similar to this, especially around the allowable harvest, which other provinces have instituted and I think very successfully, as part of their forest strategy. I believe that will be - I don't think I'm predicting with any great insight here as to what will come out of Voluntary Planning, but I absolutely believe that will be - one of the recommendations, that we move to a sustainable, allowable harvest on an annual basis. I think it has been successfully done in other provinces and I think it's a great arm piece for sustainability of our forests. So I'll just let the minister continue. Sorry for interrupting.
MR. MORSE: I appreciate the honourable member's comments. That is an intriguing notion because implicitly it could lead to a further intrusion on the rights of private woodlot owners as to what they want to do with their timber. We'll have to see what happens in the process and we'll listen to Nova Scotians and we're going to be looking for some guidance as to how we go forward with managing our forests.
Last year or two years ago, I suspect I would have talked about 4 million cubic metres roughly grown of softwood a year, it might be a little bit more, approximately 2 million cubic metres of hardwood and again, the problem with the hardwood is that a lot
[Page 653]
of it is maybe low grade and then it goes to your question about pellets and co-generation and other ways of making better use of what has been perhaps a waste product, to some extent.
So as long as we're harvesting within those guidelines, particularly the softwood, then it is sustainable, and we are. That's about what we were harvesting before the dip. We measure this in two ways, and this was one of the first excursions that the deputy and Ed MacAulay took me on to Truro and they explained how they measure the model, because I had the same concern. I think I told you, either last year or the year before, I wanted to make sure that the harvest was sustainable.
There's two ways that we do it; one, I guess satellite pictures or aerial photography and they map it and they are able to estimate the amount of wood fibre, based on these aerial photographs. The province is broken up into sections and every year we do a certain section and I get to sign a form authorizing that expenditure.
The other thing we do is we actually go out and we measure the girth of select trees - up until, I guess, the time they are cut and then the girth is zero. We try to reconcile the two inventories of wood fibre. Based on tracking, what's happening in the province, either from the air or by measuring tape, using random sample, we feel that it is sustainable and, in fact, we would be adding to that inventory because of the depressed state of the industry in the last couple of years.
The Maritime Lumber Bureau is saying that the exports to the United States are down by 50 per cent, as of last December, something like 52 per cent, which is hugely serious. Of course the 52 per cent that is going there is not bringing back the profit margin that they were receiving just a few years ago. Anyway, I don't want to take up all the member's time but a good question and it was important to me when I became minister.
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, and I'm basically using the GIS inventory data that was provided by the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. It said the youngest age class, 0 to 20 years, which includes those stands that have been clear-cut, has increased considerably as a proportion of total forest cover since 2001 report, from 16.3 per cent of the province's forests in 1999 to 23.9 per cent in 1997 to 2003.
So that would indicate that perhaps we aren't moving in the right direction here, that we're actually increasing the percentage, based on the DNR's own GIS inventory. I guess to collaborate with that some of the satellite imagery that I looked at from the Centre of Geographic Sciences, were showing areas where you have massive clear-cut and very, very young stands and the turbidity in rivers from runoff had changed over a 10, 20 year period. They now had enough data that they were actually able to do a little bit more of a longitudinal study where they were showing that based on fairly similar snow melt and spring runoff, the turbidity in lakes and rivers was showing a considerable increase.
[Page 654]
The only area I looked at with any degree of a significant amount of satellite photos was in western Nova Scotia. I asked the question of the Lewis brothers, I happen to know the Lewis brothers. I asked them about the closure of the Weymouth mill and what was really driving Irving to close that mill. There's no question that inventory was a question that they raised. In looking at some of the data that's in Lawrencetown and even some of DNR's own statistical picture here, although this is reflecting the entire province, I think it does raise some alarm in particular geographic zones of the province.
The minister could very well be reflecting that in parts of the province the forests have been managed more sustainably and it could be due also to some of the practices, whether it's Stora or Neenah Paper, but we may have some pockets that, in fact, are going through very strained times, in terms of having such an enormous percentage of young growth in the forests compared to trees that would be, let's say, between 61 and 80 years of age, or 80 to 100 years of age, which I believe the statistical picture again, from especially over a 50-year period, from 1958 is 50 years in terms of the life of the forest, is, in many cases, about half the life cycle of many species.
We've seen that there has been a movement downward, from the 81 to 100, of 16.4 per cent of the forests in 1958, to 1.2 per cent by 2003. So that's a pretty dramatic change in the forest inventory and coming from a couple of different sources. So I was wondering if the minister would comment on whether or not we do have some geographic zones that do have trouble with the sustainability of the forest, based on DNR's own inventory?
MR. MORSE: The area which is under greatest pressure is the central zone, actually. That's where we have a lot of the major sawmills and that is a challenge. The member would probably recall on that happy day when we announced that Ship Harbour-Long Lake was a designated candidate for a protected wilderness area. That was difficult because the Crown land that we own there and the pressures for harvest are such that we had a hard time coming up with enough alternate Crown land to offer to Neenah to make it happen. Yes, that is an area of pressure.
With regard to the breakdown in the age of the forest, we like to see it split up between 1 to 20; 20 to 40; 40 to 60. There is a small increase since 2000 in the old growth forest. As I understand it, it was 0.9 in 2000, so there's a very small increase in terms of the size of the total old growth forest.
As a source of carbon sequestration, and this gets into climate change and is something that is of considerable interest to us in the Maritimes, particularly in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we have a managed forest here and those trees, if you will, the growth of fibre which represents the source - as the sink - is greatest between ages 10 to 45-50. Okay, I guess I am advised it is age 10 to 50. That's when they really bulk up. Once they get to that stage, they start to slow down, there is a maturity and actually, not unlike humans, they're not as vigorous any more and are more susceptible to diseases and insects.
[Page 655]
So it's important to respect that life cycle and not let them just become an area for insects or disease and then contaminate the healthy forests.
[6:00 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: I guess probably I'm not entirely comforted by those comments because in some ways you're saying that our managed forests, while they may be great pulp producers, they're actually in some way superior to what nature gave us and did reflect greater biological diversity, had greater range of age and higher percentages through 100 years of age of the trees and even a percentage over 100 years.
The report again from GPI said, "Despite increasing talk of 'sustainability' in both industry and government circles, the available data show no evidence of effective forest restoration or increased age diversity. On the contrary, they indicate that Nova Scotia's forests continue to become ever younger, thus forfeiting the substantial benefits, services, and values of older forests and compromising forest sustainability." So there's definitely two conflicting points of view here.
MR. MORSE: And I'm looking forward to letting Nova Scotians have that discussion as they do go through the strategy review process. I know that I've heard both points of view. I do accept that if the only goal is to generate as much fibre as possible, that the information I gave about age 10 to 50 is correct. I see that as I see trees go through their life cycle and, having been around for 53 years, you can now call on that experience.
This does not necessarily contradict the uneven age management approach because that also goes to harvesting. The important thing is to do the silviculture and to make sure that you've got the best trees and not necessarily go in there and high-grade them, which is what made such a mess of our forests in the first place because in the past the practice was to go in and cut the best trees, and if you cut the best trees, that means all the trees that are less than the best are now providing the seed stock for the new generation.
We're trying to turn things about in the province. The member is right, the private woodlot owners are very interested in the Category 7, that's uneven age management. It can be a more diverse forest because this is not just about growing red spruce, it is about growing whatever that landowner wants to see on their property.
I'm not sure that it should all be to the exclusion of either the monoculture or the mixed Acadian forest, uneven-age managed Acadian forest, I think there's room for both. I think with the education piece that's being done with the Category 7, a lot of people are enthusiastic about changing the way they manage their woodlots. I think that by the end of this year there will be a lot more discussion and let's hear what guidance we get through the strategy review process.
[Page 656]
So I appreciate the member's comments. I didn't want to depict the department's position as being that there's only one way to manage a forest and I think that's what you needed to hear from me.
MR. GLAVINE: That's important. I know it is a tremendous balancing act, especially where in Nova Scotia we have only 25 per cent of our forests that are Crown lands, 75 per cent in the private and at the same time we're experiencing this downturn and we're talking about a transition plan. I mean how is that going to actually help support the 30,000 private woodlot owners, in terms of some management and support as they will eventually move to a healthier time, but also needing to have a healthier forest base as well, and especially towards uneven age management, when we have less than $1 million, I believe, currently going into Category 7? Is it less than $1 million, Mr. Minister?
MR. MORSE: The initial investment was $570,000, a portion of which went to education purposes. That's not the end of the road, in terms of investment in Category 7. With the passage of this year's budget, we certainly anticipate that there's an opportunity there to put more into Category 7. In a sense, we're working with those private woodlot owners and we encourage them to learn about all the options for their forests.
MR. GLAVINE: Just a few other related questions. The Christmas tree industry in the province, which again has been an important economic generator in certain areas of the province, I'm just wondering how is the health of the Christmas tree industry and the current state of that industry? We know we lost a couple of producers last year, but is the outlook reasonably good for the Christmas tree industry?
MR. MORSE: This is caught by the challenge of the higher Canadian dollar. It has been a difficult time for them. The member would be pleased to know that the original natural advantage, which was the Nova Scotia Christmas tree, I mean it's a beautiful tree, the balsam fir, the aroma, has encountered more competition and we are investing, through the Agricultural College, $0.25 million has been put to a needle retention program.
