[Page 57]

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

4:07 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Becky Kent

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. I think we'll call our meeting to order. The Subcommittee on Supply will now begin at the hour of 4:07 p.m.

Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $91,449,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Estimate.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would invite the honourable Minister of Natural Resources to offer opening comments, if he should wish, and I would encourage him at this point as well to take the time to introduce his staff to our subcommittee members, if he would.

The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

HON. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you very much. For those who were here yesterday, you'll recognize at least one face other than my own. To my right is the Deputy Minister, Peter Underwood; the Director of Financial Services is Weldon Myers on my left; Executive Director for Planning Secretariat is Patricia MacNeil, behind me; Dan Davis, Director of Communications; and Kevin Boylan, Manager of Financial Services.

I am very pleased, I guess I would say, to be here, in that the two departments that I oversee actually get to be one and two in the Red Chamber. So it's great that we're able to start and that weight that's kind of hanging over my staff will get taken care of and we can move on to other things.

57

[Page 58]

Madam Chairman, my remarks will be brief, in order that we can get on with questions for estimates. The Department of Natural Resources has a very straightforward mission statement: to build a better future for Nova Scotians through responsible and sustainable natural resource management.

Many Nova Scotians are familiar with our programs and either use them directly or benefit from them indirectly. We're responsible for implementing policies and programs that ensure the effective administration and operation of Crown lands and provincial parks; conservation and sustainable use of wildlife populations, habitats, and ecosystems; environmentally responsible and sustainable exploration, development, and management of mineral resources; and the implementation of forest management policies aimed at maintaining sustainable forests and ecosystems and the protection of those forests from fires, pests, and disease.

Our department's activities include forest health-related work, such as fighting forest fires and dealing with infestations of insects and diseases that attack the province's forests; enforcing the natural resources-related legislation that is the responsibility of the department; delivering a range of geoscience, wildlife, forest, and Crown lands-related programs; and operating our provincial park system and our wildlife park and enhancing our system of recreational trails throughout the province.

The Department of Natural Resources has over 1,000 dedicated and professional staff who work in parks and offices across the province. I want to go off script to say that, not last weekend but the weekend before, there was an open house in Shubenacadie for the department and Friday was the first day. It was open to the public, mostly being our staff that were there, and Saturday was open to the public. I have to say it was an overwhelming success. It was a way for me as minister, actually, to get to meet some of the department staff and a way for some of them to get to meet each other.

I was there on the Saturday as well, and the reception by the public was great. There were a lot of people out. It was beautiful weather, and that was a help. Anyway, it was an event that I hope we can duplicate at some point in the future.

Our Land Services Branch helps Nova Scotia achieve and sustain prosperity by expanding and utilizing Nova Scotia's Crown land base in a balanced, sustainable manner that supports economic development and protects environmental goals. We are always looking for opportunities to increase our land base to support the program objectives of the department - parks, recreation, biodiversity, resource development and management, and to further the government's land protection goals. We do this through direct purchases, trades, donations, conservation partnerships, and through other federal and municipal government initiatives.

[Page 59]

The DNR is the land agent for the Department of Environment and works closely with that department to develop relationships with conservation partners, community groups, and industry to support land conservation goals. This joint effort has resulted in a collaborative approach to achieving the government's land conservation objectives.

This year DNR will have $75 million to work with to make strategic investments in land that will help the department meet its program objectives and the province meet its goals of protecting 12 per cent of the land mass by 2015. The funding available this year will help us get closer to the 2015 goal, and it could add up to 0.75 per cent to the 12 per cent goal, which would allow us to protect about 9.5 per cent of the land mass. It will also help us buy additional lands to ensure that Nova Scotians have access to more land for their use and enjoyment now and for future generations.

We want to ensure that Nova Scotians have access to more land in order that they can use, enjoy, and protect it now and for future generations. Most Nova Scotians support the government's land protection goals. It is essential that we secure additional lands for conservation and protection, and we will be working with the Mi'kmaq and with stakeholders, including our conservation partners, the forestry and mining industry, local communities, and other interest groups as we identify lands for protection.

