[Page 179]

HALIFAX, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2009

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

9:19 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, folks. We are ready to get underway, a continuation of the estimates of the Department of Environment.

Mr. Minister, do you have any comments or introductions that you would like to make? I think it looks as if you have basically the same crew as you had before - a very distinguished group with you, both front and behind there. The floor is yours before we give an hour to the PC caucus.

HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: No, I'm just pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman, and again I have had a nice sleep and I look forward to the questions in the next hour. I have the same very professional staff and I look forward to the questions from honourable members. I'll move from there - thank you very much for the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly welcome everyone here this morning and we will begin with an hour for the PC caucus. My watch is saying 9:22 a.m., and that is the one that we will go by. So 9:22 a.m. and the PC caucus has, of course, until 10:22 a.m.

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, before I start my questioning, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hants West.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister on his position and wish him well as he moves forward. It's a very tough portfolio to be in and there are a lot of questions certainly from across the province, but you have a very capable staff in that department and I'm sure that everybody will be moving towards the same goal.

179

[Page 180]

I have several questions that come to mind in relation to the Department of Environment and one of them would be, what is the role of the Department of Environment when it comes to issuing of permits for strip mines?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the question that you raise - first of all, we have a number of different resources but Nova Scotia needs a balance, the economic benefits of mineral extraction while valuing environmental protection. Mineral extraction bulk sampling requires Nova Scotia Environment industrial approval if it involves greater than 100 and must proceed to an environmental assessment under the environmental assessment regulation if it advances to a broader extraction. Terms and conditions of the industrial approval and the environmental assessment approvals put in place the stipulations to ensure that the activity is carried out with a minimal environmental impact. So I think your answer is that this is something that is carried out throughout Nova Scotia, yet there has to be a balance between protecting the environment and this is what the Environment Department tries to achieve.

I think you need to go out and do an evaluation of all the information regarding that. So, to just give you an example, you would have to have all the information in front of you before you can make a decision on a hypothetical question.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, did you say that there was a minimum amount that was required for bulk sampling?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, what is that amount again? I'm sorry, I couldn't quite . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the amount is greater than 100 tons - I left out the "tons" there. It's greater than 100 tons.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, the 100 tons, is that per hectare, per acre, per designated area? What would constitute 100 tons - is there a specific land mass that would have to be in?

MR. BELLIVEAU: The permit is that the extraction, regardless of the area, if it exceeds 100 tons - that's what the permit basically tries to capture. There are no requirements - if that's what the company is requiring to do, if it exceeds 100 tons, there has to be an environmental assessment done.

MR. MACLEOD: I appreciate that, but if it's over 100 tons, does that mean that as a contractor I could go anywhere in the Province of Nova Scotia and extract 5 tons here and 7 tons there and 15 tons there? Is there an amount for a specific land mass? If I own 10 acres of land, is it only 100 tons I'm allowed to take on that piece of land? If I have land that's

[Page 181]

divided between four or five people who have different deeds for the property, are they allowed extraction at 100 tons per deeded property?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I just need clarification. Are you talking about coal mines or quarries? I just want to be clear exactly what we're talking about. But I also can offer to the member opposite that if you're talking about these details, we can get additional information from our staff to the honourable member.

MR. MACLEOD: Where I'm going with this, I guess, is there have been a number of areas in the Cape Breton coalfields that have been identified as areas that the Department of Natural Resources wants to go in and do recoverables. In those recoverables they go over different land areas, and in the past we've had people come in and say we're going in here to do a bulk sample on your land and take 100 tons - or whatever the requirement is - but the property next door to me that belongs to somebody else, can they go in there and take 100 tons from that property as well? Then, if there's a third property where that property is - I want to know, is there a designation of how much can be taken off a deeded property that belongs to an individual?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think our staff - we need to get those details and we'll get back to the honourable member.

The permits and approvals related to the mineral resource management are issued by the Department of Natural Resources and the authority of the Mining Resource Act includes restoration, exploration licences and letters of authority, mining leases and milling permits. There is a lot of information in there, but again I can assure you that if the honourable member wants more information, we'll get that detailed information to you.

There's bulk sampling that is determined by the project, not the property owners. You're asking some very technical questions here and I would appreciate it if we could get the fine details for you and get that information back to the honourable member.

MR. MACLEOD: I appreciate that. I want to make it clear to you that indeed I did try to ask the Minister of Natural Resources the same question and he said it was an issue that had to be dealt with by the Department of Environment - I believe that's called switch- hitting, but anyway I would appreciate anything you can do to help clarify that issue. It would be much appreciated and I understand your staff may not have that information right at hand.

At the end of the day, it is my understanding that the Department of Environment has to sign off before any of this can take place, is that correct?

MR. BELLIVEAU: We do have to give approval - and I'm not trying to switch off here, I can assure you of that. I can confirm that we'll get you that information. I appreciate the question, and I ask for your patience on that. Thank you.

[Page 182]

MR. MACLEOD: The other thing I would like some clarification on, is the minister aware that there is a moratorium in place on the Sydney coalfields and what role, if any, does your department have in that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, our department is aware of that.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you very much, and I will say this, most of the questions I'm asking you today are a result of our friends from the Department of Natural Resources saying that they belong to you and not to them, so please bear with me as I go forward.

My question to you - this concerns the Donkin Mine - I wonder, could you relate to this committee what the role of the Department of Environment has been thus far in the re-development of the Donkin Mine by the Xstrata Corporation?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I've had the pleasure of having some discussions with some of the owners and the people regarding Xstrata. Xstrata is conducting exploratory projects over the next three years to determine the commercial viability of developing a mine at Duncan, Cape Breton County. Nova Scotia needs particularly to have a balanced economic benefit of mineral extraction while valuing environmental protection.

[9:30 a.m.]

The Department of Environment has a regulatory mandate to ensure that industry operates in a manner that is sustainable and environmentally responsible. The Donkin Underground Exploration Project has received environmental assessment approvals subject to conditions, and they also have an industrial approval from the Department of Environment that addresses operation issues designed to protect the environment.

MR. MACLEOD: Currently, Mr. Minister, would you say that the Department of Environment is in favour of this project moving forward?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, we have done our regulatory mandate regarding this particular project and we'll move forward from there.

MR. MACLEOD: When the department is doing an assessment, whether it be on underground mining or surface mining, the economic benefits that may be there for the community and/or the impact on a community, is that part of the assessment process of the Department of Environment?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the first thing we do is, the Department of Environment looks at the environmental impacts that that particular project will have on the environment.

[Page 183]

MR. MACLEOD: As the minister is well aware, the majority of the power that's produced in the Province of Nova Scotia comes from coal-fired generation. I am a firm believer that we need to go green, but by the same token I think it's very hard for us to turn green overnight. In order for Nova Scotia to sustain the power requirements that it needs, right now we see a lot of coal being imported from offshore. Some of it is what would be considered brown coal, and when Nova Scotia Power is buying coal they're buying coal based on BTU, moisture, sulphur and ash content. The whole ability of the Donkin Mine, the coal samples that have come out of there in the past have shown a high-quality thermal coal and that coal could help sustain and probably maintain regulated prices for power here Nova Scotia.

When the department is considering their next step with that mine, do they take those things into account - the fact that there is a chance for a high impact on the economy of Cape Breton Island, the fact that there is a chance to help stabilize electrical rates across the province, and to have local suppliers supplying a local company to produce materials?

I will add that I'm very familiar with the results of the sampling that was done in the Donkin Mine, because I actually worked in the lab that processed them.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, I appreciate your interest in this question and your expertise in dealing with it. First of all, I want to state that the Department of Environment, we do not regulate what Nova Scotia Power will use. I mean we have an opportunity now to look at some other particular options and I guess the statement I've said a number of times in the media that we are addicted to fossil fuel, so we'd like to be able to move away from that and look at some new possible renewable energy. It also means that we're still very dependent on fossil fuel, that's part of reality, that's a part of life.

The Department of Environment does not regulate the use of Nova Scotia Power and how they consume the particular coal that they burn.

MR. MACLEOD: I thank the minister very much. I would point out that you may not regulate what they burn, but the fact of the matter is you are part of a Nova Scotia Government that is helping to make sure that the Nova Scotia economy survives and that the basic function of Nova Scotia Power is to supply power to the Province of Nova Scotia, to the residents that we're all here to represent, and making sure, even though we are addicted to fossil fuel - and I agree we have to move away as we can. As I said earlier, we cannot move away overnight, it will take a period of time to do that. In the meantime, it is incumbent upon the government of this province to make sure that there is a good quality source for power because I will tell you, Mr. Minister, there will be a lot of people calling all of us as MLAs the day the power goes out because there's no coal supply.

[Page 184]

I'm going to move on now to protected wilderness areas. In particular I'd like to talk to you about Hay Island, which I think the minister might be familiar with. It has been my understanding in the past that Hay Island was never intended to be a protected wilderness area, but it actually became a protected area because of the definition that surrounded Scatarie Island and the low tide and high tide. Can the department give me any kind of clarification, was Hay Island ever meant to be a protected area?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I'm very familiar with the topic. I do want to point out that in my previous role over the last three years I was Fisheries Critic and I'm well aware of the situation there. I do want to point out to the honourable member that the previous government had a number of years to deal with this issue.

I remember when in the Fisheries Critic role there was a debate and I participated in that debate dealing with Hay Island and there was unanimous support in this House - I think it was in 2006-07, somewhere in that time frame - to have a humane seal harvest on Hay Island. Again, I want to point out that the previous government has had time to deal with this and I can assure the member that I don't switch-hit, I stand up at the plate and take a swing at the ball. Probably that's not the right term here right now, but I know the issue is on my radar. The issue of dealing with Hay Island, I can assure the member opposite that I have a focus when it's on my radar, I see that we're going to be focusing on that and dealing with that issue. I can tell you right now that the seal harvest is something that is part of our culture in Nova Scotia and I think if I want to go back I can refresh my memory and give you some lines from that debate.

Again, I can tell you that I'm well aware of this particular issue and I'm looking to move forward on it. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, that was a great answer but it didn't answer the question. The question was, did Hay Island become a protected area because of a misinterpretation of the guidelines that were put into place? My question was not - and I know where you stand on the fishery of seals and I appreciate it and support you on that position. As a matter of fact, if you want some of your debates, I have all of them here when it comes to the seal hunt but that's for another time, maybe even later today. However, the question is, was Hay Island ever meant to be a protected area or was it a fault of the definition that was put in place for Scatarie Island?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the honourable member, the fact is that Hay Island is part of a designated wilderness area and we need to look at all the options. Just being here in the three years, I mean this designation was on the books when I entered the political arena here as a critic. I'm well aware of the sensitivity of the issue and, like I say, I'm up at the plate now and I'm dealing with this issue. I can assure

[Page 185]

the honourable member that I'm not going to switch off and it is on my radar screen. I have been researching this and I'm looking forward to moving forward on it.

MR. MACLEOD: Again, Mr. Minister, I certainly appreciate your position and I'm reasonably happy with your position but the question still is, was Hay Island ever meant to be a protected area?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, these regulations were in place and it can't be up to me to speak on the history of Hay Island. This was something that we inherited and this is the issue that was presented before us as we took on government, but I can assure you that this particular situation is being addressed. We'll work forward with this and we'll do the right thing at the appropriate time in the best interests of all Nova Scotians. I know that the seal harvest is a part of our culture and I can recite you a number of the lines from that debate. I can take you back to the early 1960s when there was a bounty on the seal population and it was sponsored by our federal government. I understand that very well. It is a part of our culture.

We have a moose draw that we have a lottery for and all Nova Scotians have been supportive of a humane harvest of our moose population, our deer population, and also I think Nova Scotia supports a humane seal harvest. I'm very aware of Hay Island, the situation that you describe, and as a new government, I can assure you that it's on my radar screen and I'll be moving forward to address it.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, again, I really appreciate your stance. When you go back to the 1960s and start talking back there, I will say I was a young fellow because I was never a little fellow, but I still would like for somebody to be able to research your records. I'm sure that somewhere within the records there is a document that says what was intended to be a protected area as outlined under the guidelines and, therefore, how did Hay Island become part of it? What I've been told - I could be wrong and I would be the first one to tell you that if I'm wrong, I apologize, but I just want to know how Hay Island became protected because I don't think that was the intent originally. I know you don't have the answer at your fingertips but maybe your staff could find that answer for us and it would be appreciated by myself.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the honourable member, again, I don't like giving my staff extra work but I can suggest to you that I'll make that request to our staff to have a report to you. I also want to point out again that the member opposite was in government for 10 years and, you know, the question about the seal harvest, I question maybe that staff report could have been asked over the last 10 years. But in all seriousness it's a valid question and I look forward for the staff to copy me on that and to get understanding of that particular designation, the history, and I will be interested in a staff report. So I look forward to our staff trying to get more details and I can

[Page 186]

assure the member that I'll make a request and try to get that information to the honourable member.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't around for 10, I was around for three and I did ask a lot of questions of the ministers of the day. I appreciate your answer and I want to thank you for that, but now that we're going to move away from Hay Island, let's talk a little bit about Scatarie Island. On Scatarie Island, which is a protected area, which was meant to be a protected area, there are a number of people who have cottages there, people who have had an ancestry of living on Scatarie Island and have been there a long time.

There is a road that goes through Scatarie Island that had been maintained by the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. The people who have these cottages, hunting camps, whatever we would like to call them there, have been told that they are not allowed to use their ATVs for anything more than to take stuff from the boat to their cabin and then back. They're not allowed to travel this road on a constant basis back and forth to visit other camps of other people. Is there anything that your department has put in place to make it impossible for these people to travel through this area?

[9:45 a.m.]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, regarding Scatarie Island Wilderness Area, ATV use is generally prohibited in all wilderness areas including Scatarie Island and Hay Island, although it may be permitted by the minister in specific circumstances outlined in the legislation. There are a few private landowners on Scatarie Island who use an ATV to travel on an old road from a boat landing to their land. The department will be working with these landowners to discuss reasonable access to their properties, which could include limited ATV use.

I'm familiar with some of the concerns that the honourable member raises regarding private camps or cottages. I understand that point very well. I have experienced that with my friends in my community. We have a camp several miles back on Crown land and we know the importance of how to arrive at the particular camps. I understand that point very well but I can assure the honourable member, if I can sit down at a later day with the honourable member and work through this, if there are any issues there, I'd love for the honourable member to bring these forward. But the information that I just read addresses many of the concerns that the honourable member has brought to our attention. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I would like to ask is that indeed, after the House is finished, and I know your schedule is a very busy schedule, but there may be an opportunity for you to come to Cape Breton and we could visit Scatarie and the landowners who have the concerns would be able to show and express them to you directly. If you could fix that into your schedule, it would certainly be something that I think the landowners there would appreciate and I know that I, as the member, would appreciate.

[Page 187]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the invitation and I can tell you that first of all, my father and my grandfather were very familiar with that particular area. They fished swordfish down there so I would think I'd be very wise to take up the invitation. I appreciate that very much and, like I say, our grandparents fished from there and they knew that area very well, so I look forward to returning, when my time is allotted, to do that and I look forward to visiting all the parks of Nova Scotia and that's one of them that's, again, on my radar screen. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I guess the other day when the Minister of Natural Resources was here and they said they were looking at some new protected lands and some new protected areas, one of the things that was mentioned was the possibility of existing trails used by ATVers and other modes of transportation in these pieces of land, if I understood correctly what the minister said, would be something that would be taken into consideration as being allowed to maintain that use even if it became a protected area.

We have another area called Gull Cove where, again, for years people had travelled back and forth. There's the fishing community of Gabarus where people there had travelled to Gull Cove, which originally had been a settlement. Fishermen from Gabarus had used their ATVs along that trail to gain access to recover traps and other things and it seems like now there's a major issue about that happening. I don't expect the minister to have an answer right at his fingertips, but I would request and respectfully ask that the minister maybe look into that issue as well - it's very much the same, a similar situation.

We have people whose livelihood hinges on the ability to be able to travel through these wilderness areas. That particular wilderness area was originally expropriated by a government during the early 1970s for a new steel plant, and when the Province of Nova Scotia was looking for areas to designate as protected areas, that area was then flipped over and made a protected area. But its original purpose, believe it or not, was for a new steel plant for Cape Breton Island and it was done by the Regan Government in the early 1970s.