If we can evolve the Nova Scotia balsam fir into one that holds onto its needles for a longer point of time, that is a huge competitive advantage and, in fact, we committed in 2007 to $50,000 over five years and at the end of this past fiscal year we actually honoured the balance of that commitment.
Staff are just pointing out that there's the transportation costs and the United States is becoming more aggressive in pursuing them and there's also the artificial tree. I want to go on the record as saying that to me, a Christmas tree is not only the appearance but it's that beautiful scent of the balsam fir that takes me back to my childhood. That is something that you do not get from Walmart.
[Page 657]
MR. GLAVINE: I appreciate that comment, Mr. Minister. Hopefully, again, it is an important seasonal operation for employment and especially in rural Nova Scotia. These are jobs that actually, with pruning and thinning and managing these stands, are indeed very significant. So I guess we're probably in a little bit of maybe stagnation around perhaps the Christmas tree industry, from what you would be saying, and hopefully it's one that we can rebound with.
MR. MORSE: We do have a superior product but the Canadian dollar, the transportation, new competition from areas of the United States, has just forced us to be smarter about what we grow. We're making those investments and it's really amazing what they can do to change the attributes of the tree.
I was fascinated at a recent meeting with the Nova Scotia Christmas Tree Council, listening to how you can tweak what you do with the trees and just changing their gene code. It can be done in a much shorter period of time than you might realize. So I think there is a future there. We've perhaps just got a little complacent for a time and the new competition came on and changes in the economic climate but we're going to be on top of our game and a leader in this area in years to come, once more.
MR. GLAVINE: That brings me to a question that I actually had forgotten earlier when I was more focused on the health of our forests. Are we currently growing all of our nursery stock here, in Nova Scotia? Do we import some? Do we have the same amount in our nurseries now as we traditionally did? I know one of the nurseries that existed in a part of the province where I'm from in Annapolis County, has closed down. In terms of our nursery stock, I'm wondering how that is currently being managed?
MR. MORSE: The short answer is that it virtually all comes from Nova Scotia nurseries, but because of the depressed nature of the industry the demand for seedlings is down, it is impacting on the production. There's not a lot of market for a seedling that's a year beyond its time. There's a right time to plant them and regrettably, that's one of the costs of being in a depressed market.
MR. GLAVINE: By what percentage will we be down? Again, that potentially is another good summer job for university students for a couple of months or more. I'm just wondering by what percentage are we likely to be down?
MR. MORSE: Approximately 50 per cent, which is consistent with what's going on in the harvest. I would just mention that it's not as easy to get capable staff anymore in the summer. I think it's easier being a university student and finding a job today than perhaps it was when the honourable member and I were in university. That's good for them, they've got choices whereas it was a major coup to get that summer job tied up when we were in university, at least it was for me.
[Page 658]
MR. GLAVINE: A few other questions to finish off on forestry. When my colleague from Pictou East was talking about Neenah Paper and NewPage, now it looks like a positive deal and transaction deal there, but not necessarily including the lands which each company in Nova Scotia has guarded for future inventories and hopefully have managed them reasonably well, although we know there are some weaknesses which we just talked about earlier, 475,000 acres that will remain but 500,000 have been sold off to Wagner.
It's early going but there is a strong investment attitude or approach that Wagner's history reveals. I'm wondering if this is of concern to the minister and the Department of Natural Resources that they may not be necessarily kept in the most viable forest inventory and may not continue to be perhaps managed to the same degree and have the economic potential in the future? If we take a little bit of a look at some of their work throughout New England, which comes under pretty strong critical review, in terms of best management practices from a forestry perspective.
[6:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: The member is right in that Wagner buys land and then converts it to its highest and best use and that could be a subdivision, such as the one we were talking about in Hants East; it could be to create a cottage complex or it could be to continue to provide fibre to sawmills and pulp mills. They do have a more diverse view of what to do with the forests and it is something that we do watch, as a department, we're aware. The member would respect that it is a private transaction and they are the owners of those lands and with ownership comes certain rights.
We are very concerned that there continues to be a secure source of fibre for the Abercrombie mill and everybody in that whole production chain in the central region. As I mentioned before, the central region is the one that is most stressed, in terms of the amount of activity relative to the amount of forests. The member makes a good point and we . . .
MR. GLAVINE: I guess the jury is still out, perhaps.
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. GLAVINE: Okay, one of the shifts that we did see this year that I saw as being very positive because I've been asking questions around this for probably four years and that's the game sanctuaries, where cutting, of course, has been permitted but this year there was some area that was put back under protection. Is that the start of a trend there, towards being definitive about 12 per cent of the land being protected? Is this now going to remain in place or is this a temporary measure that is being taken? I'm talking about the Chignecto . . .
[Page 659]
MR. MORSE: We did make certain commitments and Harry Thurston was the person who wrote to me and I made the commitments back to him as to under what conditions we would allow cutting in the Chignecto Game Sanctuary. It's traditionally been less than 1 per cent. Actually when it became a game sanctuary, I understand it was more like savannah and I think we bought it for 11 cents an acre back in the time of the Great Depression. If the honourable member knows of anybody who wants to sell such land to the province for 11 cents an acre, we would be very pleased to speak with them.
So it has grown, I mean it transformed into a forest since then. The driving force behind it was the mainland moose, I understand that was the raison d'être for creating a game sanctuary and that continues to support one of the more viable mainland moose populations.
The whole Colin Stewart Forest Forum comes into play here because we got to distinguish between the purpose for a game sanctuary and the purpose for a protected wilderness area. A protected wilderness area is basically a tree sanctuary and a game sanctuary is a wildlife sanctuary. It is conceivable that the two could overlap but there is a very specific process to go through to identify a protected wilderness area, that's driven by the Department of Environment.
There are discussions in the Colin Stewart Forest Forum between the forestry industry and a group representing the environmental community, where it's a huge undertaking to map out how you get all those representative landscapes that are countless ecosystems and to say, these are the ones, and then do it in a way that is considerate of not only the forestry sector, and you have the mining sector, you have Aboriginal concerns, you have OHV concerns, but this is a good first step and I think we're really fortunate to have these people giving of their time. Does that provide some guidance?
MR. GLAVINE: I was wondering, does this now constitute a part of the protected areas? Is that to move in designating it protected, will it be part of the 12 per cent that will, from this point on, have that full measure.
MR. MORSE: There are discussions as to whether parts of the Chignecto Game Sanctuary should become also a protected wilderness area. The community takes a great interest in this and you've got the established trails and those that want to walk them, we've got the OHV community. There's a real vibrant discussion going on out there and I'm encouraged that the various stakeholders are becoming appreciative of the concerns of the other stakeholder groups.
Ultimately a protected wilderness area goes through a process that is led by the Protected Wilderness Areas branch of the Department of Environment. Because we happen to be the holder of the title of that Crown land, it does bring us into the mix and we're trying to make sure everybody's views are given consideration.
[Page 660]
MR. GLAVINE: A couple of other areas here. We know that the need for organizations like Nature Trust and their dedication to preserve areas, sometimes they can produce some conflicts with neighbouring land holdings that are being treated and looked after differently than Nature Trust. Are there some of these challenges, as well, that DNR is involved with sorting out? If I have a managed woodlot and I'm next to a Nature Trust holding and the fact that they're going to leave it pretty well entirely in its natural state, we know that a lot of deadwood can exist, fire becomes a greater possibility with lightning strikes. I'm wondering if these kinds of issues have crossed the desk of DNR at any time?
MR. MORSE: Essentially it's a good neighbour issue. The Nova Scotia Nature Trust may own the land, it may have a conservation easement that has been put there by the landowner, and the neighbour who has a woodlot would, hopefully, be considerate of the interests of the Nova Scotia Nature Trust or the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and vice versa.
We're not actively out there trying to encourage considerate behaviour. We have a system where we leave that up to neighbours to try to treat each other in a respectful manner and in the overwhelming number of cases it works out fine, and occasionally you get the Hatfields and McCoys, reading about them in the Nova Scotia media.
MR. GLAVINE: I've heard of a few situations, I was just wondering if it was one that DNR is sometimes called in to play a role in that regard. A couple of other areas.
I grew up in a paper town and I know how important forest protection is. One of the devastations that often comes along, of course, is either natural or manmade fires, which can be extremely devastating. I'm wondering how you would regard the province, DNR, in terms of preparedness to deal, if during our changing climate and so on, we have an excessive dry period and we do have an outbreak of several forest fires, I'm wondering how our state of preparedness is?
MR. MORSE: We have a mutual aid agreement. We have staff who are meeting with their counterparts in other provinces and, in fact, in other states, it's called the Northeast Compact. We're able to call on each other for equipment in times of emergency. Last year we called on one fixed-wing aircraft from Newfoundland during a particularly difficult time in Cape Breton, which impacted our numbers in the budget - right, Weldon - fairly significantly.
You do what you have to do to get the job done, a great rapport with the various volunteer fire departments, they are just crucial in the wildfire protection. We have our helicopter fleet and I can assure the honourable member that we do everything to make sure that our staff have state-of-the-art training and access to all the appropriate equipment that we possibly can for a province of our size, and have access through the mutual aid agreements, it's a great working relationship.