Land prices are currently low, meaning Nova Scotians will be getting excellent value for their money. It also makes sense to purchase land now to help us meet our goal of protecting that 12 per cent and to acquire land and to support community interests.

[4:15 p.m.]

While the major focus of the Land Service Branch this year will be the purchase of additional Crown land, the branch is also continuing work on the Land Services Renewal Project, which will streamline business processes and help the department become more client-focused in its land management practices. Sound and accurate land-related data and modern decision-making tools are needed to enable the department to take on a lead role in the development of resources such as wind and tidal energy and to support the development of a green economy.

Our wildlife responsibilities include applied research; development and delivery of programs; and policies and legislation for the management and conservation of the province's wildlife resources and their habitats. In 2008-2009, the department financed a number of projects through our Habitat Conservation Fund. That funding is supported by hunters and trappers when they purchase the mandatory $3 wildlife stamp on all hunting licences. Last year, about $115,000 was awarded to partner organizations for projects to sustain our wildlife.

[Page 60]

I'm not sure how many members here are hunters, but I think if you go and buy your licence and you get that wildlife stamp, then you probably have some clear idea where those dollars go. In fact, since the conservation stamp program began in 2001, almost $1 million has been directed toward wildlife conservation. The Nova Scotian Species at Risk Conservation Fund is supported through the sale of conservation licence plates and wildlife fines. In 2008-2009, $82,000 was provided to conservation projects for species at risk, and we expect to disburse another $90,000 in 2009-2010.

We are in the process of redefining our deer management zones to be more reflective of Nova Scotia's eco-regions, and the process will help to address overabundance issues more effectively.

DNR continues to support the greater needs of Nova Scotians through the Hunters Helping the Hungry program. This program allows hunters to contribute deer and moose meat to Feed Nova Scotia by dropping it off at a participating licenced meat cutter. More than 735 kilograms of game - representing 6,500 meals - was made available to Feed Nova Scotia by some of the province's 44,000 licenced hunters in the 2008 hunting season.

Recent research with our park users has reaffirmed that Nova Scotians visit and explore our provincial parks for the nature-based experiences they provide. Not only do the parks allow people to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, the parks allow them to visit their past and connect as families, often through participation in a variety of outdoor recreation pursuits.

Our reservation system has been an outstanding success. Over the past two years, the use of a system has continued to grow. The system allows users to reserve specific campsites at provincial campgrounds either by phone or online. It was warmly greeted when first introduced and in 2008 we saw a 9 per cent increase in use over 2007. Importantly, the computerized system allows us to note that there were more than 50,000 overnight stays at provincial campsites during the 2008 season and that about 24 per cent of the reservations were made by people outside Nova Scotia.

The province has continued its commitment to ensure all visitors have a chance to enjoy our natural park settings by updating the campsites at Graves Island, one of the most popular parks in the system. It continues to encourage the volunteer efforts of both our Campground Host and Parks Are For People programs, which give visitors extra insights into the parks and in surrounding areas. We extended the camping season in 2009 by a total of 96 days by modifying the opening and closing dates of six parks, the goals being to provide more camping within existing resource levels.

Let me make it clear, however, that it is an ongoing battle to keep up with the demand for aging infrastructure while respecting our users' desires for improved services and conserving and protecting the nature experience provided in our parks. The investment in

[Page 61]

parks will continue this year and next with funding under the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program at four provincial parks: Chignecto, Laurie, Mira River and Whycocomagh.

The Department of Natural Resources supports the responsible development of the province's mineral resources. It is responsible for the implementation of policies and programs dealing with exploration, development, management and responsible use of geological resources. The department promotes scientific understanding of Nova Scotia's geology for use by government, industry and the public. It also maintains databases of geo-scientific information, tracks mineral production, monitors compliance with regulatory requirements and administers mineral royalties and the provincial mineral rights tenure system.