So I would ask if the minister would consider that challenge, again, with the trails going through a piece of protected wilderness where people had travelled for years and years and years. They didn't start travelling after it became a protected area, but indeed they travelled there for years and years and years - not always on ATVs of course, prior to that sometimes it was horse and buggy, but it is something that the fishermen there say it's hard to recover the traps and, I'm sure with your background, you would understand and appreciate that.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. There are no ATV trails allowed in the original wilderness areas and the Off-highway Vehicle Advisory Committee has made recommendations for three trails and I don't know if this is one of them that you are looking at because I'm not too familiar, I'd love to have a map. But I'm very familiar with the member's question and, like I say, I know the individuals.

[Page 188]

Recreation is part of our culture, especially in the tri-counties - I know it is all across Nova Scotia. I know the demands that the recreational community asks, to have a talk about these designated trails - I'm very familiar with that issue. As you say, as we move forward and going through this process of protecting that, this issue is very much in the forefront of my mind and for all the groups to deal with this particular issue.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his forthright answers on the questions on the wilderness areas, and I want, if I could, to get an update from the minister regarding the department's role in the cleaning up of the Sydney tar ponds.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, we have a regulatory committee there looking at that particular issue, and one thing regarding that topic - we take the environment very seriously and our staff is working tirelessly to deal with this particular issue.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to turn over my time now to the honourable member for Hants West.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants West.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the minister for appearing before us today and giving us the opportunity to ask a few questions.

You mentioned in your opening comments - yesterday, I guess it was, seems so long ago - yesterday, about the accomplishments you've had since June and it hasn't been a very long time, it's only been a few months, but I wonder if you can expand on what some of them have been over the last three months or so that you've implemented or initiated yourself as the new minister, or just exactly what that statement meant.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, I guess I kind of like to step out of the line here, and I know it was directed to our department, but one of the first commitments we did was to take the HST off household electricity. I know that is not only in our department but it is a government commitment.

We put new regulations in effect dealing with greenhouse gases. We also designated new wilderness areas and we announced ecoNova Scotia announcements. These are just a few of the things that were done. I can tell the honourable member that I was somewhere near your constituency, I believe in Wolfville, and I had some very pleasurable moments there with the mayor and talked about ecoNova Scotia. I think I was in Lunenburg the same day and met a very pleasant mayor there also about all the good things that an ecoNova Scotia announcement can do to enhance and prevent those buildings from creating more emissions. They were very enthused and encouraged about the opportunity to improve their particular facilities.

[Page 189]

Also, in Dartmouth, we announced ecoNova Scotia money for the green building, as I call it, at the Nova Scotia Community College, and there was a lot of excitement around that. In my opening last night I talked about encouraging the members of the public, once that building becomes open to the public, to go see how new technology can help to have a greener and cleaner Nova Scotia. To me, the building itself, in Dartmouth, the building is the prop. We're going to have a lot of people visit there who are going to be very and truly impressed.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, just on the new building, I agree, a wonderful new building and we hope to see many, many more just like that in the years ahead.

I'm kind of curious though on your thoughts on the buildings that already exist. What are some of the initiatives, or do you have any ideas? What are we going to do with some of the buildings that exist? Are there some incentives out there for things like rinks, other government buildings and so on, schools, to go green, whether it is the new lighting or whatever it might be? What's the long-term plan for that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal is doing an energy audit on all their government buildings and that is something that we can improve on. If I can just go back, I went to great lengths last night to spell out that the ecoNova Scotia fund - and I haven't had an update in the last week - but there was a portion of money that was left there. I think, as of a month and a half ago, there was $4 million sitting there in this fund. The application should be out and the application should be filed by this January.

To me, there are opportunities for communities across Nova Scotia to have an opportunity to do some enhancements to their community buildings, fire halls, courthouses, social recreational centres, that we can prevent the loss of heat or improve upon maintaining

those buildings and insulating, so there is an opportunity to improve and create less emissions. One of the things I failed to mention - and your first question - that we have done is the approval of the Bay of Fundy tidal project. I believe that is going to be one of the major initiatives that Nova Scotia is going to proceed on over the next two decades. I want to point out that it is a demonstration project. I know there are a number of concerns around Nova Scotia. I think it is going to be one of the highlights that this government will be noted for. All these announcements are focused on having a cleaner and greener Nova Scotia.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I guess it's fair to say I'm probably familiar with some of those initiatives that have been in place for awhile and it's good to see that they're getting signed off and approved. I'll come back to the tidal power one, if you don't mind, in a few minutes because I do have some questions around that. Just on the other, you mentioned the $4 million left there, applications being filed by January. When are the applications going out, or are they?

[Page 190]

MR. BELLIVEAU: The application is posted on the Web site so if you have any concerns or whatever, they're right on the Web site. Again, I take the opportunity to make sure that all the constituencies are aware of this particular program.

MR. PORTER: I think it would be good to get them out to the constituencies so that we as members can - as you know, I'm sure, we work with our business communities very closely, as well as other organizations like you've mentioned, the fire departments, the courthouses. I know in Windsor, the courthouse there is in desperate need of some work and I've had calls on it and I'd certainly like to be able to walk into that place with that application and say, here's an opportunity, we should be following up on this. The Web site is great, but I think the more we can do to get that information out the better the initiative will be and the better in the long term.

[10:00 a.m.]

You mentioned the Fundy tidal project and approval of that and I would assume there are probably a number of stipulations around that approval. I'm kind of curious as to what some of those stipulations might be.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this. There are a number of conditions in there. First of all, this is a demonstration project, so I want to emphasize that if there was a commercial, there has to be a full environmental assessment done on that. Right now we're at a demonstration project level, there are a number of conditions that have to be done. First of all, the project can be stopped any time there's scientific or adverse effects related to this project. That's one of the conditions in there.

The two that I think are a safeguard for the cautious approach that's being taken here, is that there is a monitoring program that will be established; the other one, I think the crucial one, is the advisory panel that's a condition of that project. I talked about this last night. The advisory committee has to be in place before there is any movement or anything installed in the water column. To me, it's crucial to have academics with the knowledge of the Fundy tides and the marine environment there. Also, I think the major crucial component of that is having local fishers on that particular committee.

I read the presentation by the local fishers in the Parrsboro area and I'm fully aware of the sensitivity of their concerns. I understand some of the concerns about the tidal range, the displacement of these turbines on the bottom. Last night I pointed out that there are three structures: one is going to be on the bottom, or close to it; the second one is going to be a similar turbine that's going to be several metres off the bottom; and the third one is going to be somewhere in the mid-range of the water column. There are going to be a lot of questions that the fishermen will have about migration of lobsters and about the sediment displacement near the bottom.

[Page 191]

The third one that I'm interested in is up higher in the water column so you're going to have people who are concerned with the marine mammals, the currents and the waves, the marine birds, birds, plankton and whales - I'll use herring. Herring is frequent to that particular area and, as you may know, at night the fish will come to the surface; in the daytime they'll go down towards the lower bottom. So there's movement of fish in that particular water column. I think that the fishermen and the academics will be looking at questions like that if there's any displacement or concern about migration of fish.

There are whales that frequent that particular area, I'm familiar with that. I also know, from fishing myself, that an animal that large can basically - I've actually seen them in close proximity to our fishing vessel from here to that camera, which is only less than 10 feet away. These are very smart individuals, these mammals, and I don't think that they'll have any displacement there with these structures in the water column because these mammals understand what's in front of them. They have a technique of navigating around many objects but, again, the fishermen will have these concerns. The academics will have an opportunity to bring these questions forward and, again, I want to emphasize that this is a demonstration project.

On the other side of that, if we take this cautious approach, I think the point that I want to get across here is the distance of the Bay of Fundy, the potential for Nova Scotia - and I'm sure our sister Province of New Brunswick is looking at this very seriously as is the rest of Canada, and I think the New England States - the potential for us as a society to harness that energy, clean renewable resource, and as I said last night, I don't think any of us in this building understands the impact that's going to have on clean energy for Canada and the United States. The vastness of that resource that runs from Cape Sable Island, up along the French Shore, up around Parrsboro, and you vision the horseshoe effect all around to Grand Manan.

To me the potential to harness that - it's one of the wonders of our world, that every six hours there's a new tide that goes back and forth, and it's being affected by a moon that's 250,000 miles away and it's a lunar gravitational pull that is unique to this world and we have it on our doorsteps. The volume of the energy that's out there on our doorsteps, I think is just immense, and here we have an opportunity as a society to have a cleaner and greener Nova Scotia and take the leadership role. I can talk for days on that, but also to know that it has to be done in a very cautious approach and I particularly feel the burden. I think a lot of our people in government understand that also. So the conditions are put there to do this in the right manner and I feel confident, as we move forward, that we are addressing, and will address, these concerns.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I know your passion about that and I certainly know your understanding of the ocean and how it works in your experience in fishing and all of those things. You described it very well last night and you just went through it again. I don't think that people realize how large this is. I know that it seems like

[Page 192]

it's along Parrsboro and it's along Windsor, Hantsport, and that shore sort of thing, but it is much larger than that and very powerful. There's a great deal of energy out there to be harnessed and I see this as a very exciting project. This is probably one of the most important things that any government or any province will ever take on, or any country for that matter. There's an incredible amount of energy out there to be harnessed and all the more reason that it should be done and done correctly, safely, et cetera, and with all the buy-in that is possible from every group that exists out there.

You are certainly an expert, it sounds like, on the fish, with your experience and as you described their awareness in the water and things that surround them and so on. That's all very good and I think that will be important as we move forward in the years ahead with this project and on that, did you say that there has been a full study already, an EA done on this assessment, or that will be done?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, yes, we have done an environmental impact study on this and, again, I want to emphasize that there will be a full environmental assessment if it moves onto the commercial.

MR. PORTER: The demonstration project - and again I'll reiterate that it's very important that all of these steps are followed, everything is done correctly and so on. How long would you foresee the demonstration part of this to be in effect before we move forward?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, my understanding of the demonstration process is that it will be roughly from three to four years.

MR. PORTER: And over that period of time, how much energy would be harnessed? I know that may be a question for Energy.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, this is a highly technical question. I think I can get that information for you. You've got three turbines out there - I'm not the engineer type, the technical type, but that's a very good question and I think we can get you an answer. I've heard different numbers of how many houses it will affect if all turbines are working properly. I think that we'll take that under advisement and we'll get you that information about what actually will result when these are in full operation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants West, I would like to indicate that there is approximately 10 minutes left in the PC caucus time.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that update. Thank you, minister, yes, and I followed this project rather closely, as well, with Minas Basin right there in my back yard, and their group and their consultants being involved and things like that. It's a very exciting project. So it will be important to monitor it, as you said. The advisory panel - you

[Page 193]

talked about academics and fishers - how big would that panel be, in your opinion, Mr. Minister?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I haven't actually seen any numbers but I would assume there would be at least 10, a dozen or so, of a balance and, again, I think that if we have a balance of fishermen and academics who understand the importance of it, whatever is reasonable. I've sat on many panels. I think the company is proposing at least 12, that number sounds familiar. I've met on a lot of advisory boards, lobster advisory boards and somewhere between 10, 9, 14, that was always a comfortable number but, again, that's open.

MR. PORTER: Minister, I realize that panel would stay in place over the course of this three- to four-year demonstration period and you mentioned the close monitoring and rightfully so. In the years ahead, as this project - say it's developed, it's a wonderful thing, the turbine is out there and it's doing its everyday function for the many, many years ahead, would there be, in your opinion, an advisory panel that would stay in place for constant monitoring given that we are doing something that nobody else is doing, and new to the world, you might as well say, at least this side of the world?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I think that's a speculation or question that - I think there's going to be a lot of information that's going to be put forward by this particular advisory committee and I want to underline again that this is a demonstration project. So if there's going to be concerns, I would speculate that there would be an advisory panel of some sort, when it reaches the commercial stage, but I think it's going to be a lot depending on the information that flows out of this demonstration project. We are speculating on what concerns or what issues may be raised by this particular group, so what's going to actually come out of this demonstration project would probably be the answer to your question.

MR. PORTER: I know my time is getting short and I have a number of other questions in keeping with the water and that Bay of Fundy area. I want to just move down river a little bit back toward the Town of Windsor and the causeway project, minister. Has there been a full environmental assessment done prior to, or now, with the planning of the twinning of Highway No. 101? My understanding was there was an EA to be done before the final plans could be put in place for that phase.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that there is a wetland requirement there that would require an environmental assessment.

MR. PORTER: So just for clarification, minister, that has not been done, so we are not prepared to move on to the next stage of the highway? I just want clarity on it. The reason I'm asking, Mr. Minister, is that it is my understanding that anything that had to be done there was perhaps completed, on a point of clarification only.

[Page 194]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the question that you raised, I will take the time and I have asked our staff to get clarification on that particular question. I don't want to give you misleading information, so I request the time for our staff to do their research and get you the full information on that particular question and I intend to follow that through and make sure you have it.

[10:15 a.m.]

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, that would be great given that we have had Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal folks out to meet with municipal councils to explain that phase of the project as the highway would flow through there and it would seem to me that at that point, if they were coming out and advising, giving that information publicly, that everything must be good to go. Perhaps it is, maybe it isn't, and we'll find out. I appreciate you gathering that information.

In staying with the Highway No. 101 theme, moving down a little bit, I know that as we have created the twinning, which is all good, some wetland areas have been disturbed and habitats and so on. There has been another one created though, however, the policy or the rules say that if you disturb or move, you have to move or recreate a new place with a certain percentage of what you disturbed. I don't know if that's the right language but I think I'm close on that.

There is a place in St. Croix that's been recreated by way of a dam being broken open and an area of dike being flooded every time the tide comes in. My understanding from contractors and talking to others is that this is sort of to make up for what was taken away. Are you aware of this?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I don't know if I'm really clear on the certain location that you're talking about but I know that we were out for a consultation regarding this net loss to wetlands. I would love to have the opportunity to sit down with the honourable member and get more information on the exact location that you're talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants West, you have four minutes left.

MR. PORTER: That would be fine, Mr. Minister. It was that there were people who were quite concerned about how it was being done and where it was being done. It took away dike land, where a farmer used to put his cattle out, et cetera. Although the farmer never truly owned the land by way of deed, for 30-odd years he's put his cattle out and they grazed, et cetera, it was fenced off and these sorts of things, and all of a sudden he was told sorry, you can't do that anymore, because we're going to flood that area. He says, well, why would you ever flood the area? It was explained to him why we have to recreate a new wetland to make

[Page 195]

up for what's been destroyed in another area. So it would be interesting for you to have a look at that.

My question was - and I'm okay about the recreating, it's all very important to do - but why there, was one of the questions that have been raised? It didn't seem like the ideal location, right beside a brand-new highway. The water could come pretty much to the highway. It just didn't seem like the ideal location and there is a lot of concern that, in the long term, this will not be of value.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you're looking for a comment on that?

MR. PORTER: Yes, please.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the specific question that you're asking, we'll ask staff. We'll get more information on that to the honourable member. We've asked for public comments up until November 6^th. You're talking about these issues, the wetlands, the importance of these highways. I think you can read how important this highway system is, and improving that is very important to all Nova Scotians.

I think that we are sensitive to the issues about how we address wetlands across Nova Scotia and Environment is taking a very open approach to that. Anytime you have a highway system that we all long for, there is the possibility of a disruption. But I think the net loss in this wetland policy is that we go out and try to restore other wetlands or preserve lands. I think that goes into our commitment as a government of protecting 12 per cent of protective wilderness areas across Nova Scotia.

I think you can balance all that when you see people from around the world, or across North America, or across Canada basically say, well, that's quite a commitment to have this particular amount of money set aside to protect our wilderness areas. On the other hand, when there are people across Nova Scotia in debates like this, we can actually have some sensitivity about loss of land. So to me there is a balance, there is always a balance in here that needs to be done. I think our department is very aware of these issues and we continue to protect the environment and maintain that balance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for one very quick question and one quick answer.

MR. PORTER: I will make it quick. I would only say this, in finishing my time here, Mr. Minister, I think that is all fine, that's good, the idea behind that is all wonderful. I think when you have a department, though, like the Department of Environment, it is probably the most powerful department in government. They have the ability to go out and shut projects down, to do many, many things. People see them - when we talk to different people in my area and probably all over the province - as a very powerful organization, because they can step in at any time if they believe something is not right.

[Page 196]

I think there is a lack of understanding with Nova Scotians as to how much influence the Department of Environment really has and also, maybe, the initiatives that are good, are not maybe communicated or understood as clearly. I know it is sort of a new thing that we're moving into as well, as the years go by.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is now time to go to the Liberal caucus. I understand that the member for Dartmouth East is going to begin.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt. If I could have a personal break, a comfort break, before we start.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed. If one is required, we will have a five-minute break, if that is agreed to by all Parties. We don't want the minister to be uncomfortable.