[Page 661]
MR. GLAVINE: And obviously a positive move to perhaps bring a little bit greater security to the seasonal workers as well, with the new agreement that has been worked out. I know it was a piece that I was not just interested in, but very concerned, for worker retention in particular, at a time when we're losing skilled members of all kinds of departments, both private and public sector. One of the areas that took up at least two of our Resources Committee meetings was the longhorn spruce beetle, if I'm getting that name down correctly.
MR. MORSE: Brown spruce longhorn beetle.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much, I don't use it for a while and I lose the flow.
MR. MORSE: One of the biggest challenges when I became minister was I had to learn how to say that fast.
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, that's right. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you could give us an update on what's happening and secondly, Mr. Minister, if there are other invasive species that are potentially problematic for our forest industry, along with this?
MR. MORSE: I must start by saying how much I appreciate the relationship with the CFIA - Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It was a bit of a challenge to establish that relationship but it was well worth the investment, both on the part of the province and the industry, I think we came out with a better plan. Through the Canadian Forest Service they are undertaking some novel ways of trying to contain and I'm going to say curtail the beetle.
Understand that this is just one beetle, I mean you've got the mountain pine beetle, which is devouring the British Columbia forests; you've got your native beetles in the province, which are quite capable of killing mature trees. The use of pheromones, which is the scent that they give off and I think it's got to do with the mating cycle, has enhanced our ability to set traps for them. There's discussion about, and I'm just going to say using pheromones-coated confetti, and that may not be the right substance but something that is biodegradable, and spread that in areas to basically trick the beetles into mating with the confetti - the pheromones-coated confetti. Obviously there are not going to be any offspring from that union. This is something that has been done by the gypsy moth - you didn't know there was going to be a sex education class here.
[6:30 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: You said it very delicately there, Mr. Minister.
MR. GLAVINE: Is this why the Minister of Health is in the Chair?
[Page 662]
MR. CHAIRMAN: You never know when my expertise is needed.
MR. MORSE: And if you'd like to embellish any of that, honourable . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll leave it to you, Mr. Minister, we have about four minutes left.
MR. MORSE: Anyway, it's a way that the gypsy moth has been curtailed in the United States. We hope that we have some success here. I'm not convinced that we're going to eradicate the beetle but if we can reduce the numbers and better contain it, then I think that that's a positive and we're always on the lookout for the creatures that hit their life cycles. We've seen that in Nova Scotia before, particularly in the Cape Breton Highlands. We're constantly vigilant but we're not able to dictate to nature.
MR. GLAVINE: I'd just like to finish off by thanking the minister and his staff for the information provided here and for also supplementary information that has been passed my way. If the minister has a couple of minutes to fill the hour, I guess that would be appropriate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, member for Kings West and I give the last few moments to the minister to maybe close the debate on this and read his motions into the record.
MR. MORSE: Well, I want to thank the honourable member for Kings West, not only for the use that he has made of his two hours, very constructive, but both critics, for the constructive way they handled their responsibilities. I think that the people of Nova Scotia are well served by this approach and I feel very fortunate to be part of that team.
I have no additional closing statements. other than to say:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E15 stand?
Resolution E15 stands.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Thank you to your staff for their hard work. We will stand recessed for maybe five minutes and allow Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to tee up.
[6:33 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[6:39 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
[Page 663]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if we could get on with the Estimates for the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.
Resolution E32 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $254,539,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Service and Municipal Relations for his opening statement.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak for a little while and talk about some of the services that my department provides. Before I do that, I have a number of staff in the room who are actually the people who make the department work. Over on my right hand side is Pamela Muir - no direct relation - Director of Finance; Greg Keefe who is the deputy; and Frances Martin who is the Executive Director of Policy. Behind me there are a number of people - I've got a whole bunch back there, actually.
Why don't you just stand up and introduce yourselves. Nathan Gorall; Graham Poole; Cameron MacNeil; Mike Duda, we're okay with that. My executive assistant is there, Matt Christie.
Anyway, before I get into the details, I would like provide a little overview of the department. My department, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, is quite a diverse and broad-based department, but generally speaking, it has two main functions. The first is to make sure the voice of Nova Scotia's municipalities is reflected in provincial policy decisions that affect local government and to bring government programs and services to citizens and businesses.
These functions are carried out in a number of ways. Much of the work on the municipal front is carried out through partnerships with the federal government and municipalities. By working with all levels of government, our goal is to strengthen and build healthy communities and to promote effective local government across the province.
The department also provides advice, assistance and program support to Nova Scotia municipalities. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is also the service arm of government. We're responsible for improving access to government information and services, for businesses, individuals and municipalities. Information registries on vital statistics, motor vehicles, businesses, corporations and land data are some of the information and services which are managed by the department.
[Page 664]
The department also maintains the regulatory infrastructure that provides for a fair and orderly marketplace in the province. In fact, at some point in their lives virtually all Nova Scotians will have direct contact with our department, be it for a birth certificate, a driver's licence, a car registration or, indeed, a death certificate.
Right now we have over 800 department staff who work in 37 locations in 24 communities across Nova Scotia. They answer information and service inquiries through our Access Nova Scotia centres, registry offices, call centre and Web site. We also have French language services available in several of the service channels.
Our Web site receives an average of 4,800 visitors per day, that's about 4,800 hits on our Web site a day, and our access centres serve about 5,000 to 6,000 people daily, so you can see that between the Web sites and the access centres, we have over 10,000 customer contacts a day on the average.
The list of programs and services to citizens and businesses offered through Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations doesn't end there. Other responsibilities include programs and services related to consumer protection, residential tenancies, petroleum product pricing, driver safety, taxation, business practices and the provision of geographic information. Also, we collaborate with other provincial departments and levels of government on an ongoing basis to continually increase information available to realize our vision of a single point of access for all of our government services.
[6:45 p.m.]
Now the brief overview I just provided illustrates clearly the importance of the work that staff at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations do. In 2008-09 the estimated program cost of providing programs and services to individuals, businesses and municipalities has increased by over $27.3 million from last year's estimate. So we're up about $27.3 million from estimate to estimate. The comparison is provided in the first line of the estimates page relating to this department, which is Page 21.1 for reference.
Now first I'd like to discuss additional funding measures which are spread over several program areas. After this, time permitting, I'll highlight the areas where program costs were reduced. Now a major part of the increase is the $10 million to deliver the new Heating Assistance Rebate Program to low-income Nova Scotians this coming winter. Under this program, depending on income, families who heat with oil, propane and natural gas may receive up to $200, while those who use all other sources of heat are eligible to receive up to $150. About 50,000 Nova Scotian households are going to benefit from this program and, of course, this is in addition to the help which all Nova Scotians - or I shouldn't say all, but most Nova Scotians - will receive through the Your Energy Rebate Program.
[Page 665]
There has also been an additional $400,000 added to a donation to the Salvation Army's Good Neighbour Program to help in the 2008-09 heating season. This reflects a doubling of last year's contribution. The Salvation Army program is offered province-wide and has been proven to be a particularly effective way to get help to those in need as quickly as possible. It's the government's hope that this contribution will again prompt generosity from corporate and community groups as we all reach out next winter to help those in need. I just want to say that members will remember that last year we put a little additional money into the Salvation Army program and the corporate community did step to the plate, the oil companies and Emera did step up to the plate and it was a good thing.
We've received, as a department, an extra $300,000 for the post-implementation costs of the new Registry of Motor Vehicles computer system that was implemented in the past month. The new Web-based system replaced a mainframe that had been in place for the past 20 years.
Nova Scotia is also getting tough on tobacco smugglers. This year the department has been allocated an additional $91,000 to help with measures to reduce the illegal sale of tobacco. This money will be used to help in the efforts; we work closely with the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies, as well as hiring and training additional staff to increase audit inspection and enforcement activities.
I'll stop there for a second. Certainly in the past month everybody in the House, I think, would be pleased to see what has happened. I guess Cape Breton was the community - in the metro Cape Breton area there were two or three large seizures up there and then I think one outside of Amherst. This, I think, is a result of the co-operation among the agencies, which would include federal authorities, by the way, RCMP and everybody else. So we're getting some payback on these dollars that are invested. I think one of those busts actually was worth about $0.5 million, so if we save $0.5 million in taxes, then the $91,000, you can see the return on it has been pretty good up to this point.
This year's budget has also provided $118,000 to complete the Homeowner Protection Act review and the Condominium Act review. These reviews were announced earlier this year and I know that they are of particular interest to the member for Halifax Clayton Park.
A discussion paper relating to homeowner protection is currently being developed by an independent consultant while a committee is being established to perform the review of the Condominium Act.
The department's Human Resource Renewal project has received an increase of $354,000 and as the provincial workforce continues to age, like the people in this room - I'm talking about the MLAs, not the staff - this project will help ensure the necessary human resources are in place to meet the department's succession planning needs. This
[Page 666]
initiative also aims to help increase staff retention by fostering a more positive work environment.
Extra funding has also gone to initiatives such as the Graduated Drivers' Licence program, $150,000 to support that; $222,000 to bring us closer to finding a suitable location for a new Access Nova Scotia centre in Sackville. One of the amazing things when you think of the land in Sackville is to find a suitable site and a suitable person to build or provide an Access Nova Scotia centre, it has been something which has come and gone, come and gone. Hopefully, we've just about got that resolved, have we not? That's good. I know that my colleague from out that way reminds me of that project weekly.
There are projected changes in program spending due to salary and pension increases amounting to over $3.1 million. In addition, an estimated increase of $227,000 is the result of transfer of staff from Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and Communications Nova Scotia. So we picked up additional staff.
This year there's also an increase in funding for several grants available to local governments and community organizations. For example, in 2008-09, the department will start implementation of the Building Canada Community Agreement. This fund is a seven year, $37 million, joint federal-provincial initiative that focuses on green municipal infrastructure projects and $8 million of that represents new federal-provincial funding in the upcoming - well, in the present fiscal year 2008-09.
As well, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, or MRIF, as it's commonly known, has been increased by close to $15 million. This program is jointly funded and administered by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. It supports sustainable community infrastructure improvements, such as water, waste water and solid waste management.
Now I should add at that time that all of those projects have been committed, so effectively there are no new MRIF projects, despite the fact that they have been phased-in, so that's why that money is in the budget but there will not be any new projects designated under that agreement.
$3 million of the department's new funding is directed to the new Transit Incentive Initiative and this new money is intended to increase access to public transit for Nova Scotians in unserved or under-serviced parts of the province. The funding can be either in the form of starter capital or it can be put in place to help expand existing services. To give you an example, I think it was perhaps in March, the Kings County transit system expanded. Now that would be an example of an expansion although that money was certainly separate and apart from this.
[Page 667]
Funding for the new capital program 2008 is $7 million and Public Transit Capital Trust program has increased by $8.5 million this year. These federal funds are primarily distributed based on the number of transit riders and will enhance existing transit systems. I think at least two members - well, I guess all three metro MLAs in here - would know that the large part of that money goes to Metro Transit or goes to HRM because you've got about 90 per cent, I think it is, of the ridership in the province.
Anyway, one of the things that we did with that money which we're very pleased with and we've gotten a very positive response is that we determined, as a province, that a certain portion of that money would go for accessible transit and that's distributed across the province and the Disabled Consumers Society. I think that was a very wise use of that money and enabled - a lot of those things, they're selling chocolate bars and whatnot to keep going, so this money was a big help to them. In total, all three of these transit programs will provide $18.5 million in new transit funding and should help reduce emissions by promoting and enhancing public transit across the province.
The federal gas tax transfer has increased by $5.8 million and these funds are used to build green infrastructure across the province. There's an extra $1 million emergency service provider fund in the 2008-09 fiscal year and members will know how positive that was received in the communities right across the province. The volunteer fire departments and other emergency responders hadn't had a whole lot of help in the past number of years from the provincial government and it was, I guess you'd call it a ringing success from the number of applications and the fact that a $5 million intention last year led to an $8.5 million disbursement with other demands, we're going to try and pick up some this year.
Anyway, organizations in addition to the fire department organizations, such as Ground Search and Rescue, lifeguards and ski patrols also benefited from this program. Other increases in municipal grants come in at about $1 million and the fiscal year includes increased funding of $100,000 for municipal governance reviews. What these reviews do is help municipalities better address the ongoing challenges that they face. In the past the department has funded studies in Westville and Canso, certainly this past year the Towns of Pictou, Shelburne and Springhill have all received the benefit of this program, which does make recommendations in such things as governance, structure and organization, as well as how to meet financial challenges.
There's reduction in this year's net department expenses from last year. Of most particular note is the cost associated with the transfer of the Assessment Services to the Property Valuation Services Corporation. This has resulted in a reduction of just over $14.7 million. There's also a reduction of $17.8 million in program expenses because of the completion of the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program. The federal transit transfer decreased by $750,000, again because the program is winding up, or has wound up.
[Page 668]
We will also realize an estimated $2.1 million savings this year over last, as a result of in-sourcing Your Energy Rebate Program. Last year we contracted that out and this year we're bringing it in-house.
Last year's estimates for the department include responsibility for the function of human resources and legal services. However, during the year these responsibilities were transferred to the Public Service Commission and the Department of Justice, respectively. This transfer reduced our budget by over $1 million.
[7:00 p.m.]
The fiscal year will also bring an amortization adjustment and estimated result in savings of more than $700,000. As with any department, however, there were increases to reflect spending, to meet department objectives which required offsetting reductions.
The changes I have outlined reflect the most notable changes made to achieve the priorities of the department. The end result is an increase in the estimate of $27.3 million.
Looking at TCA, this year two new projects that added the department's TCA upped it by $1.4 million. This is due to the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and the International Registration Plan. Now IFTA is a co-operative agreement among the 48 continental United States, as well as the 10 Canadian Provinces, that enables uniform collection and distribution of fuel taxes paid by motor carriers which are travelling in several jurisdictions.
Nova Scotia's participation in IFTA allows Nova Scotian carriers to significantly reduce their paperwork and compliance burden relating to fuel tax reporting by enabling them to file a single fuel tax return to the province that covers travel within other jurisdictions. So the fuel tax is distributed, then basically if you're a long-haul carrier and you run across five provinces, then five provinces get a portion of the fuel tax. Registration and fuel tax information associated fees are reconciled electronically between jurisdictions.
The IRP is another co-operative agreement among the same states and provinces, including our province. The International Registration Program allows commercial motor carrier vehicles to register in the home jurisdiction and then to travel to other jurisdictions without the need for a permit. As with IFTA, registration information associated fees are reconciled electronically between and among jurisdictions.
Staffing. There is also a change between this year's and last year's funded staff full-time equivalents. The funded staff is increased by 25 full-time equivalent positions and the major changes are as noted: during the upcoming year Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations will hire three additional staff to assist with the delivery of municipal grants. These positions are necessary to deal with the increased number of federal-provincial
[Page 669]
grants being administered. Four full-time staff will be hired this year to assist with the Human Resources Renewal Project. As well, three full-time positions are projected to be required to staff the Sackville Access Nova Scotia centre when that facility opens.
There are six additional full-time equivalents for collection services and, of course, one of the things that this department does is it is the province's bill collector. Debts that are overdue in just about any department are sent to us for collection. Because Your Energy Rebate Program has been brought in-house, it is projected an additional 4.8 staff will be added to see that administered.
There has also been a small number of FTEs added to enhance departmental initiatives such as the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Program, the Internal Risk Management Project, the review of the Companies Act to implement the payday lender regulations and, of course, that will depend on the outcome of the Utility and Review Board decision.
On the revenue side, we anticipate a reduction in ordinary revenue of just over $22.3 million and the ordinary revenue includes revenue from taxes such as gasoline and diesel tax, a levy on the private sale of used vehicles, the tobacco tax and the corporation capital tax. It also includes revenues from fees received, such as those from commercial registration, passenger registration, drivers' licences and company registrations.
Gasoline consumption is projected to decline 0.8 per cent over last year while diesel consumption is projected to grow by 1.7 per cent over the same time period. As a result, revenues in this area are expected to decline by just over $5.3 million. Clearly, the increase in the price of gasoline does reduce consumption.
The percentage point reduction in the tax rate which came into effect in January, 2008, has resulted in a reduction in revenue from the levy on the private sale of used vehicles. The expected reduction is slightly more than $2 million.
Tobacco product revenue is also projected to decline by $12.8 million, or 6.4 per cent. This is due mainly to a couple of things, one is the success that government has had in its efforts to fight tobacco use and the other thing, of course, is the distribution of illegal tobacco. We have every confidence that our tobacco control strategy will continue to help more Nova Scotians quit the habit. To combat the rise in illegal activity, we are increasing the number of audit and enforcement officers, as I said earlier, working with other law enforcement agencies to try and reduce it. However, we do expect tobacco revenues to continue to decline, which is a good thing, as long as the decline comes from people smoking less. It's not a good thing if comes simply because people are avoiding taxes.
Revenues from the unlimited liability companies are also expected to decline by over $6.3 million. For those of you who aren't really familiar with that, these unlimited liability companies, and the legal people can tell you, but we had sort of a Canadian
[Page 670]
monopoly on this. B.C. and Alberta looked at our monopoly and decided they would get into the business and they were charging less. So we had to reduce our fees to remain competitive and, of course, there are some companies that would opt to go there anyway. So once we lost the monopoly, we had to make adjustments.
Anyway, we do expect an increase in revenue over $2 million from commercial registrations and other miscellaneous items. Revenues and fees and other charges are projected to decrease by about $600,000. That is primarily the result of the reallocation of commission fees related to other departments.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I've just about expended my time and I will stop there if there are questions people want to ask, if not, I would be quite happy to continue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. We will turn things over to the NDP caucus. The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MS. BECKY KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to start by thanking the minister and his staff for coming out today. This is my first go at this particular role in the House, so not only do I want to thank you for tonight but for the very gentle and kind welcome that I've had in the House so far. I know things get kind of wild at times but I appreciate the approach that everyone is taking with me.
It's nice to see a couple of familiar faces, I notice Mr. Poole over there. Twenty-odd years ago-ish he was my boss at Nova Scotia Power and it's good to see him again. My, how things have changed. As well, I want to make sure that you express to your staff regarding the bill briefings that I've received in this session and the Fall session, they have been very helpful and I do appreciate it.