It is agreed.

[10:21 a.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[10:28 a.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Our five minutes will become 10 minutes if we don't get going here. It's already long past. We will consider the Liberal caucus start time as 10:29 a.m.

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be sharing my time with the member for Preston, if that's okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being back here this morning. This is an important subject and actually I agree with the final comment of my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party that I think you probably have one of the most important departments, just in terms of the overall importance.

My first question is, I would like to know, have you made any changes to the environmental assessment process in the past 103 days?

[Page 197]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, yes, we have, and one of the regulations that we have changed is to have an environmental assessment for small refineries.

[10:30 a.m.]

MR. YOUNGER: I think that is probably a good change. I'm wondering, on August 7, 2008, the current Minister of Finance, who was then the Environment Critic, criticized the changes that the previous government had made to the environmental assessment process, complaining that major road projects will be subject to less stringent environmental review, and he went on to suggest that that would be a change that an NDP Government would make. Have you made that change yet?

MR BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, no, we have not.

MR. YOUNGER: Are you planning to make that type of change?

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's something that we haven't done yet, but it is something that if you're raising that particular concern, I'll take that and we will have that discussion internally, but we have not moved in that direction yet.

MR. YOUNGER: What is your view on rebates for homeowners to help them to be more energy efficient - and I know this is a cross-department issue, but I'm wondering, what is your view on energy rebates for homeowners to achieve energy reductions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again the member is getting into programs that are interdepartmental - Conserve Nova Scotia for instance, where some of these programs may fall under. So the question is getting broad, and I'm not trying to skirt around the question, but it reflects on a number of other departments within our government.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, I do understand that it does cross a number of departments, but in a minute I want to talk about the Climate Change Action Plan and, obviously, it does tie into that. I understand that Conserve Nova Scotia would almost certainly - unless you decide to change it - under Energy, manage any such rebates, but I'm wondering, what is your department's view on the effectiveness of those rebates in terms of helping homeowners to achieve greenhouse gas reductions and reduce energy costs?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the subject of reducing energy is very important to this department and it's something that we're trying to achieve, and the rebates, again, are all dealing with other intergovernmental departments. It's something that we'll look and work together with, and anytime that we can create less emissions, something that we're trying to

[Page 198]

do with the ecoNova Scotia fund, those are great projects. Yes, that's something that we all want to work toward - to have a cleaner and greener Nova Scotia.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I'm getting the direct answer that I'm looking for, and I agree with everything he said, but I would like to know whether you think - obviously the ecoNova Scotia fund, as I understand it, is aimed at municipalities and perhaps businesses, too, I'm not quite sure, but a lot of the greenhouse gas emissions are created, obviously, by energy use by homeowners. There are members of your caucus who have stated, the environmental policy during the election stated, and the member for Cumberland North, on June 5, 2009, four days before the election, was quoted as suggesting that such home insulation grants, for example, were an important part of an environmental policy for low- and middle-income homeowners.

I realize that it is cross-department, but I don't want to go to the Department of Energy and have them say, well, it's cross-department so we're not going to answer it - I'll ask them the same question, I guess, but I'm just interested in knowing whether, when you look at your Climate Change Action Plan, is that an important tool in helping to support that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, climate change is one of our important tools for us to achieve some of these goals. But the energy efficient targets for the province has committed to increasing overall energy efficiency in Nova Scotia by 20 per cent over 2008 levels by 2020.The province has created an energy efficiency agency called Conserve Nova Scotia and is looking at setting up an independent energy efficiency agency that will work solely on the electricity sector. So there are things going on but, again, I'm trying to find out - they are cross-departmental.

MR. YOUNGER: You still haven't told me whether you think that grants to homeowners are an important element in achieving that energy reduction in greenhouse gas emission. It's a yes or no question - do you think it's a good idea or don't you?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again to the member opposite. Any time you have a tool where you can reduce energy is good. The answer is yes, that is an obvious - to me it's a no-brainer. When you can assist people to cut down on household use and put dollars in their pockets, and create less emissions overall in Nova Scotia, to me - and if you ask any Nova Scotian - you're going to get a yes answer. This is just one of the many tools that is out there.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the answer and I agree with you on that.

I would like to move to the Climate Change Action Plan which was released by your department January 2009, and I guess in fairness to you the first question I should ask is, do you intend to continue with the previous government's action plan or are you going to be replacing that with your own?

[Page 199]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, yes, we will strengthen and examine all different options regarding anything to do with climate change. I look forward to having the opportunity to meet with our counterparts in mid-November of this year. So that is something that's a work in progress. For example, we have increased the renewable target of energy to 25 per cent by 2015. These are very aggressive targets and, again, I've made a number of references over the last 24 hours that Nova Scotia is taking a leadership role when it comes to energy and renewable sources. I think Nova Scotia, and I think all parties, can be commended in that we are taking that leadership role and I think we are an example across this beautiful land that we call Canada.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to then just ask you about where we are on the few targets in that plan - I just want to know really if we're on target and whether you think we're going to have to change that target. So there are just a few that I want to ask about and they are specifically the ones that were either targeted for completion this year or next year.

The first one would be Action 19, "Produce a Sustainable Transportation Strategy by 2010." There's still, obviously, a bit of time - I'm just wondering, is that still on track?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations are working on that and they're on target to meet those particular goals.

MR. YOUNGER: Action 21 says to introduce regulations by 2010 setting fuel consumption and emissions standards for new vehicles. However, there appears to be a caveat in Action 21 which says "Following consultation and co-operation with other jurisdictions" - so I'm wondering whether that target is on track or whether that's going to shift.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, we are working with our federal government - there has to be some national standards and we're working with our federal counterparts to deal with that. The member raises a very important topic to me. I've identified that and I've looked very closely at that because I know the consumption of fuel, especially with the particular industry of my background and I also am very aware of the truckers who make the long hauls from Nova Scotia to Florida, some are my constituents, and anything that we can do to reduce the costs or make vehicles more efficient, I think it will be welcome news for all the sectors that use fuel in a commercial way.

Regarding recreational driving, I think all consumers, whether you're going down to see the Fall colours of our autumn in Cape Breton this particular next few weeks - which I intend to do - or whether you're out for a recreational drive, or a commercial trucker hauling your goods to Florida, I think any time we can make vehicles more efficient, it's something that all of the environment departments in Canada would be wise to consider and take into account. I look forward to seeing some work done on that.

[Page 200]

MR. YOUNGER: I appreciate that and I would just ask - obviously that target at the moment says 2010 but, where it does rely on the federal and other jurisdictions, I would appreciate it if you could keep the House up to date if that target is going to flip. I know that may be a little bit out of your hands if it does, but if you can just keep us up to date as it moves on.

In Action 22, which is related to that, it says that by this year the government would "Develop a program . . . to encourage - and support - consumers to choose greener cars and trucks that are more fuel efficient and produce less air pollution." So I'm wondering, what has been done on that? There are only three months left in this year.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, we're working with EcoNova Scotia on that particular goal and regulation and we look forward to moving forward with that.

MR. YOUNGER: So on that one, because the target says 2009, will there be something by the end of this year? By December 31^st will we see either a program or - yes, it says a program . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, yes, you'll see something by early year.

MR. YOUNGER: I'm glad to hear that. Moving forward quite a bit, to Action 34, there was a requirement in the Climate Change Action Plan to "Complete its plan for complying with the Canada-wide standard for particulate matter and ground-level ozone by the end of 2009." Has that been done?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, we have a particular plan that we're working on and we plan to move forward on that by the end of this year.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you. Action 35 is one for next year, and it's to "Achieve the 2010 cap on mercury emissions", which I think everybody is concerned with and, although it's tied to a Canada-wide one, it does suggest that Nova Scotia might have its own and I just want to know whether we're on track to achieve that cap.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very important topic and I can assure the member that we have the regulations already in place.

MR. YOUNGER: Action 37 talks about all new government-owned buildings achieving LEED Silver certification after 2008. Now, you can let me know if we achieved that one; however, I would like to ask as well what you're doing in terms of leased accommodation space, whether you're now either requiring or giving a point score in RFPs for buildings that meet LEED certification.

[Page 201]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, we have a procurement policy in place and we're looking at that particular option, and we'll look again to move forward on this.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I would like to encourage you to definitely have a look at that. We hear the possibility of the movement, for example, of the Department of Health next door, and when these groups are looking for new office space obviously you're not always going to be able to achieve a LEED building but certainly in the metro area there are quite a lot of LEED buildings being constructed. There are some that are on the drawing board and they are approved by the municipality but are waiting for tenants and things like that. I think the government has the opportunity to be a catalyst in that regard. So I think - my own view is that it needs to be expanded beyond just new government-owned buildings and hopefully will include encouraging it for leased accommodation as well.

[10:45 a.m.]

I don't know if you want to comment on that before I move to the next item - you can if you wish.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I had difficulty hearing the last part of your question, but all new public buildings must meet an equivalency of the LEED's particular policy. I didn't actually catch the last part of your question, so I hope that addressed a portion of it.

MR. YOUNGER: Yes, I can just repeat, really it was just that I hope - and I think you did partially answer it - that the policy is expanded to include leases where possible and, as I say, I understand not everywhere in Nova Scotia is necessarily going to have a LEED building where you need it to be, but government can be the catalyst.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, again, I just want to emphasize that we have a sustainable procurement policy and I understand your concerns and, like I say, we're moving forward again to include that we all are very aware of our surroundings and how we can make things better and live in a cleaner, greener Nova Scotia. So we're in that particular stage where we're looking very seriously at all aspects of dealing with the environment.

MR. YOUNGER: In Action 44 - I had a chance to read the sustainable procurement policy, the first draft that came out the other week; however, it seemed to deal with mainly janitorial issues and a couple of others and didn't seem to address the issue in Action 44, which was around the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. Maybe I just missed that when I read it, but could you tell me whether that is coming, whether it has been added to that procurement policy or whether that has been delayed?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, Mr. Chairman, these are cross-departmental policies, but this is being led by Economic and Rural Development, the procurement policy, and to me that's, you know, kind of a broad path here - we are dealing with a number of departments.

[Page 202]

MR. YOUNGER: Why is that one being led by Economic and Rural Development? I probably would have understood if you had said it's being lead by Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal or something like that, but Economic and Rural Development doesn't seem to fit for me on that one.

MR. BELLIVEAU: To answer your question, the procurement policy lies with the Economic and Rural Development Department. So, again, this is kind of the complex system that we're in but some of these questions that you're asking, we can get more clarification and we can get that information back to you . . .

MR. YOUNGER: I would appreciate that.

MR. BELLIVEAU: You're asking very detailed, complex, technical questions here and I appreciate - our staff at work will get you that technical information.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, and that's fine if somebody can get me that answer. Action 48 would "Amend funding agreements with municipalities by 2010 to require climate change strategies in municipal Integrated Community Sustainability Plans." Now, as far as I'm aware, at least as of a few months ago, HRM was the only municipality in Nova Scotia that actually had an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan and they went to Ottawa and did a presentation on it. So where are we on encouraging or getting the rest of the plans? A few of the others may have been done in the meantime, but I'm reasonably certain that every municipality doesn't yet have one in Nova Scotia, so where are we in terms of helping them achieve those plans?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again through you to the honourable member, these are interdepartmental and we're working with Service Nova Scotia on this. I think you can understand in your last line of questioning, the complexity, how the different departments are interconnected and this is a policy that kind of has a broad range or sweeping effect, so I can appreciate why we have to get some clarification on this, because there are so many different departments that are interconnected.

MR. YOUNGER: That's fine and actually the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is here and she has heard the question, so perhaps her department can just find out the answer for me and send me an e-mail or a memo or however - electronics is better, let's forget the paper.

The last one in the plan that I want to ask you about is Action 56, which I'm fairly certain is just your department, and it's to establish criteria by this year in the environmental assessment process where climate change is considered in environmental assessments - the first part of my question is whether that has been added to the environmental assessment process at this point.

[Page 203]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, we have consultation that's going on with that. I guess to me the most important thing that you're bringing up here is that the climate change is important to all these different departments that we talked about. So there's a lot of work that is going on and, again, you're asking these very technical, fine, complex questions here. We will get you the information and move forward from there.

MR. YOUNGER: That's fine and when the answer comes back on that, I'd be interested to know if that's still under consultation, whether that will be completed on target by the end of this year or whether including that in the EA process will be delayed - so when your staff gets back to me with the answer, if they could answer that as well, because that's probably also a technical question.

I would like to just ask you a few more questions and then I'll turn it over to the member for Preston.

There have been some changes and you mentioned the hard caps, which I think makes a lot of sense, but I am concerned, though, that if you actually read the letter of the law or the letter of the regulations it would appear that the changes which may have made sense to allow Nova Scotia Power to have an equity stake of I think up to 49 per cent in renewable energy projects, may in fact reduce the total percentage of renewable energy we may have otherwise been required to achieve in the province. That may have been an unintended consequence, but what we had before was that Nova Scotia Power had to reduce their renewable energy, plus the industry had to create all kinds of other renewable energy and the stuff that Nova Scotia Power created didn't count towards all the targets.

Now it seems there might be some overlap, which says to me that you might actually end up with less total renewable energy mandated by government than what we otherwise would have. I wonder if you can just describe how that's going to work its way through and whether there is any impact on our total renewable energy minimums.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again this is another issue where it is cross- departmental, but this falls under the Department of Energy - the renewable energy standards are in their legislation.

MR. YOUNGER: I can ask them then, that's fine. The Minister of Energy is coming up in the other room next week - you can give him the heads-up, then he'll have all the answers when I get there.

The last thing I wanted to discuss with you is the issue of wind turbines. Now, I know that there's an energy component, but I'm interested in the environmental assessment process and whether your department is looking at minimum setbacks for any wind turbine project from residential or commercial properties. I know the Halifax Regional Municipality and the

[Page 204]

Municipality of Digby, and I think Cape Breton as well, are all looking at this independently, but I'm wondering whether you'd be looking at a province-wide standard.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again this is an important topic to all Nova Scotians. I just want to point out to the honourable member that when I first took office we were going through the process dealing with that project, the wind turbines on Digby Neck, and I just want to point out very clearly that the former Minister of Environment made a decision to go back and get additional information on that. So there was a condition that the first environmental assessment, the previous Minister of Environment made a decision to go back and get more information regarding setbacks and some other concerns around the migration of animals.

When I took on the office that was one of my first decisions, so I looked at, in great length and in great detail, the setbacks. I also want to point out that to my recollection one of the conditions was there were three turbines that were not approved because of their location. There was a lot of information about the distance from the homes, the residents, and I think that with all that information we made that in the best interests of all Nova Scotians.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I think that's probably specific to the Digby Neck project. It seems to me we're ending up with a patchwork quilt across the province, the minimum setback standards, and I'm wondering, are you considering implementing a standard minimum setback across the province for wind turbines?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Your quick answer is no, we're not considering any legislation at this time, but the province, through the Department of Energy, did work with the municipalities, in other municipalities, on having some of these setbacks. I'm very familiar with what you're talking about because actually I had an earlier life, and in one of our municipalities we had that particular topic and we actually had a bylaw dealing with setbacks.

I'm very familiar with the Pubnico Wind Farm; I understand the concerns that were raised about that. I've researched that particular project very well and I understand the concerns about the residents who were in close proximity to the home on west side - I think it was somewhere in the 350-metre range. I felt confident that the information we had from Health Canada dealing with Digby Wind Farm was well over 700-some-odd metres, off the top of my head. We can get the full details of that, but I can assure you that I have reviewed the possibility of sun flicker. I understand they're very close. I understand the possibility of noise that can come from the rotating rotors or the turbines, and I also understand that a lot of people may not know the radar effect that they can have on aircraft and stuff like that.

I've done what I feel has been somewhat of a research, not only at the municipal level but just simply from public curiosity, so I'm very aware of the concerns around the Digby corridor there. One of the conditions was to remove three of the turbines in the location to allow - as you know, Digby Neck is a peninsula and there is migration of animals, mammals

[Page 205]

and birds that just by simply moving them and giving - not to create a closed gate effect. Those were some of the conditions that Natural Resources has raised on that particular project, so I feel comfortable that a lot of the concerns of the residents were addressed in that project. Thank you.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, I'm now going to turn it over to my colleague, the member for Preston.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Preston.

HON. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you, I have a few questions. The first question is pretty straightforward, are we still shipping tires to Quebec to be burned?

MR. BELLIVEAU: The first question is simple, yes.