I recognize, Mr. Minister, that this is a very large entity, department, and what seems somewhat overwhelming at times with the programs and services that you do provide and are responsible for.
MR. MUIR: I will simply to say that I've been here for just about two years and every week I learn something else that I'm responsible for.
MS. KENT: I am going to drill down on a few things that are important certainly to my caucus and to the residents that I represent. Your honourable colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I had only 10 minutes with him and I kind of put him on the spot and said I have to get all my issues out and then you can take the time to answer. I was just going to say, forgive me, Mr. Minister, but I'm going to be more kind to him, I'm actually going to give him a chance to answer, but I do have a little longer this time.
[Page 671]
So not to delay any longer, certainly it won't be any surprise to you that I would focus some attention on the UNSM Memorandum of Understanding that I've been paying some attention to already in the House so far, signed last November. I don't think it's going to be any surprise, Mr. Minister, that there is a sense of a disgruntled UNSM President, body, about the effectiveness and the usefulness of that MOU to date. There have been some surprises, some disappointments in the dialogue. Certainly, the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation taxation issues, the MGA changes are just two examples that we have heard directly here in the House since we've been sitting this Spring.
Again, last night at the Law Amendments Committee, Robert Wrye, the President of UNSM - again, I intended to get a copy of his report - he referenced basically, and I could be a little off on the quote but I don't think so, that what's the use of it was the general sense of the comments. I'm going to go right to the essence of the questions that I posed yesterday, a couple of days ago in the House, in that, Mr. Minister, why didn't your department consult, I guess, more directly with them this particular year?
I know it has been expressed that you gave them notice, they've known for three years that it's coming. Giving them notice that it's coming is not entirely the same, to me, as having a dialogue, having that discussion with them. My understanding and in many cases and perhaps all, this announcement came out very shortly after many of them had approved their budgets. So to have to grapple with the challenge of the implications of this change, it's significant and it does beg the question of, in the spirit of that MOU, that memorandum of understanding, why wouldn't you have taken the time to have that discussion?
MR. MUIR: Thank you for that question. I guess I think I have an entirely different view of our relationship than the president of UNSM. Clearly I was disappointed in the tone of some of his comments in the speech which he delivered to the UNSM last Friday. Certainly working out that MOU, we worked very hard on that and I did not feel that the spirit of co-operation which led to the MOU was violated.
They're pointing to two things and one certainly, I guess there would be two major things, the tax on the liquor store, which you mentioned. Quite frankly, in the budget-making process we've said this has been a very difficult year. It's very difficult for me, as a minister, to say that you've had three years notice and you did not start to plan for that, I've not heard from any municipality about that. The only one I've heard about that has been from the UNSM and from the president. To be quite candid, there would be one thing the president and I would have some disagreement on. I mean if you were told that this change was going to take place and the protocol was followed, the notice was given, and it was given on three occasions that the prudent thing I think for municipalities would have been certainly to build that into your planning.
[Page 672]
Now what the president said to me and he said it a couple of times, we had a conversation about this indeed in advance of last Friday, is that well, you should have phased it in but I guess you could effectively say there was a three-year phase-in of this.
MS. KENT: So can you be very clear about when you said that they knew about it, were there discussions at any time around the potential to phasing it in or was the notice that they received, was it clear enough to really give them the scope or the magnitude of what that dollar value will be at the end of the day and the hit against their budget. Was that clear and is there a way that I can have a copy of that communication, was there something formal and written that would show me what that communication was?
[7:15 p.m.]
MR. MUIR: We'd be happy to provide that information. I don't know if we have it here or not. The disagreement that the president pointed out to me was that the letter said there would be some winners and losers. The fact was that if you had a liquor store where the inventory was being included for tax purposes, I guess to say that there was going to be somebody who was going to "be a winner" probably was not accurate.
On the other and, let me say that one of the things that did happen over this past three years was the municipalities have gained, which has to do with liquor stores, has been the number of the agency stores, which certainly would have increased in many municipalities. I think there are 45 or something like that of those agency stores now that certainly would have brought an increase into tax revenue in those municipalities where those agency stores are.
MS. KENT: And that would be the reference to the some winners, some losers?
MR. MUIR: No. I wasn't . . .
MS. KENT: Whose words were those?
MR. MUIR: . . . in the department when the initial decision was made, so to be quite frank, it was the president who had told me of this letter's reference to some winners, some losers, I had never seen a copy of that original letter.
MS. KENT: I guess in respect to the different perspective at this point or position at this point with you and the president of the UNSM, and recognizing that the president changes with each year of the cycle of their term, it certainly would be my hope that you, Mr. Minister, and the department would now pay particular attention to what I sort of envisioned as a shaky start to that longer relationship and partnership, certainly to better serve the municipalities that are under your department and certainly across for Nova Scotians.
[Page 673]
Staying with the UNSM for just a moment, I want to focus a little bit on some of their priorities. There is a priority list for 2008, number one in particular is the municipal capacity building for the municipalities across Nova Scotia. I would like to touch on - I have a limited understanding of some of the new standards that are associated to sewer and water infrastructure. Certainly clear water and the effect and treatment of sewage is key to the success of municipalities and the health of Nova Scotians.
Knowing that those new standards and regulations will require funding to meet, the municipalities can't very well do it alone, I don't believe, in some cases it could be quite substantial and I wonder will government be increasing the support and would that maybe be captured in the MRIF, but then I wasn't so sure because you said nothing else would be added to the MRIF projects. It seems like that might have been a fit. Is there an opportunity with this government to help some of those municipalities where they might be needed to meet those standards?
MR. MUIR: Well, I think there is. There are two things, the Build Canada Fund, which has a community component and secondly, is the federal gas tax money which is intended to be used to help municipalities - well, they can spend it how they want to but certainly the green component would be, I think, something that . . .
MS. KENT: So knowing that those standards were changing, that that would then be a challenge potentially, or another hit to their budgets, that those opportunities would be potentially available to them as it came forward from this government?
MR. MUIR: Well, I think as well, the other thing I've been told, the regulations come from the Department of Environment and Labour and that they have been known to the municipalities for about six years. So they've had, in co-operation with my department and the federal government, the opportunity to make plans to address those things.
I'm told that everybody has plans in place to address those things, certainly the water one anyway.
MS. KENT: Okay. I'm going to move to the land registration system and I recognize that there is a bill before the House and I won't be touching on that, it's more of a general comment and question.
Mr. Minister, the issues that come before me, as an MLA, and certainly as the critic for this area, are fairly straightforward in understanding it, in that constituents are literally losing bits of their property. There's longstanding ownership of land that is decades of paper trails, decades of documents. Suddenly, with this new land registration system, most probably an error occurs in some form of input or whatever, this electronic system seems to be sort of the final, that's it, no ifs, ands or buts, there's no way to go back and correct it without a lot of heartache for a landowner.
[Page 674]
An example is to have a parcel in a family piece of property for years and years, knowing that you have access to that piece and to suddenly have it gone when a new owner next door has their land put into this system. There's something to me that seems inherently unfair about that. My question to you, Mr. Minister, this land registration system I know, I can see the value in it in a lot of ways, but is it, in fact, achieving the goals that it was intended to? It seems to have some gaps in it that's creating a sense of unfairness to just the average landowner.
MR. MUIR: Well, certainly there was one high profile case up outside of Baddeck and to be quite frank, that error was not a result of the electronic filing system, as has been acknowledged by the individual who was involved. The lawyer made an error and that was acknowledged.
Our Registrar General, once we found out that there was an error, took the appropriate steps which included investigating the title information. He put a stop order on the land registry to prevent any further transactions in relation the property and notified the certifying lawyer and the Legal Information Association of Nova Scotia.
One of the amendments that is before the House now and I guess we have to look at that as an evolving thing, the decision was made some number of years ago, in full consultation with the Barristers Society of Nova Scotia, this was not something that was dreamed up by the department, although they might have thought it was a good idea. I don't know how long the consultation period was but it went for a long time with those who were affected or would be affected.
The legal community, the land surveyors, who also had a part of this, were consulted. They weren't entirely satisfied with the decision, there's no question about that. They have made representation to me, that they would like to have some changes which would give them perhaps sort of a role.
MS. KENT: The case that you referenced certainly was a high profile one. It's my understanding that there are more. Is your department experiencing those kinds of cases beyond just that high profile one?
MR. MUIR: Well, I think the question is, is it the system. You know any time you put in an electronic system there are some kinks to be worked out, I guess, primarily because the people who are involved in the system have to learn how to use it. Well, certainly the Barristers Society did in-services with the people. If you wanted to register land, and they had a date and I think it was three years ago, that the lawyers who wanted to participate in land registration had to take this training.
I would expect in the old system there were some glitches, too, well, I know there were because you hear of them from time to time. I'm going to look around for a little help
[Page 675]
on this as to whether we have experienced more under this system. I guess the advice from staff is that the answer is no, that despite the fact there is the occasional glitch, that the system, given the enormity of it, because everybody in the province that is going to register property now has to get involved with this thing. The answer is no.
MS. KENT: Perhaps if I could suggest that maybe it's an opportunity for some public education. I think any time you're dealing with a land purchase it's a stressful time, it adds an element for anybody who's got that in their future regarding a land purchase, once it's done, it's done and it's not up there for everyone. Perhaps that's an opportunity for that because I think that's a very real concern to many residents and property owners.
MR. MUIR: You know there's - at least according to the paper, and again highly publicized incident in Spryfield, which was very unfortunate this past weekend, had to do with the location, according to the paper, of the building on the property. I think that one was registered probably a long time ago, I think they said the lot was in the family for a long while. Sometimes the situations that arise aren't necessarily as a result of electronic system. Undoubtedly there have been things that have happened that we would sooner they had not and I expect there will be a few more until this thing is just routine and everybody is fully familiar with it.
MS. KENT: Okay, thank you. I'm going to move now to the United Way 211 call service. In the 2006 budget this government allocated $100,000 to determine the feasibility of establishing that 211 service. I'm sure I don't need to reiterate the benefits to that service, I'm sure that you, Mr. Minister, are fully aware, as is your staff. Last year during Question Period I took note that you had said that you could see that this may come if the government is in a positive financial situation and I guess very clearly, is there anything in this budget that will help move this particular service forward? Could I have some details on how that feasibility time period went, or is it basically dead in the water here?
MR. MUIR: Well, this year we were not able to fund the United Way 211 proposal and at budget time in all departments - and this year was a tough year and next year is going to be a tough year - we were faced with a number of what we say were good programs all competing for the same dollars. We took a hard look at what we thought would benefit the most people and be sustainable and we didn't think 211 was the top of our priority list. For example, 211 or a Family Pharmacare Program; 211 or fund Avastin; 211 or a colorectal screening program, I mean these things.
In 2005, just to give you a little bit of history on this thing, the province received a proposal from the United Way of Halifax to establish a 211 service. The proposal indicated the startup funding for 2006-07 fiscal year would be $400,000 and then $1 million a year after that.
[Page 676]
As a result of that request, this department received $100,000 to review that United Way proposal and provide further information to government. As I think the honourable member is aware, Deloitte, who had experience with the establishment of the 211 service in other Canadian provinces, did a review and that review was completed I think it was in October 2006. So we had the review and certainly there were positive things about the service, but were there other things, which I think at least the department's view was, that would be more positive for Nova Scotians and the answer was yes.
[7:30 p.m.]
MS. KENT: Is it this government's intention to continue to have it at least on their radar and it's not going to just completely - there's still a lot of energy being put into this . . .
MR. MUIR: Let me put it this way; you know some of the folks in the United Way?
MS. KENT: I do.
MR. MUIR: Some of the people who are pushing this. There are days I would like to see it disappear from the radar but no, they are as you have described, an energetic group that thinks this is a worthwhile program and I am sure that they will continue to see that it is put in front of government.
MS. KENT: Thank you. This one will be fairly quick but it is an important one. Consumer protection, you know what it is like to have a constituency office and have people come to you with various issues that they need help with and it's a recurring theme, that they are feeling they are getting a raw deal or perhaps not all the information. The need for consumer protection, a consumer advocate, I believe, is still great in this province. I'm wondering if your department is giving any thought to anything around this nature?
MR. MUIR: Well, we've done a couple of things with consumer protection. We felt for a couple of years, one of the items that received a lot of press was around payday lenders. We did tackle that from a legislative perspective and we're now awaiting a decision from the Utility and Review Board about what are appropriate rates. That's certainly one thing that is very current.
Also, in this past year, one of the things that we received, and it was funny, we knew it was out there but we really didn't get any direct communication about it, was the unhappiness that particularly people in the metro area had with some of the condos. No question, there were some really very disconcerting stories. I mean people go and spend $0.25 million for a condominium and two years later somebody comes along and says leak, I need another $40,000 or $50,000. So we are currently, as mentioned in my opening notes,
[Page 677]
taking a look at the whole issue of new home construction and not only condos but that whole issue of consumer protection, the broadening of new construction.
On top of that, there were concerns about homeowner or consumer protection, some of the things that are possible right now within the current legislation that governs condos. So we are having a full review of the Condominium Act and if there are things in there that quite frankly should be cleaned up, and we'll call it consumer protection, it's our intention to do it.
MS. KENT: Good, pleased to hear that. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Approximately two minutes.
MS. KENT: Okay. I'll finish off. I'd be remiss if I didn't bring in a colleague's issues that have been before the House here on occasion and certainly it's important, I believe, to our municipalities in Nova Scotia, is the issue with cosmetic pesticide bylaws.
As you know, UNSM passed a resolution for support enabling legislation around the ability to create bylaws. Ontario recently is moving forward with a provincial ban. I guess two questions, what is stopping you from proceeding on that course with the enabling legislation for cosmetic pesticides for the municipalities? Is there any potential for this government to be looking at something on a larger scale, provincially, as did Ontario?
MR. MUIR: I think this certainly, going back to the UNSM, was their number one priority. Clearly, every time I met the president of the UNSM, after we exchanged greetings, he would always say, are you moving ahead with pesticide recommendation?
We discussed this at great length, as a government caucus. It was felt, as a result of those deliberations, that we would be better to study the issue a little bit further and when something is done, the right thing is done. For example, I can remember the 1998 discussion about this, as can my colleague who is in the Chair, it was long and it was painful. The Law Amendments Committee was a learning experience for a new MLA.
Now my colleague was a little bit more experienced than me and was not as overwhelmed but it was a very divisive issue. To be quite frank, I want to tell you the truth, if there hadn't been a minority government, I doubt if that power would have been given to Halifax if there hadn't been a minority government. It was done at that time and certainly there was a member of your caucus who was very supportive of that. I'm not so sure that he is simply interested in the cosmetic use of pesticides, from his comments in the House the other night I think he might be inclined to go a little further on that.
[Page 678]
So there's the whole issue, one is, what is the best thing? Now it has been 10 years in Halifax where you can still buy the stuff, they say to me the only people who couldn't use it were the professionals. So we had a lot of midnight lawn experts and that wasn't really good and they said it wasn't effective. Now somebody else said, well part of this is the education part of it, and I agree. I think probably less people are using these ornamental or cosmetic pesticides than they were before.
Secondly, the issue is that well, the science is inconclusive in this thing, all the products that are being used are approved by Health Canada. As far as I know, no product is being used - not legally used - unless it has been approved by Health Canada.
A third thing with the issue is that sale and ban might be the thing.
A couple of criticisms that I got, and actually I got this from both sides, I met with the people who want to see this stuff banned, I met with the people who make their living by putting it on lawns, they all expressed the thing was that probably it's not the best policy to give that decision-making to the municipalities because you're going to get a patchwork across the province. So we are trying to determine that if we move forward in this, with input from my colleague, the Minister of Environment, what's the best policy on this, to be quite candid? The policy which was suggested by the UNSM may not be the best policy.
MS. KENT: Thank you. I'll wrap that up with just a thanks to the minister and staff for taking the time to answer and I'll give the floor to my honourable colleague from the Liberal caucus.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, honourable member.
The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thanks very much. Actually I had wanted to ask you about the cosmetic pesticide discussion. I know we had a chance to speak about it, I think it was on late debate or Opposition Day, one day, it must have been that. I heard your comments but I did want to mention that yesterday at the Law Amendments Committee, the president of UNSM had mentioned again that he was very disappointed not to see those amendments coming through.
One of the things I'd like to say, I guess in my preamble, would be that I think there has been a real shift and a surprising shift from UNSM that they even want this opportunity now. As you say, in 1998, they didn't want to go near it with a 10-foot pole, they didn't want to be pressured, they didn't want to find themselves in a sort of jam between the two parties, the two different viewpoints.
It has really changed a lot now and they'd like you to do something and to give them that opportunity. I talked to one landscaping company that works across the province,
[Page 679]
they did say they would prefer one program that would work everywhere because they're working in different municipalities and . . .
MR. MUIR: I've heard that as well.
MS. WHALEN: Yes, but interestingly enough, that landscaping company was not opposed to having these requirements coming into play because they see where it's going, they know this is happening in other provinces and other places and they've gotten used to HRM and are successfully operating under the new rules.
MR. MUIR: No question, they want consistency and if there is going to be a ban, ban it across the province, and if there's not going to be, there's going to be a set of regulations that enable this product to be used or if there is some restriction on it, make them uniform so at least people know.
MS. WHALEN: Well I guess I'm saying to you, maybe that is where we should go, as the UNSM didn't ask for enough. Maybe you should go look at it provincially or have those discussions with the stakeholders, I know you wouldn't do it without that, surely.
MR. MUIR: And there's no question, the major retailers are going to pull it from the shelves and maybe it's going to go away by itself if we don't do anything, that's not what I'm suggesting but . . .
MS. WHALEN: They're even ahead of us.
MR. MUIR: I think the writing is on the wall.
MS. WHALEN: Exactly, and as you say, even the commercial sector, those stores making money off the sale of the products, are saying that's not where we want to be, it's not where our customers want us to be. So I think there is a real argument and you would find some support among the Opposition Parties to tackle that issue. Even in my own caucus, I'll be frank, there were people who remembered 1998 and said, well you don't want to go there but we've had that discussion and I've said times have changed dramatically. So they may have been as well where you are but I just suggest there's a lot of room for movement.
I did want to mention that concern of Robert Wrye and the UNSM. I know that the MOU that you have in place, I would say is positive, it's a good thing to have that.