MR. COLWELL: That disturbs me greatly, but anyway, has there been any progress made in the plans that the department had, through the RRFB I believe, to shred these tires and use them here locally? Has there been any progress in that at all?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much and again, I want to welcome the member opposite and I thank you for your interest in the environment and these questions here today. Our department, our Resource Recovery Fund Board bid evaluation team is in the process of selecting an operator for converting used tires and tire aggregate through a fair and open request for proposals process. The TDA is made up of tires that have been shredded and used in place of gravel, especially in road construction. It is most effective and environmentally safe.

[11:00 a.m.]

Prior to the RFP, the RRFB held a knowledge day to educate operators of the TDA. This was followed by a meeting for all potential bidders to better understand the RFP process. Through a fair evaluation process, two bidders were short-listed. The RRFB recently participated in a debriefing with the unsuccessful bidder in attempts to answer questions and concerns that they had about the RFP process.

I just want to point out that I was curious, I always like to go out - and I understand there's a road that has been built in the Digby area. I think the member for Digby-Annapolis pointed that out last year and I always was interested in trying to go and observe that. I'm a hands-on person and I'd love to be able to see an example of this while I'm in this particular office. I look forward to going out and seeing how these tires can be shredded and actually incorporated into aggregate for our road building. I thank the member opposite for bringing the question forward.

[Page 206]

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate the answer and it's not anything to do with this minister, at this time, but this should have been done a long time ago, quite frankly. It's not helping our environment, having these tires burnt in Quebec, even here in Nova Scotia. When will this contract be awarded, any idea when that may happen?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Under the process, I understand that it may be awarded in the next few months.

MR. COLWELL: Is it the intent of the contract to eliminate the shipment of all tires outside of Nova Scotia or will some of them still go to Quebec to be burned?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just a point of clarification, the tendering process will be first of all by the RRFB, not the Department of Environment. Nova Scotia generates the equivalent of more than one million used passenger tires each year, approximately 6,000 are stored in Nova Scotia at any given time. Once a truck is filled they are shipped to Quebec for processing. That's something that we are addressing through this particular process, and we look forward to - if there's a way of improving by being more environmentally friendly, I think that's the objective of our department. This has been an ongoing issue for a number of years and we are looking to be doing things better. Thank you.

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate the answer but it didn't answer my question. The question was, are all the tires that are presently produced in Nova Scotia - I realize there are around a million a year - going to be diverted and shredded or are some of them still going to have to go to Quebec for burning?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, the intent is to go through this TDA program and right now we don't know all the details of this particular tendering process. The intent is to make things better and to do a better performance on how we can handle this particular product.

MR. COLWELL: Again, I appreciate the answer and I know the department has every interest of doing this and working on this to resolve this ongoing problem with tires. I still want an answer to my question. Are all the tires going to be reprocessed into aggregate in Nova Scotia or are some of them still going to go to Quebec for burning?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, the goal, the intention is to divert all the tires that are being used to this process, but we don't know the details of this particular contract yet. The ultimate goal is to divert all the tires and to do it in a more environmentally friendly way. That's the intent, but until you actually have the details of this particular contract, it's speculation on my behalf.

This is a product that we're addressing. Again, I could point to a number of issues dealing with household waste, Nova Scotians are leaders across Canada. We talked about

[Page 207]

electronic waste, again, we're leaders. We're taking a very aggressive role, some of these goals are challenging and we can always improve upon them. Thank you.

MR. COLWELL: I'll ask the question in a different way. When the request for proposals went out, did the request for proposals indicate how many tires were required to be processed under this process?

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, the request for proposals was for all tires that were used in Nova Scotia. I think the member is very concerned about this information and I encourage him to be in contact with our department. When we go through this process, perhaps we can have a briefing and bring him up to date on what is actually taking place.

MR. COLWELL: I would appreciate that. I have a great deal of respect for the staff in your department, too, I really do.

I understand why the tires went to Quebec to be burnt, but you're creating pollution by burning them, and you're creating emissions from the trucks transporting them all the way to Quebec. The sooner this can happen, I think the better it will be for the environment of Nova Scotia and I know the minister agrees with that. I know the department does as well. I know it does take time to put these things in place and to make sure they get a market and to make sure you get the technology and everything else is in place.

Was there a directive at any time, either since you've been minister or prior to you being minister, to have this process expedited by the RRFB?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Not since I've been the Minister of Environment. We want this to happen as soon as possible. I understand the point the honourable member brings up and if we can come up with a source of a new way of handling this product that will be safe, I understand your concerns that by transporting you're actually creating emissions, I understand that very clearly, but I think we have to go through this process knowing this can be done in a safe way that will actually enhance the environment. Ultimately this is the goal.

I think there's a process in the works here. If you look back on the reflection of household waste over the last 10 or 15 years, we've improved that, we are leaders. We are leaders in electronic waste. When it comes to dealing with tires and finding a new recycling use for them, again, I think we'll take a leadership role and we'll move forward and continue to be one of the cleanest and greenest environments across Canada.

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate the minister's concern for this and I also appreciate the last minister's concern for this as well. It's so important to all of us and as we learn more and more about how these emissions affect us, not only greenhouse gases but diseases and illnesses that are created by these that we had no idea of and probably still don't have any idea

[Page 208]

of, in some cases, how these things happen. So I think time is of the essence and I'm glad to hear that the RRFB has finally, slowly, realized that maybe burning tires isn't a good idea.

They had a long education on that process and I want to thank the department for helping in that process. I know they are an arm of the Department of Environment, independent from the Department of Environment, it's sort of a strange set-up. Do you as minister - and this question is going to be very difficult to answer because you've only been in the job a short time. I have a great deal of difficulty with the way the RRFB is run and that goes to show by the decision they made some time ago to burn tires in Nova Scotia, which indeed won't happen now, but is there any consideration by your government, or will there be consideration by your government, to rewrite the book on the RRFB and to make sure they're more accountable and actually do look at environmental issues? When they decided they were going to award a contract to burn tires in Nova Scotia and indeed shipped them to Quebec to be burned, it doesn't really seem to fit into their mandate.

It seems to be against everything that they were created for and it just seemed like an easy way out, not really innovative or anything else, and I'm on the record for this before as well. I would just like the minister's opinion on this and, again, this is not a very fair question because you've only been there a short time and this is a very complex issue. Just your opinion on this, more than anything else, so I can get a feeling of where you might want to see this go or if you think it's all right, either way.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, again, I just want to point out that the RRFB - as you know, this is a very busy time, the House is sitting, and I'm not trying to make excuses here, but I do want to have an opportunity to get out and meet with these people in the next two or three months. I've also participated at the municipal level and I'm very aware of them dealing with this particular body, dealing with household waste. Are there issues like what the honourable member is bringing up here today? I really am encouraged by our society where we can go out and we can identify these issues that the honourable member has raised about tires and to go out and meet with these individuals and have a very frank and open discussion on how we can make life better for all Nova Scotians.

I really love to participate in that engagement and I'm one who takes all the advice of all parties and all members across Nova Scotia and when it comes to - you know, I've got a background at the municipal council. I know how things can improve, how you can make life better for families. To me, as the Minister of Environment, the goal here is that we are going to be recognized, whether it's for using recycled tires for Nova Scotians, or tidal power, or having protected wilderness areas, I think it's going to be so evident across Canada and across North America and the world that we are going to be leaders when it comes to the environment.

So I look forward to being engaged with people and taking the honourable member's comments, I take them very seriously, and I look at the possibility of finding a solution to that

[Page 209]

answer in the best interests of all Nova Scotians. So, again, I'll be looking forward to meeting with this particular group.

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate the minister's answer to that and I do realize that he's very committed to the environment, as the department is, and as I said before, I've got a very high regard for the staff in your department and as far as I can see they won't lead you astray, which is very good.

I do have serious concerns about the Resource Recovery Fund Board though, very serious concerns. Now that I look at it and reflect back on what they have done in the past, I still cannot imagine how they could possibly even entertain burning tires in Nova Scotia, but that's just my own personal opinion. I personally think that the government should seriously look at the RRFB, not with a view of getting rid of them or anything like that, but change their mandate so that they really have to consider environmental issues when they make the decisions they make.

Originally when they were set up everything went very well and the intention was very good and it worked well, but it seems like that intention has slipped. Over time, when something is set up for the first time, often changes or corrections need to be made to really change with the times.

I think this whole process with the RRFB - and I think this tire burning is a good example of that - should be reviewed. Their mandate should probably be changed and that may improve their mandate, it may change their mandate. I'm not saying what it should be, but it should be so they can never, ever come up with a decision like this again. It's so counter-productive to what the department was trying to do a few years ago, what the province is trying to do. It's an arm of government even though they're independent from your department but still under your jurisdiction. How could this possibly happen?

[11:15 a.m.]

Here we are talking about greenhouse gases, improving our environment and everything else and the RRFB is going to burn tires. Think about that. This is the organization that is supposed to help Nova Scotians live healthier and properly divert and reuse and create employment in the province, create employment, not ship things to Quebec, but create employment and a solution that the department came and decided upon, the former minister, I'm very pleased with that. I think that's very straightforward, RRFB should have come to that decision themselves, so that really concerns me. What is the next problem they're going to create? Then if we don't happen to have - hopefully we'd never slip through again.

Again, I'm not blaming the department because the department was completely clear of this decision and the department reacted very well and with the responsibilities they had, seriously looked at this and made really positive decisions. I think the RRFB really hasn't

[Page 210]

reviewed their mandate to see how they operate and maybe add some more requirements to the mandate so they have to look at these issues. Never mind taking the easy road to fix these things because sometimes the easy road isn't the easy road, it's the more difficult road.

I understand the minister understands this process from being from a very practical background as I am. It just makes so much sense to do what you're going to do now with shredding tires. It's going to create jobs in Nova Scotia, it's going to help our environment and all the things it should be doing, but the RRFB didn't even look at this, I don't believe, to start with, they didn't; easiest solution, a million tires, burn them all, that was the answer. All of that has been straightened out but the point is, the process, how they got there, has not been straightened out. I think that process has to be changed so they have a mandate. Maybe their mandate says they have to get approval from the Department of Environment for anything they're going to do like this and an environmental review.

I don't know what the answer is but I'm sure your staff could give you some suggestions, some direction and make some recommendations, because, as I say, they did an excellent job when this issue was brought forward. They worked very hard to get it resolved and the solution they came up with was excellent.

It's really how the RRFB is structured, how and what their responsibilities are, I really think the department has to seriously look at that and make sure they're doing all the things that the government has said they're going to do, and try to do, that Nova Scotians want done. Especially in economic times like we have today, if we can create another job in Nova Scotia by diverting some more product that we didn't have, that really helps, that's going to help our economy long term, as well as leading in the country. Could I have your comments and ideas on that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again through you to the honourable member, I understand your point very clearly and it's always important to look at any organization, to ensure that it's still meeting the objectives and I take your comments very seriously. I can commit to you that we will look to reviewing and revising the current agreement with the RRFB and that has been in place for over 10 years now.

I take this job very seriously, I understand your comments and I'll instruct my staff to proceed to the concerns that you've raised. I'm fully aware of the issue that you brought up about tires and I look forward to seeing how they're actually implemented in road construction. I'm very intrigued by that so I want to go out and see that. I'm a hands-on person, I want to actually see how that can work and if we can find a better way of doing this, then I think we'll take an aggressive approach on this. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have about 10 minutes left in the Liberal caucus time.

[Page 211]

MR. COLWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased with the minister's answer on that and I know that you'll follow through on it and I know the department will. It's an important issue that I think will really help Nova Scotia long term, both economically and with our environment. I'm very pleased that the minister will do that and I have every confidence that you will and I look forward to some innovative, real-life approaches on this.

I think that's what was missing in the RRFB, just sort of, there's a problem, get rid of it attitude, instead of saying, okay, how can we really do this? I come from a background of innovation and designing and building new equipment as you know. Some of these solutions are so simple - sometimes they're hard to see but they're sometimes really simple. I appreciate the background the minister has, as well, so when you can see something that makes sense, you'll implement it and I have every confidence in that.

I have another question, too, about waste diversion. Are we still where we were in waste diversion or have we slipped some? A couple of years ago, I believe we slipped. The percentage of waste diversion has gone down?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again through you to the member, I almost can recite the numbers I know at the municipal level. I know waste reduction and I remember being on the council and one time it was up over 55 per cent of household waste; that was at the local Municipality of Barrington. My understanding is that Nova Scotia in the last few years, we have slipped from - I think we achieved the 50 per cent margin there of diverting household waste from landfills. I think we've slipped somewhat. I think what we need to do - we had that question last night and one of the - Nova Scotia still disposes of 50 per cent less waste than the Canadian average.

I know the point that you're raising here and to me, again, it's another success story but there is room for improvement. Where we focused in last night was that the consumer, I think - some of our attitudes are changing and I think one of the things we need to focus and educate the public on is dealing with packaging. I gave the example last night about getting a coffee table from the local hardware store, or whatever, that needs to be put together and you get a box and you have to assemble that. By the time you get the coffee table out and you put it together with all your little bolts and all that stuff, you look back in the box with all the Styrofoam and the plastic and the cardboard that actually put that together, and the box is practically still full. This is just an example of seeing if we can change that thought pattern of better ways of packaging and creating some of this waste.

The other part of that is, when you go to the local shopping mall, you see less and less plastic bags and you see people using the cloth bags. I give reference to last night, I know the cost of them now because they're something like 39 or 49 cents every time I go in. I usually forget the cloth bag in the back of my seat so it's costing me roughly about 50 cents to make that mistake now. I've got quite a collection in my backseat but I'm starting to learn that.

[Page 212]

The thing that I actually impressed on in the last six months, I've noticed the increase of consumers, as they go to the shopping malls, the frequency that you see these cloth bags - people are bringing them in and they're doing their shopping. So it's a matter of changing people's attitudes. This has been a process in the works and I think we are changing that. So are we demanding less packaging? I think we can divert a lot of this waste from our landfills.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have about five minutes remaining.

MR. COLWELL: I couldn't agree more with the minister regarding that, except the cardboard is recyclable, the plastic is recyclable, the Styrofoam should be, if it isn't now. It goes back to the RRFB, right back to the RRFB again. They are the ones who are supposed to be doing this stuff. As far as I can see, they have not been doing the job as well as they should be. Diversion has gone down. They made some decisions, I think, that really haven't helped the municipalities and the people in the communities. I don't think their educational programs are up to scratch.

When you look at waste diversion, I'm very pleased with what we do in Nova Scotia now. I would like to see 100 per cent diversion, that's where we should be - not at 50 per cent, not at 60 per cent, we should be at 100 per cent and, really, there is no reason not to do that. We do not need dumps in this province, we do not. But we're going to have to become pretty innovative to get there. We are going to have to educate people and work on it.

Again, this is the RRFB, and it's their responsibility to help reduce the waste in Nova Scotia, and the numbers have slipped. So, again, they have some excuses for this, and I call them excuses. We really need to get them to look at their mandate again and see what they are doing. They are collecting millions of dollars every year and I'm sure you would love to have the money in your department to do some of the work that your department does so well. I'm not suggesting that, but it just seems like there's not enough direction in that operation.

One thing I would like to ask the minister, if I could, I would like to get the current copy of all the programs that the RRFB is presently doing. That is, the research development ones, any grants that they give out to anybody, their latest statistics on the diversion and broken down whether it is by reusable containers, cardboard, plastics, metals, everything that they got, I would like to see that because I would like to compare it to what it was a year ago.

I would ask you, maybe if your department has time, to sort of look at the numbers and just see if we're slipping all over or what's happening there. Also, the amount of money they spend on advertising and where. I think it's information that the minister is going to have to have anyway, when he goes through the process. I would really like to get that information. I would just like to get a commitment that we could get that information to the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a request for information. Do you have comments on that?

[Page 213]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. My staff and I are committed to getting that information for the honourable member. Hopefully the member will give them some time; I think they deserve the weekend to themselves. But I hope that you will get that in a reasonable length of time.

I know that our time is short here but I just want to point out that Nova Scotia set new solid waste disposal targets of 300 kilograms per person by 2015. I understand your point very clearly. I'm very familiar with household waste and I can tell you that from the fishing industry background, I can hit the reset button and go back 10 or 15 years ago and all the coastal communities have a large wharf that I sailed from, there are 100-some-odd vessels, there were no waste collection systems 15 or 20 years ago. There were no oil contamination systems there. Now we have a central place where all the vessels bring their oil in, their oil filters, their oily rags and all this stuff. It collected in one place and it's recycled by a company just outside Truro.