MR. MUIR: When fully implemented, that annually is going to mean $37 million to the municipalities and in today's value, it could be more.
MS. WHALEN: That doesn't really become effective, that amount, until what year?
[Page 680]
MR. MUIR: I think it is 2011, everything is phased in. But even this year, just to kick off this year on the capping of education was something like $8 million to the municipalities. So you know it's - sorry, 2015 is when it will be completely phased in. So when one takes a look at the $8.5 million for the emergency providers fund and the $8.5 million for the money that municipalities didn't have to contribute to education this year . . .
MS. WHALEN: That means a lot to have capped it and particularly where we capped their revenue by virtually capping almost every property that is residential, at the cost of living, it was the right thing to keep that in line, I think so, so that we didn't take an inordinate amount of their revenue, so that does make sense. I thought it was important.
There was another point raised last night around the amendments to the MGA. One of them was the municipal auditor and UNSM did not seem happy about having a municipal auditor. I thought HRM, in earlier discussions with them, they welcomed the idea.
MR. MUIR: Yes, and I guess to be fair, maybe we should have had a fuller conversation with the UNSM. It's in the MOU, as you know, and our intention was to put this in there as a place holder, recognizing that if there was any financial indication it would have to be - you have to give a year's notice for this anyway and once it was in there was a place holder - then we could sit down with UNSM and develop this thing collectively. That was certainly our intention.
You know I'm somewhat surprised a little bit by the push back from UNSM on this because there is so much money involved, whether it's federal programs or anything else and then you'll get HRM that wants one, I mean they've come up and asked for one, not to oppose somebody who would be in a position to go in and give you advice and see if your practices were good. I just think we've advanced so far and there's so much money at play in municipalities now that this is probably something that, like you say, times have changed, I think the public are ready for it.
MS. WHALEN: I think the public would welcome that level, it's a higher level of accountability and oversight and there would be better recommendations.
MR. MUIR: I'm not so sure, I think the language said that an auditor general will. I think tonight you spoke with Nathan and we're going to try and make this so everybody is happy.
MS. WHALEN: I think it was the cost that was concerning them, that we would be creating another costly organization that they'd have to fund, that's what I've heard at Law Amendments Committee anyway. So I just wanted to mention that again, the level of
[Page 681]
consultation maybe was lacking and that they're not on the same page, even though it's appearing in our amendments. So that was one thing.
[7:45 p.m.]
I wanted to go to the cap on assessments, so that taxes for residential properties would be capped at the cost of living each year. I think that's the right thing to do. I don't know if it's a long-term solution because over time I know inequities grow into the system, but it certainly was very much needed right now and I think it will hold for a number of years at least. The co-ops, I gather, we're going to look at housing co-ops now to be included in that, that's important.
MR. MUIR: There is a private member's bill that is on the floor of the House and I think that - well, depending on the thing, it is something that we don't totally disagree with. What the concern was again with the UNSM and others is that this might be retroactive but that's not the intent.
MS. WHALEN: So we go forward rather than going back. I do agree with that.
I wonder if the minister could answer just what your opinion would be around residential apartment buildings? I have in my riding 160 apartment buildings.
MR. MUIR: That would be a huge hit. The Property Services Valuation Corporation did come and talk to me about that. Certainly that is not something that could be done. If it was to be done, it would be one of those things where we'd have to carefully look at it. It has got a really big hit on it. I forget what the number was that the corporation gave me - $3 million in the first year, I mean . . .
MS. WHALEN: Would it be a loss of income to municipalities or is that just HRM?
MR. MUIR: No, that would be province-wide in the first year.
MS. WHALEN: As I say, I mention it as probably the riding with the most apartment units and apartment buildings. In 2006 I had 160 apartment buildings, I believe there are a few new ones in Clayton Park West at the moment, and I have 8,500 multi-unit households. So that is a lot of people and they are often people with lower income and if the taxes go up on the properties, you know it's going to be passed back to the people who are renting.
I know we protected the condominium owners, they were originally missed out, and I felt that was wrong, but the whole process is favouring the ones who own. It is still the roof over their head, which is so important. So I would like to at least put a plug in that it
[Page 682]
be examined, whether the staff could look at that, whether it is a point for further consideration with municipalities.
I realize they were angered by the cap in the first place, we've all heard from them. I just feel that this is a time when there are a lot of other rising costs, like heating, and electricity will follow no doubt, and we've got the cost of taxation sort of inordinately now falling on those people who are renting. So I want to put a plug in for the residents, it's not to be favouring the owners of those buildings, I'm really saying it because so many people live in those buildings and ultimately shoulder that cost because there's no way that the owners are just absorbing that and taking it out of their profit margins, it just doesn't work that way.
MR. MUIR: I guess the only thing, in looking at the apartment buildings, clearly the present assessment would have been built into the business plans of the developers and if there was a reduction, anyway . . .
MS. WHALEN: You'd be worried that they would keep it.
MR. MUIR: Well they might - maybe not either. There was one person last year, who, when the power rates or something were curtailed, actually gave a rebate to his tenants.
MS. WHALEN: Well, I'm glad to hear that. That reaffirms our faith in humanity, doesn't it? Yes. But I know that the Property Owners Association has certainly been raising that and although I know they have their own interests as well, I do believe that it's important to the tenants to try and keep their rents lower and help them in whatever way we can. So that was one question I had.
I wanted to go to the Residential Tenancies Act itself and the board that's in place. Again, having sort of prefaced it by letting you know how many people I have who live in apartments, I have in fact probably twice as many renters in my riding as I do homeowners or condo owners. That means I get a lot of calls about tenancies and issues around that.
I wanted to ask about the status of any review of the Residential Tenancies Act. I know that perhaps a year ago there was a gathering of property owners and maybe some representatives who might have represented tenants. I'd like to know if you're actually reviewing that Act and there'll be some changes coming.
MR. MUIR: The answer is yes. As a matter of fact the department staff associated with the residential tenancies did make some suggestions for changes. There were a couple of things, to be quite frank, when we looked at this thing and I can't identify them because I can't remember or they were not the type of thing that would be best put forward in a
[Page 683]
political situation in which we find ourselves here in Nova Scotia, i.e. a minority government, so, yes it is, I guess the answer is yes.
MS. WHALEN: Even though some of those amendments that might have been looked at aren't palatable now, are there others that we could be looking at, so maybe it's not as much of a major overhaul but there's even smaller things that could be improved?
MR. MUIR: Yes, there are and we continue to look for that and actually when we were putting our legislative agenda together for this Spring, we had actually brought some of those for consideration and quite frankly, they didn't make the agenda.
MS. WHALEN: I'd like to put a plug in for one change and it's a small matter, as far as I can see, and that would be to decrease the number of years you have to live in an apartment to get the security of tenure. I had - I'm not sure I'm allowed to speak about a private member's bills but . . .
MR. MUIR: I think you did have one, you wanted it decreased to a year, I believe, was it?
MS. WHALEN: If it goes to one year it's consistent with the mobile home parks. When I checked the Act and went through, that was where . . .
MR. MUIR: I can tell you that we had a presentation from IPONS, the Investment Property Owners Association and they made a pretty compelling argument that one year might be a little short.
MS. WHALEN: I think they're thin-skinned, if I'm allowed to say. No, really, this is a fairly immaterial change, in my opinion. The fact is that you can be evicted without any - they wouldn't call it an eviction - you can be told they don't want you back, your lease has expired, goodby, anything under five years, with no explanation. They're not obliged to tell you anything. I'm looking at the Ontario Act, the Ontario Act actually lists things that are legitimate reasons to say that you're not welcome back, so noise, destruction . . .
MR. MUIR: Maybe that's an approach we should take.
MS. WHALEN: I know the property owners don't like it because it's just one more requirement for them.
MR. MUIR: I know in my case I, as an MLA, and perhaps you, too, I get people come in the office and say, I live in this apartment building and that person lives down the hall from me and there is no way that that person should be living in this building. Well, you get all of the neighbours and maybe there is some reason, then they go to the landlord.
[Page 684]
MS. WHALEN: There's pressure, there can be, I mean it's a living arrangement, let's face it.
MR. MUIR: There's pressure, and indeed probably when you've got that many complaining there's pretty good reason.
MS. WHALEN: I just feel when you talk to the person who is being asked to leave, who has never been late for a payment and feels that they've been good tenants and not caused any trouble or never had any letters or warnings or anything like that and yet the law allows them to be forced to find another home, there's that personal side.
MR. MUIR: I'm not trying to stick up for the landlords but they would argue or people would say, well, landlords like to have good tenants and why would you turf out somebody who has been a model tenant? And every time they change, they've got to do something, so that's the other side of the argument.
MS. WHALEN: The other thing is not all owners are members of IPONS. I think IPONS is a good organization that sets high standards, but even when I spoke to them as well around this, they admit that there are other landlords that are not captured in their organization.
MR. MUIR: No, you're absolutely right. When I met with them they told me that, too.
MS. WHALEN: Maybe that's the problem, maybe there are other landlords that aren't working to the same level of high ethics and concern for people.
MR. MUIR: That don't have the same standards as the IPONS owners.