The waste that you're talking about, recycling - the fishing industry is a very large consumer of fish-bait boxes that are made of cardboard and plastic. You go and see these containers that are full and are waiting for a truck to come and pick them up. If you just back up 15 years, none of that stuff was in place. If you go all over the different wharves, you will see the change.

The point that I'm trying to make here is from 15 years ago the attitude today, Nova Scotians have changed. We are one of the ones that wants a cleaner and greener Nova Scotia and we're taking a leadership role and I'm delighted to be the Minister of Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the Liberal caucus has expired. We thought at this point that we might be moving on to Fisheries and Aquiculture but - in a very open and transparent government - we are prepared to continue with Environment. We will certainly give another hour, if requested, to the Progressive Conservative caucus.

The honourable member for Hants West.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chairman, we like that open methodology in your way of thinking, of course, and it probably won't be an hour, it may only be a short period of time. I know if my colleague comes back, he may have a couple more questions, but we'll probably get on to Fisheries and Aquiculture, I would think, at some point today.

[11:30 a.m.]

I just want to pick back up with the Environment side. The pits and quarries, minister, a little bit on that, environmental assessments. When it comes to pits and quarries, I guess there are, if you will, size limitations before you need to have an assessment done. What size area is that? I think it was four acres or four hectares, I couldn't remember exactly.

[Page 214]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, I welcome the member opposite for his additional questions. My understanding is that any time there is a quarry that's over four hectares, there needs to be an environmental assessment.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I couldn't remember whether it was four acres or four hectares. So basically, if it's under that four hectares, there is no environmental assessment or is there, for something less than that, some kind of an assessment?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there has to be an industrial approval for anything that is under four hectares.

MR. PORTER: That comes through your department as well, Mr. Minister?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read a portion: Pits greater than four hectares require an approval under the environmental assessment regulations. Pits greater than two hectares require an approval under the activities designation regulations. While those under two hectares were exempt in 2005, all operators are still subject to the Environment Act and can be charged for adverse effects. Approved pits must follow the pits and quarries guidelines.

MR. PORTER: Is there any limitation on the number of pits or quarries that we'll consider? You know, if we reach a certain number, are we going to stop that or as long as they meet those guidelines, we're committed to approving them?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the answer is there is no limit.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, not that I'm against pits and quarries, I know the importance of them and for the rock to build the roads and so on, it is very important and vital. Generally contractors are looking to set them up as close as possible to the construction sites, for obvious reasons, for the fuel and so on and so forth. One of the problems with these is the location of them.

I know in my area, there are two that come to mind right off the top of my head that are located directly in a residential area, whereby you're travelling through quite populated areas on roads that are not made for the bigger trucks. Two tandem trucks couldn't pass on one road in certain spots, so there are, obviously, safety issues. The roadbed has never been built to that classification and in years past, why would they, because the quarrying didn't exist at that time. Once the roads are there, it's often difficult and they take quite a beating. But I guess what I'm getting at is, is the location considered in that whole environmental process with the residential neighbourhood? Are there other alternatives that could be considered in this process?

[Page 215]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, approvals are always dealing with the water and since they would be around water and dust, we're very aware of Nova Scotians and the industry, their concerns about the environmental impact on pits and quarries and their regulations. Nova Scotia needs a sustainable supply of rock aggregate to support developments within our province. Nova Scotia Department of Environment grants approvals for pits and quarries to operate based on the size of the proposed operation. Our role is a regulatory audit, sites for environmental risks and address the environmental assessment.

The honourable member talks about - and I understand the concerns of the public - but I also think, when I sit in that Chamber over there, when the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal stands up, everybody makes a joke about wanting roads built in their area. But if I can go over here and create a balance of raising concerns about pits and quarries, there is also a great demand on having this aggregate or the gravel, this commodity that we want, and we want them on our roads; we want them built and we demand it; we demand it for our concrete that builds our buildings. So there is a balance there and I think Environment is very sensitive to the concerns of the public, but on the other hand the importance that we want safe new roads for our travelling public and we also want the concrete that builds our buildings. So, to me, we have to balance that out and I think our department is doing a reasonable job.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I guess on that I agree with you. I certainly would agree with those comments, the road building, whether it is the concrete portion, the commodity is definitely required. I don't know, in general, that anybody is against that. I think that these people who live in a residential area aren't so much against any of that, none of them have really come out and said, we don't want that. It's a matter of, is there another way? Why doesn't the Department of Environment, if they're going to approve these things, make them have an access road - I guess, for the lack of a better word - to get into these places whereby they are not driving through residential?

Although it is approved by Environment, they see that whole approval system as being - safety being a key part of that. If you can't safely do this, travel the trucks back and forth, et cetera, how could you possibly approve it?

Again, I want to stress, people are not against pits and quarries when it comes to rock and building roads, et cetera, in my area, at all. They're not jumping up and down and saying, we don't want that. They're saying, this is a key issue, what's the Department of Environment going to do about it and how can they approve such a pit in this location?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, the member is talking about inter-departmental, where we cross over here. But some of the safety issues you talk about for trucks turning in close proximity to residential homes, again, that falls under the safety in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. So there are issues there that cross departments, and I'm sure the member may want to raise that with the Minister of

[Page 216]

Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. But these approvals deal with water, they deal with noise, the location, and separation distances. Environment is looking at where these things can be done in a very safe manner for all Nova Scotians.

Again, the contractors are demanding that these sites are within reason of where these construction jobs are being done. So there is a balancing act that has to be done and I think we have to take all people into consideration, whether you're the contractor or the residents and the safety. Also, typically, we require a Community Liaison Committee in the local area to deal with the companies. We have the mechanism and the tools in place to deal with these issues, but as I say, there are always concerns.

Again, there has to be a balance when you're talking about balancing for the safety of the public and environmental concerns, and you have to take into consideration that construction companies have to be somewhat reasonable in the distance that they are transporting this stuff. We all want these projects to go ahead. I think overall we're doing a fair and balanced approach to this particular topic.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, is there any - and I know the crossover there. Obviously it's vital that Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal has some approvals and determines the classification of road and weight restrictions, and I understand all that. Is there any plan to work together in the future when these approvals are being done? For example, would you as the Minister of Environment be planning or working together with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and making sure not only the classification of roads and how the road underneath is built and so on for weights, but the safety of transporting the commodity to and from? I know Highway No. 1 versus the bigger highway is not the issue. It is those side road issues through communities that get to that quarry.

So just to be clear, the question is, is there a plan to work together to try to come up with a mechanism? Because if it exists it doesn't appear to exist today. The general populace that lives there would not think that exists today, if it does.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, when there are always some safety concerns or issues dealing with other interdepartmental issues. We're always looking for comments. You raised this issue with us, and again, if you have a particular area or situation, I ask you to bring that to our attention and we will work with our colleagues in the other departments. The safety and the welfare of all Nova Scotians and protecting the environment are always the concerns of this particular department. Thank you.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I will do that. There are probably a couple of issues that we'll chat about, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that with you on a future date.

You mentioned the CAC, the Community Liaison Committee. I'm very familiar with that. One of the two organizations or the two quarries and communities did go through and

[Page 217]

set up a CAC, but found it to be very ineffective. It seemed to be more favouring the owner or the pit operator than it did the actual community. There are some limitations around that don't really allow members of the community to have a lot of say on that, although it is called the Community Liaison Committee, and I was attending meetings where this committee met. The requirements are narrow, I think maybe is the right word there, and there may be some consideration, again, more maybe for the education piece, but they are quite narrow as to what is required to make sure things continue to have the necessary approvals.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, one of the requirements - we're reviewing the possibility of that particular committee, and it is something that will be in our plan for next year. I understand your concerns, and I look forward to bringing them forward and addressing them.

MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I think that will be of great value because it does seem to be an area that could use some work there, and I think it would be beneficial to those people living in the community who are affected by such pits and quarries. Again, I want to emphasize that they're not saying no, but they have a lot of questions that aren't being answered.

One of them, on this four hectares or less versus more - right now you can go into an area and have a 3.9 hectare pit and quarry and not have to go through this full environmental assessment, and you could continue to get those. You could quarry that, be done, get another permit for 3.5 hectares, et cetera, when at the end of the day this thing could be quite large and certainly well over the four hectares. There's a loophole there.

Is there any consideration given if you are going to expand, regardless of what has been quarried or not, if you get over and above the necessary four hectares, that you will have to go through - because it does impact, and we're going to go back to the location here, it does impact the same location regardless of how much or how big it grows. Once it's over that four hectares - and lots of people would argue four hectares is too big but if that is the rule today, we'll stay with that. So do you understand the question I'm asking? I beat around that in a roundabout way.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, we're looking at pits and quarries in our new business plan in the upcoming year and again I take your concerns very seriously. I'm sure that not only the concerns that have been raised by your other colleagues and the other members of the Opposition, we will flag those concerns and we'll address them in our business plan in the coming year.

MR. PORTER: I appreciate that, minister, and again, not that we're trying to in any way shut down any operation or any contract, or anyone out there doing that business. But you can't say one thing and do another, I guess is the perception of the communities whereby these things continue to grow. Even if they are only 3.5 or 3.9 hectares at a time, they are still much

[Page 218]

larger than that when the project is done or continuing on. So I thank you for that commitment in your business plan and to review that and perhaps there will be changes that will follow.

[11:45 a.m.]

Just continuing on with the line of questioning with regard to pits and quarries, I want to move to Fundy Gypsum and talk about that a little bit. You may be aware of the situation there these days. Something that this government or no other government could control, of course, is the economics and how things have worked in the United States. A lot of the gypsum that is extracted from the ground gets shipped to the United States, of course, for processing to wallboard, et cetera. That depends on the markets, housing, and many things as we all know, with the sale of gypsum and board, obviously, but they've had quite a downturn.

Over the last four years now, at least, and maybe a little longer, there has been an effort to get an expansion put in place at the Miller Creek location. To date there has been an awful lot of work done and an application was submitted, I believe, last year. Then there was a request, I think there was an appeal, as well, that was submitted during that time, there was a request for a focus report. That focus report is ongoing and about to, soon I think, arrive through Natural Resources. There's a bit of an overlap there between departments, I understand that, albeit a bit convoluted. There's a lot of science, again the groundwork and so on. Are you familiar with this project, minister, where the current status of this is - well, I'll leave it at that for the first question and then we'll come back to it.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I am partly aware of this. I haven't been briefed on it but I understand that they are going through an EA process now. There is a focus report. The focus report is required by October 16^th. It is to come to us on October 16^th and we will release it to the public within 14 days. There will be a 30-day public review period and my decision will follow within the 39 days. This means a decision will be somewhere in January 2010.

MR. PORTER: Thank you very much, minister, for that. So you're somewhat familiar with your notes there on it, obviously, and I'm sure the department is quite familiar with it, actually, and that's fine. This assessment coming in, application, will likely no doubt have stipulations written around it like other requests for approvals would have.

My question is, how different would an approval request like this be from the one in the tidal, for example? I mean the tidal one would have had a number of restrictions. You would meet guidelines by these dates or you wouldn't move forward, et cetera. How different would an approval through your department be, again being an environmental approval? Would we foresee - and maybe it's too difficult a question to answer, I don't know - but would we foresee at some point this thing moving forward, based on the restrictions and the guidelines that are put in it, and commitments made by the folks at Fundy Gypsum and their consultants?

[Page 219]

MR. BELLIVEAU: This particular project, I basically have three options. I can simply approve the project with conditions or I can reject the project or we can require an environmental assessment report. There are a number of options available. I always rely heavily on my staff and they do a very thorough job to get that report in front of me. I can assure you that when I do these environmental assessments, I try to do a thorough job and I ask for a lot of information. I don't see this one will be any different, whether it's tidal or the Digby wind farm. I take this job very seriously and I ask for all the information. I have a very good, capable staff that gives me recommendations, and I look forward to going through that process in this particular case.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, minister. I agree, your staff is more than capable. This has come once before, obviously, and you noted your three options. I think it was number three perhaps that you noted you'll either approve, disapprove, or you'll ask for more.

We've asked for more once. Every time we've asked for more, as you can appreciate, even in the beginning, in the years that led up to this, there's been a phenomenal amount of money spent to make this application do the appropriate work, to follow the guidelines and restrictions that are put in place when making such an application.

This being round number two, I guess we could refer to it as, it will go back out, go through the processes that you just described. How many of these appeals, how many times, would we see now at number two that you would either have enough information to say yes, we're going to approve this, or no, this is not going to be approved?

We've already gone back out with option number three. I think the answer is certainly going to have a huge impact on the decision that this company makes for the future and their existence here in Nova Scotia. I know you can appreciate that. This is a company that has 150 employees, dumps about $8 million a year into the local economy. I'm stressing the jobs, but I'm also stressing the importance of what you do, the approval and needing the guidelines to be in place. That's vital as well. I think everybody, including those who live there and work there, appreciates those standards that are in place today that were not there years ago.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Your question is kind of leading into speculation. Without having all the information and going through the process and having the briefing and having all that information presented to me, it's difficult to comment on it. It's not the proper time to comment on something that's going to happen 40 or 50 days down the road. There's a proper process to go through to have all the information in front of you.

I take these decisions very seriously and we go through the exercise. My staff and all that information will be presented in the proper manner. I look forward to doing that and I understand the concerns that you raised about the jobs that are in that area. I understand that very thoroughly and also the demands to protect the environment.

[Page 220]

It's a balancing act to make a decision that's in the best interests of all Nova Scotians. Thank you.

MR. PORTER: Thank you for your answer, and I appreciate your position on it. I guess maybe my question wasn't articulated all that well. I was more concerned about how many times, potentially, but I guess what I took from that is it could potentially be multiple times that you keep sending it back for more information. At some point, there would have to be - I guess what I'm going to say is the folks out there - the consultants, the different organizations, the scientists - they know what they're looking for. You've asked for it in a report: this is what I need.

How many times do you go back to say, this is what I need? Along with that, if you knew you needed it the first time, why wouldn't it be in that first - I'm even going to refer to the second time. You went back out after the first application came in; the department said, we need more. How many more times will they say, we need more, and why wouldn't they know that going back out with the first request for more information?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I think what the honourable member is talking to, the decision may have been done by the previous minister. To me, we're dealing with - I just give the options. We have three decisions that we can make, the approval of the project with conditions, we can reject the project, or require a more environmental assessment report. To me, it's a new project that's coming forward to me.

MR. PORTER: I appreciate, minister, that it is to you, to your department though, it is not. The same would hold true with the Department of Natural Resources which is also involved with the focus report. This is not new. It is new to you as minister, and like I said, I can appreciate that, but the department would be very well versed on this process and understand those guidelines as they would have been part of putting them in place, and rightfully so. I understand that you would need to be briefed on that; it is new to you.

My question again was, how many times would the company expect to have to go back out and do more, before they just said, we feel that we've done everything, there's no more that could be done? In that, if you know what the stipulations are - and I apologize for not articulating the question well enough. Let's say there are 10 stipulations that you don't know the answers to and they go back, they bring the 10 answers back to you in the focus report. How many more times are you going to go back, or would you deem that if they've answered all 10 of your concerns, would that be adequate or be considered a time when you would make a final decision: thank you, you've done all the work, wonderful, but it doesn't meet and we're not going to pass it; or you've done all the work, wonderful, we're going to pass it?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to me, the burden for the company, they should do a thorough job on the additional information requested by this focus group. I'm going to

[Page 221]

be looking at that, put out the requirement, and we have the different options available to me and I'll be looking to see if the company does a thorough job. To me, it's a process that's in place and I look forward to getting the additional information.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, minister, that's good to hear, because I think they're out there, and they know that, and I think they're doing a thorough process in every concern. They're trying to meet everything that the department requires and I can say in dealing with those folks that they're not looking to shortcut anything either. They just want to know what it is you need so that they can go and do that work and provide that information for you.

I think one of the concerns expressed - as a matter of fact I know it is - in the past is, and it may not be relative to your department, perhaps it partially is and partially isn't - again, with DAR, tag-teaming on this issue and on this approval - there seems to be a lack of knowing for certain what it was exactly that you wanted. They just want to be sure what it is you require, you want to see met, so that they can do that and move on with a decision to move forward with the expansion or otherwise. That will be a business decision for them at that time.

That's good to hear, that thorough is good, but I think if there's a gap there where it's not definitive enough of what you're asking, I would ask that you could have a look at that for myself, as the member there, but for those people who work there and for the company itself and long-term sustainable business, because they've been there nearly a hundred years. This expansion will allow them to be there many more years, which is a good thing, obviously.

I would just ask that you look at those stipulations and make sure that the company is aware of what's required of them, because it was felt, I believe, that there was something missing, there was a little bit lacking there. I know that they want to do what's right. Again, they're not looking to shortcut anything, they want to provide what's required. It saves them time, and money as well, to do it the right way the first time and they're wide open to that, I would say. I'll leave that, I'll move on.

Before I share my time, just one more question or two on landfills. I know you've addressed it a little bit and I'm wondering about, just generally, is there an enforcement on landfills or regularity? I know you just can't build a landfill anywhere you want, there's a process that it goes through once the landfill is in place. I'll just use my own in West Hants. How often are we out there as the Department of Environment, assessing things, or are we? Is there an annual inspection, for lack of a better term?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, the landfills are under operational approval. The tilelike and the amount that's out there is - the details you're asking are very detailed so we're going to ask our staff to research that but I think you're asking - but they are under operational approval. Thank you.

[Page 222]

MR. PORTER: You did talk, I think, a little bit in your comments about the success of landfills and I made some notes here. As you said, it was largely due to the increasing value of scrap metal, you mentioned somewhere along the way. Would that mean that you would rely on cost-benefit analysis of certain things that would approve or disapprove landfills, the benefits of landfills?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I don't know exactly where your question is going but we do have operational approvals for these landfills. I don't know where you're going with the technical part of dealing with metals and stuff like that, so can I ask you to clarify?

[12:00 noon]

MR. PORTER: That's fine, I understand what you're saying there. I'm going to share my time with my colleague, the member for Cape Breton West. I know he had a few more questions and I think we're trying to wrap up our time with Environment this morning. Thank you very much again, minister. I'm sure we'll have some conversations in the months and weeks ahead, so thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, I would like to know what role, if any, your department has had to play with the proposed dredging of Sydney Harbour.

MR. BELLIVEAU: They went through an environmental assessment through our department. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, they went through an environmental assessment - were they successful? Were any permits issued? What was the tilelike that would be associated with that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'm going to have to apologize to the honourable member, I'm going to have to retract that statement that they did not go through an environmental assessment through our department, I apologize.

MR. MACLEOD: They have not gone through your department at this point. Will there be a requirement if the dredging of Sydney Harbour is to take place? Is there a requirement to deal with the provincial government with an environmental assessment when it comes to a dredging project?

MR. BELLIVEAU: We're getting clarification on that. My understanding of that is that is dealing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I understand that the water column - I'm somewhat familiar with that situation but I want to get the details for the honourable member. My understanding now is that we're dealing with Fisheries and Oceans

[Page 223]

and I ask the member to give us an opportunity to get the thorough details on that particular question.

MR. MACLEOD: I would appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I would be very interested in the outcome of that. The question I would also ask is, if dredging does occur in any port around the Province of Nova Scotia, any harbour, for fishery reasons, is there a role that the provincial Department of Environment would play in such an activity?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again to the honourable member, I think a lot of these regulations fall on the federal government when it is dealing with dredging the sediment from that. When this particular sediment is disposed of, I think our department would kick in to see where that particular dredging sediment may be relocated. So you're asking some very technical questions going from the harbour surrounding, which is owned by our federal government and I think you're asking a question about where this product may end up. I'd just like to get some more clarification on what you're actually asking of this particular sediment.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, it's pretty clear. My question was simple, does the provincial Department of Environment have a role to play in a dredging project? You're saying if sediment is going to be put offshore then it doesn't and if it's going to be put onshore that it does, is that correct?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, you're talking to me - that's why I asked for clarification, because I want to know where you're talking, if that is going on land, and what I can ask for. You're talking about a very technical issue here and I'm going to ask for our staff to get more information to the honourable member.

To me, you're talking about, again, overlapping jurisdictions; you're talking about the water column, which is owned by the regulatory requirements around our federal government, and I think you're possibly asking - and this is why I'm asking for clarification - where this sediment may be disposed of. I'm going to ask that we get more detail to the honourable member. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if he is familiar with an area known as Crowds Mountain and some of the environmental issues that have taken place in Crowds Mountain. I can tell by the reaction of your staff that some of them are very familiar with it.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much. The straightforward question, Mr. Chairman, is that I have not been briefed on this. I'm sure our staff has been very aware of this issue, but I have not been briefed on it. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Well, thank you very much. I can appreciate that there is a lot of material that a minister has to be brought up to date on, but there is a septic lagoon that started

[Page 224]

leaching into the groundwater and the watercourse in that area. The province has taken measures in the past, under the previous government but through your department, to remove that sludge. I guess your department members should know what stage that process is at now, even though you haven't been briefed on it.

MR. BELLIVEAU: The septic facility cleanup was completed during the last week of November 2007. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Then am I to understand from the minister that the project has been completely cleaned up and there are no concerns left in that area?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. During the cleanup process, oil contamination soil was discovered in that septic lagoon. The department is addressing the oil contamination with the property owners as a separate issue and the owner is having assessment work conducted in mid-September 2009.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Minister, am I to take it from that the assessment has been done and that there is a plan that is being formulated by your department as to what is to happen to the petroleum contaminants that were located there?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, through you, Mr. Chairman, if we find contamination we deal with that through the property owner. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: You have just stated, Mr. Minister, that indeed your department has identified petroleum products that were there in part of the sludge that was being removed from the septic system, so therefore you've identified a problem. My question to you, Mr. Minister, is there a plan of action in place to deal with that problem, regardless if it's with the department and/or with the homeowners?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the property owner and we're following up and we're ensuring that process is being followed with the property owner. Thank you.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I hope that the follow-up takes place quickly because this has been an ongoing problem that has gone over many terms, long before you were minister, and I just hope you're the minister that's successful in solving this problem.

Now, Mr. Minister, there are also some homeowners who have unsafe water supplies in the area and which they attribute to the sludge leakage from this lagoon. Has the department had any discussions with the individuals whose water has been contaminated? Again, it is their contention that it was contaminated by the lagoon. Have you done any research, or has

[Page 225]

your department done any research, to find out, indeed (1) if the water is contaminated; (2) the source of the contamination; and (3) what type of solution there might be?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again, the results of the water testing did not indicate that the McDonald Brook was impacted from a septic lagoon or the oil contamination material. Again, the member opposite pointed out that this was an ongoing process, and like I say, I take this job very seriously, and we have dealt with a number of issues. We continue to be doing our work and we look forward to resolving some of these issues out there. The member opposite highlighted that this is an ongoing issue; the previous government may have had an opportunity to deal with it. I look forward to dealing with some of these issues.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you very much and no one in this room would ever question whether the minister is serious about his job or not, having known the minister for a number of years, I know that he is very serious about what he is going to do, but the question is, if the contamination didn't come from the sewage lagoon, the people feel that the water is contaminated; they have reports to say it's contaminated. What does the department know of the contamination? If it's not from that source, what source is it and, indeed, does the department, which has been doing ongoing work before your time, in this role, what do they know about the contamination, where it came from, and is there a solution available for the people who live there?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, again, in our department we always recommend anyone taking water from a lake or river, do not take it without it being treated. That's the precautionary approach and we've recommended that right across Nova Scotia. I think that's the concern the member is bringing up regarding the water column and I would echo that and hope the honourable member will take that back to his constituency.

MR. MACLEOD: I would like to clarify that indeed this is not my constituency that we're talking about. These are people who have legitimate concerns and I'm asking some questions on behalf of my colleague, the member for Victoria-The Lakes. At the end of the day there's still the question of contamination in the drinking water source. What is important here, because your department has put in water guidelines for drinking water across the Province of Nova Scotia, so what indeed, if anything, is the department going to do to help resolve the drinking water problem in this area?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member, I apologize about your constituency, but I think I echo the message to all members of this House to take this message back, when there's a question about water, we do not recommend that anyone take their water from a lake or a river and consume that without treatment. I just want to point out that there are possibly many other sources that could be contaminants that go into the lakes and streams. So, to me, it's a matter of making sure that people are aware of the concerns around drinking

[Page 226]

water and we echo that across all of Nova Scotia. My message is to relate that to all MLAs who frequent this House.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his responses today. I look forward to the follow-up information that you have said that your department will supply to myself and to my other colleagues who are here and, again, I want to thank you for your time and certainly want to congratulate your staff on the job that they're doing. I appreciate that it's never an easy task when you're talking about the environment and the health of people, and it is always important to try to find what the real solutions are. Your department tries to work toward that, and I know you, as minister, will try to do that. So I thank you very much for your time today and that would be the end of what I have in the line of questioning for this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no other questions, I'll recognize the minister for closing remarks.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all the honourable members for their participation in the Budget Estimates over the last two days. I appreciate the engagement that we've had with our fellow MLAs. I know we'll have a stronger and a better, cleaner and greener Nova Scotia. I'm encouraged with the engagement that we had today.

I want to thank my staff personally and I really appreciate the professionalism that they have brought to this particular table and into this department. I really very warmly appreciate their efforts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister, and thank you to your staff.

Shall Resolution E7 stand?

Resolution E7stands.

If you would like, we can have a five-minute break before we start with the next department. We'll recess for about five minutes.

[12:15 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[12:30 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the Subcommittee on Supply to order.

I now call the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture.

[Page 227]

Resolution E10 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $11,350,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquiculture Loan Board be approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Fisheries and Aquiculture.

HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here today and I want to first of all welcome my colleagues from the House throughout Nova Scotia. I'm very pleased to sit here before you today to talk about the Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture. Many of you may know that I spent many years on the water as a lobster fisherman. I have also had the seats that you are sitting in today as a Critic for Fisheries and Aquiculture. In my new role as the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture, I look forward to serving the people of Nova Scotia in bringing forward the priorities and the ideas of our government.

Just for a quick kind of update, I also served on the District 34 advisory lobster board, and I can proudly say that I helped draft the terms of reference to that. Probably more importantly that some of the members around this table might want to know, as a very young child I take great pride in knowing that I actually caught sculpin for a bait for our lobster fishery at the tender age of eight or nine or 10. All these life experiences are coming back to the benefit that I will enjoy in this role.

In my new role as the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture, I look forward to serving the people of this province in bringing forward the priorities and ideas of our government. I would like to introduce some of my department staff here today. I have Greg Roach, assistant deputy minister, on my right and Eldon Myers, director of Financial Services, on my left. I would also like to introduce Diane Kenny, the executive director of Policy and Planning, and communications director Celeste Sullivan.

Ladies and gentlemen, our Premier has made it very clear that our government will live within its means. As we move forward, it is clear that we have many challenges and we will ensure that Nova Scotians are part of the process as we address them. While spending on programs and services is largely unchanged from May 4^th, the budget has been updated to reflect changes in revenues and expenses. With the department halfway into a fiscal year, it is too late to make significant changes. With that in mind, we are continuing to follow through on our commitments to all Nova Scotians. One thing that we will notice about the department's budget is a substantial increase in over $3 million. I want to point out that this increase is due to the money the department received from the Community Development Trust Fund. This money is being used to fund projects in areas of aquiculture, seafood revitalization, and the work on the Canso waterfront revitalization.

[Page 228]

We recognize that fisheries and aquiculture sectors are important contributors to the economy and the social fabric of Nova Scotia. I would like to take a moment to give you a current snapshot of fisheries and aquiculture in our province and talk about a few initiatives we are currently working on.

Fisheries and Aquiculture in Nova Scotia includes the commercial fisheries, sports fisheries, aquiculture, seafood processing, and fish buying. Nova Scotia's commercial fisheries generated more than $599 million in primary sales in 2007. Lobster fisheries - the province's most popular outdoor recreation activity - are worth another $94 million annually regarding sports fishing. Aquiculture sales in 2008 were just over $36 million. Canada's leading seafood exporter is Nova Scotia.

Over $829 million worth of fish and seafood products were exported to more than 86 countries in 2008, with the majority going to our neighbours to the south, the United States of America. The efforts of our current global economic downturn are impacting our Nova Scotia fisheries and aquiculture industries. Demand and market prices for many seafood products have hit very low levels, threatening the viability in many of our sectors.

Ladies and gentlemen, the lobster industry provides Nova Scotia with an export value of approximately $400 million every year. It employs thousands of people in many of our rural coastal communities directly and indirectly. Nova Scotia lobsters can be found on menus in Belgium, Boston, and Barbados. Lobsters are important to all communities and are important to our future. We must protect this resource and manage it well for the longevity of our industry.

We must also work to ensure that it gives our young people a reason to stay and build a life here in Nova Scotia. I want to point out, if I could - we all know about the economic downturn that we have faced in the last year or two. I just want to say and get on record that this is a great time for new people to get into the fisheries. We have probably reasonable sales and people are understanding the importance of moving on to this particular sector. I think it's a valuable time for our young people to get into the fisheries.

We are aware of the struggles this industry has had in recent months. We are optimistic that things will improve. We are working with everyone involved to ensure the prosperity and Sustainability of this valuable resource.

One of the first things that I did as Minister of Fisheries and Aquiculture was remove the $40.53 fee of the lobster vendor permit. In response to last season's low price at the wharf, many fishermen took their catches from the wharf to roadside locations to sell directly to consumers. I was really impressed with a story of a fisherman down in the tri-counties last winter when they were coming to the cities and one of the car dealerships just simply removed a couple of cars off their lot and gave the fishermen a front-and-centre opportunity to get their lobsters to the consumer. I think the fishermen from southwest Nova Scotia and across Nova

[Page 229]

Scotia, when they brought their fresh lobsters to the city, were more than welcomed by the businesses.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank not only that car dealership but all the different businesses in the city that helped. It was a very real success story of how people would come in with 500 or 1,000 pounds of lobsters and literally within hours they would be sold out. I want to publicly thank all the businesses that helped that to be a success story.

Up until last season, traditional dockside sales have been the main direct selling point. Selling dockside may continue and does not require a permit. The reason selling dockside is exempt is that the lobsters are kept in controlled conditions, cooler temperatures and salt water, and prevent low food safety risks. Our concern with lobster fishermen selling roadside had to do with the food safety issue. The storage conditions, especially on warm weather days may pose a food health risk for roadside venders.

To ensure our province's high-quality food safety standards, venders selling live lobsters roadside are still required to have a permit. The sellers will still have to comply with the current food safety and reporting requirements when selling live lobsters. Along with ensuring we have safe, quality lobsters available for consumers, we will provide funding support to the newly established Lobster Council of Canada and invest in even more lobster marketing.

All industry stakeholders have realized that a new approach is required related to co-operation and coordination. To this end, the Lobster Council of Canada is being established to address genetic marketing and create a sustainable strategy through creation of a permanent office and staff. Nova Scotia has a large stake and must play a major role in this initiative. Industry organizations are uneven and fractional across the provinces and Nova Scotia, and this must change over the long term. Government, both federal and provincially, is providing seed funding to kick-start an organized, co-operative approach over two years. Funding to support establishment to improve industry organization is critical and a worthwhile investment, both across provinces co-operatively and within Nova Scotia.

Recently, I have met with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Gail Shea in Ottawa, and brought forth a number of priorities and issues facing Nova Scotia fishermen. Some of these here, I simply just want to highlight. I summed it up in two words - red tape, which all fishermen have faced with this level of bureaucracy and I took that to the minister loud and clear.

The concerns about the lobster aid package, I sent a letter off to Minister Shea when that was announced several days ago, with our displeasure, especially from Nova Scotia, that basically the crew members were eliminated from that particular package. There was a requirement of a threshold of fishermen licence holders - if they made over $50,000 stock that they would not be eligible. I told the minister at the time that I was there - I was accompanied

[Page 230]

by an honourable member from Nova Scotia, Mr. Bill Casey - that the system would not work and they would be held accountable for that. I included that in a letter within hours of that being released, so the minister is very aware of that issue and our dissatisfaction with that. I look forward to having some questions on that hopefully after my presentation.

One of the other points that I brought up was underutilised species that, again, fishermen across the Maritimes have difficulty getting the permits to go out and pursue them. The fishermen know that these resources are there and yet they are denied access to them through a long list of red tape and scientific information that the fishermen have to obtain. Again, I've asked for a number of these topics to put on the agenda at our meeting in PEI and I look forward to dealing with some of these.

As well, just last week in response to the federal support program for some lobster fishermen, I wrote the federal minister to express my concerns over the limitations of the funding program to our fishermen. I will continue to press the minister for changes that our fisheries families need. Now is the time to think hard about how things are done and how they will be done in the future to ensure the industry can face the future ahead of us.

I cannot talk enough about the critical need for co-operation within this sector. To succeed, we must work together. I think that was one of the opening remarks I said to the minister in Ottawa, that we have to have this open communication and I look to improve that on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Chairman, the seafood industry is focusing increasingly on meeting market demands for sustainability in food safety. This year we will implement year two of a three-year trade plan focusing on six strategic locations including marketing development, diversification, product banding, strategic alliances, core marketing and targeting market research and information.