MS. WHALEN: So what I'm worried about is how do we protect those people? For a low-income or really any renter, but particularly difficult for a low-income renter, who then may not have the deep pockets to make the move and to find another place at the same affordable rate that they're in at the moment. You run into a lack of options whereas if you have more money, certainly, you can remove yourself and go somewhere else. I'm particularly concerned about people who don't have those kinds of funds to do it. So it just seems that it's an unfair system and if you live in a mobile home park, after you've been there one year, you have that security of tenure. So I think that's sufficient time for a landlord to judge whether or not they are satisfied with the tenant that is there. So I'd just like to put a plug in for that and I realize everything will be contentious that we raise around changes. It has come up a number of times so I'd like the minister and his staff to consider it and I'll be happy if you say you'll do that.
[Page 685]
I wanted to go to the low-income tax break that you have where the province helps, and I don't know if it's just seniors, this is for property taxes if a person is low income, is it just seniors or is it low-income property owners?
MR. MUIR: In the provincial property tax it's for seniors. Some of the municipalities have their own but ours is seniors and we doubled that, I think, this year if I'm not mistaken.
MS. WHALEN: HRM's is low-income.
MR. MUIR: The property rebate for seniors was doubled this year, a Community Services program.
MS. WHALEN: Is it through Community Services?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MS. WHALEN: It's not through the department?
MR. MUIR: No, not through ours, but I think I'm very sure that I remember the budget saying that that had been doubled this year.
MS. WHALEN: Okay, I was thinking it was through your department. I think there's a good uptake . . .
MR. MUIR: Housing belongs to Community Services.
MS. WHALEN: There is a good uptake, somewhere around 80 per cent, for that program but I'm wondering how we could even get it higher, so that people who are eligible really know, but that would not be something I guess you can influence.
MR. MUIR: And I expect that maybe income has to do with it, I'm not sure.
MS. WHALEN: Most of these rebate programs Service Nova Scotia is responsible for, it seems like it's a very big catch-all department. So anyway, I'll leave that one and take it somewhere else.
The heritage amendment that HRM wants, which is moving from one year to two years before you can demolish a heritage building. Right now a person can buy the heritage property, as long as they wait a full year, they don't need any further permission. That was quite important to HRM under the HRM By Design, while they're making changes, they don't want to see a flood of people buying and demolishing buildings before this is in place. I didn't see that in the amendments, is that coming forward?
[Page 686]
MR. MUIR: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, it's something for him. Clearly when we table legislation having to do with the Charter, Halifax By Design, there will be legislation tabled at the same time which we hope will alleviate that concern.
MS. WHALEN: So it's coming?
MR. MUIR: Hopefully, yes.
MS. WHALEN: I think it's important.
MR. MUIR: No, we don't disagree with it. I mean it's not something we're disagreeing with.
MS. WHALEN: All right, very good. I don't think I have too much time left so I want to move to the condominium review that's going on right now. Again, I know you're aware of the tremendous pressure on some of the new owners and it's particularly in new construction so really, I think I'd signalled even in the House just prior to - well, just after the 2006 election that this was an issue because I certainly became aware of it very much during that election by going through a lot of buildings, talking to people and knowing how widespread it was.
I was glad that the association was formed, so that there was then a voice for that owners group and that the government has since responded to that voice. I think it is important that they've come together to focus attention on this. So I'm pleased that it's happening. I'm interested in knowing when you believe there will be some feedback, I guess, to the public and to the Legislature that we can respond to.
MR. MUIR: As I said when we did this, we hope to have something for the Legislature in the Fall. The discussion paper should be ready in June, so our intention would be any changes, we would try and get them on the Fall Legislature agenda.
[8:00 p.m.]
MS. WHALEN: One of the changes that I'm very anxious to see, I think you're probably going to be looking at short-term and long-term changes. In the short term, or the near term, I think we really need to put in place some kind of performance bond, some sort of pool of money that would be available to the buyers, that they would know in those first few years if there was a structural problem that they've got some recourse.
As it stands right now, you said in your opening comments certainly as a case I've heard, that people buy an expensive unit and then shortly thereafter are called upon for $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 apiece to pay for changes or improvements.
[Page 687]
MR. MUIR: One of the other things that happens with this, I'm told, too, and we've got a couple of condos in my home community and fortunately we haven't had any problems with them, is that the way the thing is in, somebody builds the thing and then at the end of the year, they dissolve the corporation and somebody else, I don't know how it all works. But anyway, there seems to be some way that . . .
MS. WHALEN: Their responsibility does dissolve after one year, anyway, after the condominium corporation is there, even if they haven't collapsed their company, but some of them don't even care about the company reputation because it's a numbered company and it's gone.
Beyond that, I think there are a lot of other problems involved with this, the inspections are lacking so whether that's municipal, I think it is a municipal responsibility, but the buildings aren't properly inspected so they're not being built properly. Maybe it's skill shortages, the availability of qualified labour, but quite a lot of things because some very good builders, I think doing their best, are still running into trouble.
MR. MUIR: I think you put your finger on some of the problems, the housing market here in Halifax was so hot, I suspect that a lot of the people who were working on these buildings were not as well trained. Again, inspection, which is municipal, is so hot that whether inspectors could physically do the job that needed to be done and then there were the fast buck artists in there, too. I mean it's a whole variety of things.
As you say, fortunately we have some very good builders here and I guess my advice was that until there is some way to perhaps better regulate this is to make sure you're building a condo, deal with a reputable company.
MS. WHALEN: I understand. I'm told I have three minutes left so I'm going to just run through a couple of things quickly. On the condominium one, are you suggesting we'd see legislation this Fall?
MR. MUIR: That is our hope, yes that's the intent that we had when we started this exercise.
MS. WHALEN: I have as recently as a couple of weeks ago attended another meeting where there were over 100 owners in the room with that association. They are very anxious for changes to come. I think waiting a year would be too long, so I'd like to signal that the sooner the better, and if you're able to do a short-term introduction of a performance bond, that would be a positive thing because right now I think you have 80-some buildings that are in the queue.
[Page 688]
There are over 200 applications at the Condominium Registrar's Office right now. Some of them, though, are just bylaw changes and updates and so on but I think it is 80 new projects that are in some stage of completion.
MR. MUIR: I think that was the number. You had written about that about six weeks ago or something.
MS. WHALEN: Yes, I had called the office to get some idea.
MR. MUIR: I remember following up on that and we did respond and I think your numbers were . . .
MS. WHALEN: I'm concerned about the staffing in that office. I know you've run through some of the new staffing you've got in place. I'd like to signal my concern that we've had such an increase in the number of projects. Initially we'd get five every - I don't know if you got five year, it was so slow in the first few years, it wasn't a form of ownership that caught on here. Now it has been a flood of them and it's very difficult to go through all of the things that you need to do in order to register them and then your office . . .
MR. MUIR: I just say that in response to that, there has been reorganization in that office and that some of the duties which the Registrar of Condominiums had were transferred to somebody else, so her role now is full-time at condominiums and the other responsibilities have been redistributed.
MS. WHALEN: That is better because she was registrar for a few things, or handling a number of things. That is better but I still understand you have a registrar, deputy registrar and maybe one or two clerks - maybe two? I'm not even sure there's two. Anyway, that's pretty small with the number of things you need to do and I can tell you, I've had complaints from people who are waiting to get their condominium registered. They've paid for the condominium, they have an agreement of sale, they move in all of their stuff and they are living there but they have to pay rent. That goes on for six months because you haven't got it registered.
Now I don't mean you personally, Mr. Minister, I mean that it has not gone through the system and sometimes it's just dragged on and on. I think they're in the queue.
MR. MUIR: We accept some of that observation.
MS. WHALEN: I think there is some merit to saying that it's because of the burden of work in that office and perhaps the deputy minister would look into it as well because it really should be corrected. It's a burden on people who have to pay rent in the meantime. So I'd really like to signal that as well and just say that that concerns us.
[Page 689]
The Access-a-Bus, any money you can put into Access-a-Bus I want to say I'm very pleased because in HRM people, unless you're going to work or to a doctor's appointment, you can book two weeks in advance and they may not show up at your door to take you. I've had some people in really dire straits, needing the day programs and so on for their family members, and they are low on the queue. They said that they're getting literally 20 new cases a month and no increase in the number of vehicles and ability to service. So I don't know if it's enough to make a difference but it's very, very important and I've had some really compelling stories to back that one up. Is my time gone?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I can say to all honourable members I want to thank you for your participation. That wraps up tonight's session and, in fact, that wraps up the 40 hours and then some. The estimates are over in the Red Room.
Shall Resolution E32 stand?
Resolution E32 stands.
E18 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $42,543,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect to the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate of Treasury and Policy Board and the Voluntary Planning Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E18 carry?
Resolution E18 is carried.
MR. MUIR: Just in closing I would like to thank staff who worked so hard. Everybody knows that getting these estimates takes staff, numerous people and I take my hats off to them, they are very patient and I want to thank you.
I would also at this time, Mr. Chairman - I know the estimates are over - I want to thank the two critics who have really been - I don't like to use the word a "delight" to work with, but they have been very open and our staff has worked with them. I just want to say thanks very much for your willingness to talk to us when we have disagreements.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes our 40 hours of estimates.
[The estimates were referred to the House for favourable consideration.]
[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:08 p.m.]