The department will continue to promote the benefits of the industry eco-certification. Eco-certification for fish products will provide some assurance to consumers that fish bearing the label are sustainable. This will help secure markets for Nova Scotia's seafood products.

The department continues to represent the province and our industry at international seafood shows in Boston and in Brussels. My staff organized CATCH, a major seafood show in Halifax in 2009, to increase consumer awareness of Nova Scotia seafood. My department will continue the Select Nova Scotia campaign. We want to increase awareness in the purchases of Nova Scotia seafood and abri-food products in our province. Initiatives like CATCH and the Buy Local campaign are effective ways for the people of Nova Scotia to become more aware of the many products our province offers to our consumers.

[Page 231]

[12:45 p.m.]

The department continues to work with our federal and provincial government partners in the industry to maintain and streamline a model regulatory climate. We want to encourage investors, investments, and foster seafood industry growth and renewal.

Public expectations and demands for environmental protection, food safety and other issues are evolving. As a result the regulatory pressures for Nova Scotia fisheries, aquiculture and sport fishing sectors are expanding. The department continues to represent Nova Scotia's interest in development and implementation of a number of federal policy initiatives.

We recently established a seafood sector renewal initiative focusing on eco-labelling and certification, quality development, technology development and transfer, product development and market diversification. Quality improvement projects are also underway using new storage, chilling, processing and packaging methods to improve the overall quality and reputation of Nova Scotia seafood. We are fostering renewal in the marine fisheries and seafood sectors by implementing a program to help finance fishing licences for first-time entrants and new species for existing licence holders.

I just want to pause and thank the staff that is handling these licences, the Fisheries Loan Board. I know that the staff is probably being overworked, and I appreciate the work that they are doing. I have been encouraged with all the comments that are coming across from the fishing industry, from boat brokers to the young fishermen, that they see a worthwhile project. I can assure you that I can actually date documents back to the mid-1980s that this has been a long overdue program and it's good to see this come through and being appreciated as we speak.

The Nova Scotia loan boards for the licence program were established for succession planning in the fishing industry, the target for new entries and those who have never held a fishing licence in new species, so the existing fishers could diversify. This new program started in April 2009 and to date we have received 79 applications, of which 67 have been reviewed by the board, with a 75 per cent approval rate. We are hiring new staff to handle the workload of this program. This will make it easier for new entrants to purchase boats, gear and licences, and for existing fishers to diversify in the options that exist.

I just want to pause here because this one is really dear to me. The Fisheries Loan Board was established in 1938 through an Act in Parliament, the federal Parliament, and I can date back to fishermen's organizations in southwestern Nova Scotia that again - I'll use that - it was on their radar in the mid-1980s that fishermen wanted access to capital for new entries and young fishermen today are very thankful. So it's been a long while coming to this point and I think you can appreciate all the effort that has been put into this. It's good to see that this is actually taking place and has additional staff; to me, when you hire additional staff, you know the program is working.

[Page 232]

Ladies and gentlemen, seafood processors need quality and efficiency improvements to compete for existing and emerging markets, the higher demands for traceable quality and sustainability. My department continues to provide annual funding support for infrastructure, technology and development. We will implement the second year of a three-year, $3.75 million, cost-shared fund to help seafood producers improve productivity, enhance product quality, and diversify products and market opportunities.

The department will continue to support and advise the Office of Aboriginal Affairs in the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process to integrate Aboriginal fishing rights with existing commercial fishers. We must promote positive relationships between the Aboriginal communities and the department of commercial fisheries.

Mr. Chairman, aquiculture continues to grow promise while there is growth in our province. The sector continues to provide many opportunities including development of niche markets, alternate species and eco-tourism. As an industry matures and becomes more profitable, companies are looking at new places to invest and Nova Scotia is considered an excellent choice for expansion. The department is working to address the number of challenges to sector developments; building public confidence and addressing economic concerns have been, or will be, priorities.

This year the department will introduce a five-year aquiculture growth strategy. This will identify the major directions we should take over the next several years for growing the industry and how we can assist industry with the growth of this sector. We are also working on developing a road map for increasing investment in Nova Scotia aquiculture, as well as a plan of action for increasing public confidence in aquiculture. The Aquiculture Division is improving site access by funding applications for new sites or expansion of existing sites, reviewing the province's regulatory framework, harmonizing the aquiculture environment monitoring program with DO, and reviewing the capacity of fish health labs and program delivery.

This past week I had the opportunity to attend the 12^th annual Aquiculture Harvest Festival in Sheet Harbour. I took part in a tour of an aquiculture site in Owls Head and I served tasty aquiculture projects to hundreds of people from Sheet Harbour and the surrounding communities who came out to that festival. They were accompanied by a number of our MLAs from the Sheet Harbour area. The MLA for Guysborough-Sheet Harbour, who has been appointed by the Premier as my MLA administrative assistant, joined me on that occasion.

I want to stop here and just say that we had a very entertaining day, we had some music, we went out on the tour and we had a - they actually let me drive the boat so I thought that was really kind of interesting that they had some confidence that I (Interruption) I'll work on that next year. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, it was a great opportunity to see first-hand the potential of aquiculture growth and the creation of jobs in Nova Scotia's rural coastal

[Page 233]

communities. We need this kind of growth and we need to create opportunities for our families and our young people to live and grow and work in our rural coastal communities.

Sports fishing in Nova Scotia is the most popular outdoor recreation activity. An estimated 100,000 Nova Scotians enjoy fishing every year. The sport contributes to the province's economy and social and environmental health. The department continues to work with government and non-government partners to manage trout, salmon, and other species sustainable, while enhancing opportunities for anglers who enjoy this sport.

Department staff continue to work with Nova Scotia's sports fishing sector to address a number of environmental issues, including public education, fish habitat restoration, and climate change research. Our trout enhancement initiative remains strong and we will continue to build our salmon enhancement program. We will work with Fisheries and Oceans to find ways for anglers to enjoy saltwater fishing.

The department will continue to provide leadership on integrated coastal zone management. We will keep our commitment to speed up the development of a sustainable coastal development strategy for Nova Scotia. The coastal zone management framework allows the province to take a coordinated and strategic approach to how we use our coastal areas. Our government is committed to a wise and sustainable use of our beaches, our marshes, our wharves, water, and coastal development.

To this end we will continue to work and fund the work of coastal management programs. We will soon release the State of Nova Scotia's Coast Report, which outlines our government's current understanding of priority coastal management issues. We will then consult the public to seek the best way forward for all stakeholders' interests in the long-term management of Nova Scotia's coastal resources. We will listen and learn. Then we will establish a sustainable coastal development strategy that will advance coordinated action on Nova Scotia's priority issues for coastal management.

In closing, I want to state that the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture sees great possibilities for the future of the fisheries and aquiculture sector in our beautiful Province of Nova Scotia. We will work hard to achieve prosperity tomorrow where our rural coastal communities are thriving and young people have the option of staying, working, and living in their communities. We will work hard for the people of Nova Scotia to make certain the future is bright.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today and for your time. Now I'm open to any questions from the honourable members. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The honourable member for Preston.

[Page 234]

HON. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you. I have many questions to ask, of course. I'm sure the minister is very well versed in this topic, as I know he is.

First of all, I want to talk about seals. I want to put some background on the record first. Can the minister tell me what the average seal population was 25 or 30 years ago before the population exploded?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think in the 1960s the numbers our staff are providing is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000. I think it's more important that I highlight that back in the 1960s I was a very young man, and I remember very clearly it was also - I think where the member is going with his question - the federal government at the time had a bounty on seals and it was a very well-managed resource at the time. I think that the federal government, I forget what the fee was, it was something like $5 or $10. I remember as a young fisherman going out and the more senior fishermen participated in that bounty, so they had a very well-managed seal population.

The population has tripled, and I think the member for Digby-Annapolis has given those numbers very clearly in the House and recited them a number of times. Now I think the population has increased three or four times over and we have something like 300,000 seals out there now. So I'm very aware of the population explosion regarding seals.

MR. COLWELL: I thank the minister, he did answer my second question, how many seals do we have now - it's approximately around 300,000?

[1:00 p.m.]

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's my understanding. I mean these are numbers presented to us by our staff. I can tell you from experience and that's probably the most - again, I'll relate back to my early childhood, or my early days on the water as an Irish moss fisherman. I know just from observation. If you saw one or two a day in your daily exercise of going out and harvesting Irish moss, or three or four, when you were lobster fishing, today when you go in those same general areas, that number has increased five times. There are probably five times more seals that you see in the harbours, the surrounding ledges. So it's evident just by observing nature and actually to go out and do a count check, that's not my nature, but I can tell you that this is observed. In talking with a lot of fishermen across Nova Scotia and from Grand Manan, New Brunswick, people have observed the same thing that I have - that the population has exploded regarding seals.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, according to the numbers they gave me here, there's over a 30 times growth in the population in that time roughly, depending on which is used, either the 6,000 or 10,000 number, but it's well over 30 times. A real simple question, not a simple answer, I'm going to ask, what are you going to do with them?

[Page 235]

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think the simple answer is, if I can just take you back, I think it was 2006, the House of Assembly, when I first came on as a Fisheries Critic to our particular Party, there was a debate regarding the seal harvest. There was unanimous support for a humane seal harvest on Hay Island. My direction is, is that we have to manage that resource and I know the numbers are there.

I alluded in my opening remarks that I was in Ottawa meeting with the federal minister. I asked the minister to have that on the agenda for the upcoming meeting of our provincial Ministers of Fisheries and Aquiculture in PEI in the latter part of October. I intend to bring that issue forward and I know that a lot of fishermen are concerned about the population explosion of the seals. I intend to bring that message to our counterparts across the Maritimes and have that on the agenda and look forward to that discussion.

MR. COLWELL: Has there been much work done in recent years regarding the marketing of seal products, the meat and the other by-products of the harvest, and if so, what progress has been made?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, again to the honourable member, there has been work done by our department exploring meat markets in Asia. That's something again that - we're into our early days of the mandate of this government. Again, as I say, I'm encouraged by having the opportunity to meet with my counterparts across the Maritimes and I intend to bring this up. I asked the minister just a few weeks ago to have this on the agenda in PEI I know that this issue is more broad than just Nova Scotia. It's an Atlantic-wide issue and I intend to be aggressive and to bring this issue forward, if there are markets that we can pursue.

I understand the sensitivity around this particular topic and my views have not changed. I see that with my fisheries background, I understand very well how that resource needs to be managed and the opportunities that can exist. We have to make sure that we educate the public and make people aware that there are opportunities to harvest this resource.

MR. COLWELL: How many pounds or tons of seal meat has the province been able to market so far on an annual basis?

MR. BELLIVEAU: To my understanding, the department has only been dealing with fishermen, seal harvesters, to work on container loads, so that work is ongoing but right now my understanding is just samples to these particular markets.

MR. COLWELL: Has there been a problem with the federal government regarding the harvest of the seals for the meat products as you would do with any other fish product or fisheries-related product? If so, what is the department planning to do to resolve these problems besides meetings with the ministers?

[Page 236]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the federal government has set tax for these annual seal harvests and we have not met these total allowable catch numbers yet. Again, it's to do with going out and finding these particular markets across the world. So the federal government has set the total allowable catch. Presently, in the few years that I'm aware of we haven't met those conditions.

MR. COLWELL: What is the total allowable catch?

MR. BELLIVEAU: My understanding is the total allowable catch is 10,000 animals.

MR. COLWELL: Of that 10,000, how many were actually harvested and sold as a food product or other product in the last couple of years?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I apologize, I was trying to get some information here so I ask the member opposite to repeat the question.

MR. COLWELL: In each of the last two years, how many of the 10,000 animals that were allowed to be harvested were actually harvested?

MR. BELLIVEAU: The harvest in 2008 was roughly 2,000 animals. In 2009 it was 250 animals, roughly. Grey seals, I want to be clear on that, they're just rough figures.

MR. COLWELL: What resources have you put to marketing the products from the seal harvest?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, most of the markets have been exploratory markets in Asia, in Korea and places like that. One of our - as you are well aware, the resistance of the sensitivity of this product, there has been some resistance from some countries so that's the challenge that we're faced with, with this particular resource, finding these particular markets.

MR. COLWELL: Really more specifically, my question was, what resources has the department - or the Department of Economic and Rural Development, indeed, hopefully they're involved in this, as well, because this could be a really good economic generator for the province - what specifically in the Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture, or in conjunction with the Department of Economic and Rural Development, have they done to try to market this product? How much money have they spent? How many staff do they have working on it, or agents, or whatever you're doing?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, our resources in the department are one or two staff members. Again, I think you're raising a very important issue here. This has been an ongoing issue for a number of years and I can tell you that I'm well aware of what the honourable member is bringing forward. I can assure you that I have asked the federal minister to have this on the agenda for the PEI trip and the conference. I want to ensure the

[Page 237]

member that I'm fully aware of the sensitivity around these particular challenges facing international markets, but I want to do my utmost to make sure that we can penetrate and get some of these markets and establish where they're at.

There are opportunities, I know the opportunities out there for this particular product, it's a part of our culture. I also know that the population is exploding and it needs to be kept in check. With all the sensitivity around this and the valuable opportunities to explore and find these markets, I know that there's a challenge there. I'm eager to go out with my counterparts in this meeting that we're going to have in late October with the ministers across the province, with the federal minister there. I look forward to aggressively trying to tackle this issue.

MR. COLWELL: Do you feel, as minister, now that you've been in the department for a few months, that enough resources are spent by your department on trying to market this product?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think that I'd like to have an opportunity to review that with my colleagues. I'm very supportive of the staff we have in our department. There's always a time to reflect and to see where we can improve. Like you say, we've been there for probably less than four months, but I feel very privileged to have the staff we have working with us and I want to have an opportunity to meet with my counterparts and see if we can improve on marketing, how we're going to do this, how we can basically work more co-operatively. I think all elected members - MLAs, or mps federally - we need to be firm that here is an opportunity, we have a resource, that we have a humane harvest. There are opportunities for coastal communities to benefit from that. This is a part of our culture and we should be actively going out and pursuing some of these markets.

I also know, on the other side, that there is some sensitivity when it comes to world markets dealing with seal products, I understand that fully. I want to have the opportunity to explore that with our counterparts and to see if we can approach it in a new way, in a co-operative way. I look forward to having these discussions.

MR. COLWELL: I understand the sensitivity with this and absolutely nothing to do with this seal harvest, it's actually the other seal harvest that's caused all this problem, rightfully or wrongly. It doesn't seem like the department is putting enough effort into this because the harvest in 2009 so far - and I don't know if that's still ongoing or not - is tremendously a lot lower than the year before. The quota that's allowed is nowhere near, in the total of the two years, what you are allowed in one year. It seems like it's an opportunity for some fishermen who may be suffering in other areas that they can supplement part of their income for the year and indeed take some stress off the communities and their families.

I feel that probably the department should be really actively looking at marketing. I've been told - and I can't confirm this, your department would know better than I would - that there is a huge market in Asia and there is no resistance in Asia to this product. On the other

[Page 238]

hand, once you sell a product, the European community will be upset because you're selling the product. We're going to have to come to a decision some time whether or not we're going to move forward and sell products or not. It's going to be a rough ride for a little while, but the world market has really clobbered us in the lobster fishery with the low price they've offered, and maybe we have to look at other areas to export these to that aren't so cautious, that really need to feed their population with a very good product.

I'm just, again, wondering if you're prepared to increase the effort put in by the department, and I know it's budgetary issues, but this is a product that could bring in a tremendous amount of economic benefit to the province and in a very short time. Could I have your comments on that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I think, to me, the opportunity to meet with my colleagues in PEI - and I picked up on a note that you said you've been told that these existing markets are out there. I have to ask, if you can locate these markets, I would be more than willing to track them down and to make that connection. Any time there's an opportunity to promote a product from Nova Scotia, and we have a potential buyer around the world, if we get that opportunity, I encourage the honourable member to bring that information forward.

[1:15 p.m.]

To me this is being proactive and I look forward to talking with the people in PEI, my counterparts, on how we can go out and market more. But the question you're talking about, I guess, asking for more resources for a marketing campaign within our budget, I mean I think we all realize that we have to live within our means, within our budget, and I don't think that is the situation now. I think the point that you're making there, if there are existing markets that you know of, those are the ones, we need to get that information to our department and make sure we put that in the hands of the right people, to get that resource to those individuals in our global village.

MR. COLWELL: Thank you and I'll pass that information along that I have to the department and yourself, actually. There are a lot of issues in fisheries and a lot of things that have happened, and I would like to know if the department has made - and it's very early for yourself as minister, I realize that - about the quota problems we've seen and that's, of course, the whole gist of economic growth in the fishing industry in any province or in the country. Whoever has the quota has the gold, to say more or less. Could you comment on that a bit? There are all kinds of issues around that and I would just like to see the minister's experience in this and his impression of what we should be looking at here.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I'm very familiar with the quota problems. I can recite a number of situations from the crab allocations in the Cape Breton area. I can go up and down our coast of southwestern Nova Scotia to the scallop issues, to herring. I can recite

[Page 239]

a number of them where people are denied, like Irish moss for instance, they're denied access to a resource that literally, from Queens in Liverpool, the Liverpool area east, that the fleet in southwestern Nova Scotia are denied access because of a federal policy made in Ottawa.

I'm aware of all these quota allocations, and I raised this issue with the minister, and these allocations are all managed by DO. I brought that to the minister's attention that there needs to be an opportunity for fishermen to voice their concerns, to have an appeal process put in place to give them an opportunity to challenge DO, saying that may not be in the best interests of that community, and an opportunity for each sector to express themselves.

I'm also very aware that you can have divisions within sectors. In Shelburne County, for instance, there are eight or nine committees dealing with groundfish alone, a population of 17,000. There are probably about 17,000 people total but there are eight or nine groups dealing with just groundfish. Sometimes divisions can be there when you have different groups competing for quotas that are allotted from the federal government. This is managed by our federal government. I think our role as a province is to understand, to take these concerns to the federal government and say, listen, when you allocate them, they may not be in the best interests of certain groups. These groups should have an opportunity or an appeal system that can give them an opportunity to voice and bring their concerns forward to the federal minister.

I think that where we're leading to here in the question is the opportunity to have a new Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is literally hundreds of years old and the evolution of how we've come to transferable quotas, all this quota system has evolved over the 30 years since we've come into the late 1960s, a limited fishery. To me, the federal fisheries need to understand these concerns that they have with quota allocations and also understand that the evolution of the Fisheries Act needs to evolve and we need to address that under that Act so there are all those questions.

I brought that to the federal minister's attention, I told her that I would be speaking with my counterparts and we have addressed a number of issues that we want to challenge the minister on. "Challenge" is not usually the right word but if they're not in the best interests of our community and they're going to have a negative effect then we need to be aggressive and challenge. The other approach is that we need to be diplomatic and say that there are opportunities that we want to just set down and have stronger communication lines with the federal minister of fisheries. We need to open that communication up so we can address these issues and keep people in our community that want to stay there. They want to stay there because . . .

I can talk about resources that people know that are out there. I can give you an instance like whelks, for instance, green crabs and I can go on and recite a number of them. I can talk to my counterparts in PEI and they can do the same thing. The fishermen are denied access because one of the stipulations that our federal government is requiring is that the

[Page 240]

fishers have to go out and get the science. It's a costly experience for fishermen to go out and gather science if they want to pursue underutilised species.

The problem is it needs to be the resource. The fishermen know that these resources are out there, they have the markets that have been identified, the same as we talked about earlier. They can actually, with our communication today, pick up the phone or Internet and know that there are markets that exist across our world and there's a resource there but our federal government is denying them access simply by not issuing a permit.

I brought this to the attention of the federal minister. I encouraged her to have that on the agenda with our PEI conference ministers with our Atlantic-wide Ministers of Fisheries. Again, here is an opportunity that we can resolve some of these issues, if we cut out this red tape we can keep people in our coastal communities if some of these policies are changed. I intend to be very aggressive and take that message forward to our counterparts.

When I left the federal building, I said I intend to do this and when the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows that we have the support of the Atlantic Ministers of Fisheries on these issues that we've just discussed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, her department and the bureaucracy in Ottawa, cannot resist the force that these communities want these policies changed. To me, that's my goal - my goal is to get the people across Atlantic Canada lined up to change some of these and make a difference for all Nova Scotians and for Atlantic Canada.

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate the minister's answer and I couldn't agree with him more.

The other thing I want to ask about is quotas. When people get quotas and they sit home and they sell the quota and someone else fishes it, what's the minister's opinion on that? That sure doesn't appear to help the rural communities very much and it sure doesn't help in some situations. What's your opinion on those?

MR. BELLIVEAU: The quota allocations - that is based by federal regulations, that is something that's been incorporated and has evolved over a period of time. I can take you back to the late 1960s when we came into a limited fishery. That evolution has taken place over the last 40 years. I'll point back to a number of quota allocations in these issues - that has to be an appeal process. If there are people or communities adversely affected, there has to be a process in place that can basically ask for an appeal or challenge some of these.

This is what I tried to bring to the federal minister's attention, that the evolution of our Fisheries Act has never evolved to catch up to the evolution of our quota system. To me, that is one of the corrections that has to be done under the Fisheries Act. We're going to be waiting awhile, or possibly waiting awhile, before we see a new Fisheries Act, and I think that's one of the areas that we can improve upon.

[Page 241]

There are always concerns regarding quotas and allocations right across the Maritimes. No one is immune to it in any one geographical area, but if we have the support of all of our Atlantic provincial Ministers of Fisheries, we can take these concerns to the federal minister who regulates these policies, and I think we can have an opportunity to change them that will improve our communities. That would basically give our communities an opportunity to thrive.

MR. COLWELL: I understand what the minister was saying, but it really didn't answer my question. I believe the federal government already has the ability to enforce a program - if someone has a quota they either have to fish it or they lose it, rather than someone else fishing it and they sit home on the couch watching TV and collecting a cheque from it. In some cases, they just apply for quotas to sell it like that. I believe that's a policy and not a law of the federal government. What's the minister's opinion on that? Are people sitting home and not actually fishing licences they have, but selling their quota to someone else?

MR. BELLIVEAU: I understand your point clearly. I think the department - or my view is that we'd love to see the quotas in the hands of people that would use them. We want the people to use them and keep that resource in their communities. That's the perfect-case scenario.

The point you bring up is that these rules were made by a federal government. They've created these rules and it's for us to bring this to their attention. That's our role, and this is why I want to achieve this: we want this resource to stay in our communities. When we have that commitment, we allowed the government - I think we need to work together co-operatively across the Atlantic Provinces to address this issue and bring that to the federal minister's attention. That's my intention.

The first thing that I mentioned to the federal Minister of Fisheries - I had the honour of having an honourable gentleman named Bill Casey there to sit in on the meeting - is that this level of bureaucracy, the federal government in DO - we need to challenge some of these policies. My intent is to get the support of the Atlantic Ministers of Fisheries and address these issues over the next few months or years that we're in this particular office.

MR. COLWELL: Will you as minister, and the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquiculture, be going to request a policy that the quotas will be changed to a policy of either use the quota personally if you have a licence or you lose the quota?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, like I say, there are so many variations of quotas and how they're divided up, it's a very complex issue. I understand fully what you're talking about - people staying home and not using quotas; I understand that very clearly. Again, I think that we have to understand that there are different combinations and it is a very complex issue. We're going to raise that with the federal minister, and I think that we need an

[Page 242]

opportunity to bring that to my counterparts across the Atlantic Provinces because it's far-reaching. Something that may be of benefit to southwestern Nova Scotia may not fit in Newfoundland and Labrador, or may not fit in PEI, so there's a complex web of allocations and quotas and you have to understand that from a province-wide, an Atlantic-wide, policy and I think that we need to sit down and to bring those complex issues in a very positive manner to the federal counterpart.

MR. COLWELL: I understand all the complexities of quotas - my question is, does the minister support people sitting at home and not fishing quotas?

[1:30 p.m.]

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, Mr. Chairman, with the complexity of these issues you just can't make one blanket statement. We want the quotas in the hands of the people who are going to use them and we want the resources hopefully to stay in the community and be processed and the jobs stay in these communities. That's our objective, but the complexity of how allocations are allotted, it is a very complex web that goes across the Atlantic Provinces and there's a very complex system of how these are allotted, that communities can benefit and other people can be negatively affected but, to me, it's bringing this evolution of how we've evolved.

We want the best for our coastal communities. We want people to stay in our coastal communities and I can clearly show you - like the Irish moss, there are 50 or 60 jobs in southwestern Nova Scotia that rake Irish moss and they're denied access east of Liverpool simply because of a policy made in Ottawa, and there's probably very little activity east of Liverpool that rakes Irish moss. There's a resource that, to me, there's a quick way - you want to create some jobs in your coastal communities and create 40, 50 or 60 seasonal jobs, there's a simple policy change.

If you want to go out and get whelks, that's an underutilised resource. The fishermen know that the resource is there. They know, they have the connections with the market in our global communities around the world, and yet they're denied a permit. There are jobs for our coastal communities, and I can recite a number of these species that are basically sitting there and are not being utilized, and my counterparts - I've had this same discussion with the Minister of Fisheries, Aquiculture and Rural Development from PEI - they can identify species and yet we are denied those privileges by our federal government and, to me, that is the challenge.

We can make a quick fix here and get some of these people working in our communities by just simply lifting some of this red tape and the bureaucracy that's holding the people back in our communities. Again, I talked in my opening remarks about the possibility of aquiculture, the importance of that, an opportunity for Nova Scotia, and the Aquacultural Association projects, that they can double the productivity over the next five

[Page 243]

years. Those are all exciting opportunities for Nova Scotia and we haven't yet talked about the possibility of enhancing fisheries, and to this date - the cod moratorium was introduced in 1991 - there hasn't been an elected official stand up and speak about how they can bring the fishery back, and I said that to the federal minister just weeks ago, days ago, in saying I want to have that opportunity that we can go out and enhance this fishery.

We can bring the wild fishery back, and I'll give you two examples quickly - one of them is the halibut off our coast and the other one is the soft shell clams. They are two simple opportunities, we have the technology that we can enhance our wild fishery and bring the productivity up in those two sectors and we can create jobs in our coastal communities. I can go around the Atlantic Provinces, and I'm sure that my counterparts around the Atlantic Provinces can do the same thing - if we identify three or four topics across our Atlantic Provinces we are going to keep people in our coastal communities, and I think that's our role and I'm encouraged that we're going to have an opportunity to be aggressive and do that. I look forward to having the opportunity and meeting that challenge.

MR. COLWELL: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I like your approach. Don't get me wrong here - that's not an issue and I know you have a vast knowledge of the fishery. I think you've answered my question, but I want to ask it one more time.

You indicated that you'd like to see the quotas or the revenue in the hands of the people who are actually going to work at it, so my question is, do you believe that people who have these quotas should be sitting home, which is against everything that we can possibly think of for economic development and the good of the communities and everything else, they either have to be in a situation that they get these quotas, and I understand the complexity with the quotas, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about people who actually sit home and don't do anything and get a cheque for a quota they have, whether they should have it or not, that's not what I'm talking about because that's a whole different issue, but they sit back and they don't do it. What's your opinion on that?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is asking a very complex question, and there are so many different varieties of allocations. There are people I know across the region who have a very small amount of allotment of a species, and sometimes it can have a positive effect on a community and there are other times when it has a negative effect on a community. So you're not going get a clear answer because there are opportunities that can be positive for a community, and there are negative. It's a very complex issue and what I'm trying to point out here is that this evolution of quotas has existed over the last 40 years - there has never been a mechanism in place that we can have an opportunity for those individuals that you're speaking of who can challenge DO on their decisions.

I'm suggesting to the federal minister and my counterparts across the Atlantic Provinces that we can have a tribunal or appeal process where these individuals or communities feel that they've been unjustified or they have a negative effect on the

[Page 244]

community or they have an opportunity - there are certain situations where those allocations can be in a positive mode. You have to understand the fishery and understand how this system works. It can be very positive if people have a small allotment of fish species, crab for instance, they cannot financially have the opportunity to rig up an enterprise that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain and it may be beneficial to that community for them to take their small allotment and divvy it up and let their neighbour or their friend or their brother - and that actually can complement that particular community.

You're asking a very complex question and to me you have to understand the whole industry, and there are times when a good situation evolves and there are other times that there's a negative situation.

The issue here is to understand the fishery. First of all, I think the departments in our Atlantic Provinces need to understand this, and I can revert back to the late 1960s and our communities thrived. They thrived, and I'm sure the coastal communities all across Nova Scotia did. There's one basic difference - in the late 1960s the decisions regarding the fisheries, whether you wanted to pursue any species, was at the local level. The independent fishermen made that choice and the decision-making process was in their hands. Today, 40 years later, those decisions have eroded, they have evaporated and they are in federal hands, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa. There's the difference and there's the challenge.

The challenge is to understand the fisheries and to bring those comments, bring those concerns to the federal minister in Ottawa, to that great bureaucracy that has kind of evolved and they're dominating the policies that will affect our coastal communities. I think it's up to us, as provincial leaders, to bring that message loud and clear to our federal government, and I intend to do just that.

MR. COLWELL: When you're talking - and, again, I like the approach you're doing with this because it's very complex and very difficult to get the federal government to move, period, never mind making a major change like you're talking about, which I think is badly needed - about Atlantic Canada, are you including Quebec?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, yes. If I didn't say Quebec, I apologize. If I didn't mention Quebec in my statement, I apologize. Quebec is at the table and I understand the complexity - Quebec shares quotas with the Maritimes and I'm familiar with Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and our neighbours, PEI and New Brunswick. So there's a lot of . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: And Nunavut.

MR. BELLIVEAU: And Nunavut, yes. To me, the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard I guess, if you want to call it that, from Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador - I don't think I've missed anyone along that coast - our grandfathers sailed from Grand Manan to Cape Breton,

[Page 245]

so we have a rich history in the fishery and I intend to bring that message loud and clear to our federal government.

MR. COLWELL: And I know you will; I'm not questioning that whatsoever. The problem has always been trying to get all the provinces together. That has been a problem and the federal government, I think, really works at that to make sure that they don't, which is unfortunate, but it's a real challenge to bring Quebec onside. If you can do that and work with them, I think you may start to accomplish some of these things - and I truly hope you do for the good of our province and all Atlantic Canada, including Quebec, Nunavut, and all the other areas.

How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: About four minutes.

MR. COLWELL: Four minutes. Okay, I'm going to ask some real easy questions now.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Oh, oh.

MR. COLWELL: The Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board, I know have had a really good record over the years - basically no bad debts in the past, or very, very few, and that says a lot for the staff in the department. I'm a big supporter of the staff in your department, by the way. What has the loss ratio been on the Loan Board, has it been pretty consistent or has it gone up, down, or . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question on that really great topic. My understanding is the defaults are roughly less than 2 per cent - ranging from 2 per cent to 3 per cent, so it's a great success story. I don't know, I'm not a financial wizard, but I know that there's always the concern when we default these, but I can assure you that the positive response that we've had on the loan board, this new initiative about getting access to capital for young fishermen, I think it's very positive, the opportunity to get new staff in that department. I mean that is a message, a very positive message, and I'm encouraged every time I meet young fishermen. I've met them and they say we would never have had that opportunity because they don't have the family financial backing and things have changed, and now they have an opportunity, over 20 years, they see an opportunity that they can become - and they want to become - part of that industry.

So to me we share a number of success stories and we talk about environment but I mean, to me, this is one in the fisheries that is a real success story. And I can show you documents that basically I worked on a fishermen's organization back in the mid-1980s and that was one of the priorities, to have access for capital - in the mid-1980s - and it has been a long time coming. When I came here in 2006, it was one of my campaign promises and there was a lot of discussion back, and I think all different parties recognize the importance

[Page 246]

of that now. We have lived to see that come and that program is amongst us, and I look forward to making sure that we can actually improve on that and look at opportunities - and I'm delighted when a young fisherman walks up to me and says it's the only time, it's the only way that we would have the opportunity to have access to capital and I thank you for doing that. So that is the reward of this job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, you have about a minute.

MR. COLWELL: Thank you. I agree, I think it's a wonderful thing for the past government to do, and I'm pleased to see that the bad debts are still about the same as they were, because I had no question about that really and that's a testament to the staff who really do the research and work with the people from the fishing industry to make sure that there are not bad debts, and also that enterprises can go forward and actually work with people to make that happen - you don't see that from banks, or any place else that really doesn't understand the industry.

So I think that's very positive and I want to commend the department again for great work there, and the staff that works so hard to make that happen.

I have many more questions that I want to ask on different topics - is my time just about up now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. COLWELL: So we'll continue that on Monday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for estimates for today is over. So we'll now adjourn and meet again on Monday afternoon.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 1:45 p.m.]