The department undertakes studies to understand and explain the province's geology, to help document the province's mineral endowment and define the potential for new mineral resources, and to provide important information for public health and safety and protection of the environment. The Nova Scotia mining sector is feeling the effects of the global economic downturn. Impacts are particularly severe in gypsum, base metals and gold. The mineral industry is important to Nova Scotia, employing directly and indirectly more than 6,000 people and contributing $500 million to the provincial economy. The worldwide recession has dramatically lowered commodity prices and tightened capital markets, adversely impacting mining companies globally.

It's an understatement to say that the forest industry is experiencing a difficult time. Many small sawmills have not operated at all so far in 2009. Our pulp and paper mills have taken downtime this year. There has been a dramatic decrease in production both from the forest and in mill production that affects every aspect of our province's forest industry. Reduction and closures are the result of the general economic state, however we are confident that our industry will rebound when prices and demand improve.

The forest industry is a traditional resource industry that is facing changing times and much of that change has been difficult. My department has worked with the sector associations, individual farms and others, to find effective ways to support the industry. On August 17^th, I was pleased to announce a $14 million 50/50 agreement with the federal government to stimulate the silviculture sector and ensure funding for the woodlot and Crown land silviculture programs.

Also during the past year of the Forest Transition Program, we invested $4.5 million to acquire more than 1,500 hectares of land under the $20 million, five-year program that allows the province to purchase parcels of industrial forest land from viable forest companies; supported the Forest Safety Society with $140,000 toward improved education and safety in the industry; contributed nearly $8 million to the small, private-woodlot sector through the Registry of Buyers silviculture program; provided a $600,000 additional

[Page 62]

commitment to the Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia's gas tax road program; and committed $1.5 million to support woodlot forest certification through landowner associations.

We will be working in concert with other departments and governments to ensure the ongoing health of an industry that is one of the economic foundations of this province and that continues to be a key rural employer.

We are looking to the future in other ways. We will invest $800,000 over two years for a program aimed at increasing the number of small, private-woodlot operators who use uneven-aged forest management methods on appropriate parcels of land. All the while, we are seeking informed debate on how to better add value and move the industry forward as one of the key components in our three-year Natural Resources strategy development process. We will invest $150,000 in research being undertaken at the University of New Brunswick on the potential for Nova Scotia forest sites to support biomass harvesting. We continue to work with federal authorities and industry on methods to mitigate the brown spruce longhorn beetle and other forest pests.

The Nova Scotia Government's Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act commits DNR to develop a new Natural Resources' strategy by March 2010. Given the linkages between different areas of natural capital, a single comprehensive Natural Resources' strategy has been undertaken to address four components: forest, minerals, parks and biodiversity. Completion of the strategy is one of the department's key priorities.

We are in the midst of Phase II of the development of a new Natural Resources' strategy. The second phase - stakeholder engagement - is being led by panels of expertise and a ministerial steering panel. The final phase is the creation of the actual strategy, which will be completed in 2010. We're fortunate to have excellent panel members to guide the second phase of the process. The steering panel is overseeing the strategy process and the four panels of expertise are defining the process for researching the issues and themes that emerged during the public consultation in 2008.

From time to time, government workers are heros and they should be recognized as such. Each of us will recall the drama of the two serious forest fires in Halifax Regional Municipality this year and last. The fires reminded everyone of the potential risk in the wild land urban interface and the high level of capability of our staff - all supporting agencies. We have reviewed our operations to further improve our capacity and we are committing more resources to advance training initiatives.

While we were fortunate to have a relatively quiet fire season, other provinces such as Quebec and B.C., were not. Nova Scotia's DNR did its part to help those provinces in their time of great need and sent the requested resources, just as others have done for us. With the fire season nearly over, it seems now is an appropriate time to say thank you once

[Page 63]

again to our courageous and well-trained firefighters. So, thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would now offer the first hour of questioning to the Official Opposition at the hour of 4:27 p.m.

The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Madam Chairman, I may end up sharing my time as I have another commitment in the Chamber.

Thank you for your opening comments and remarks. One of the last areas that you did touch upon is the work in progress, the Natural Resources Strategy. I feel that in my six years here at Province House, I feel it's one of the really strong landmark pieces of work of the former government, to take this very critical area of our natural resources and to look at a strategy that's probably going to shape these sectors for the next couple of generations. When we're talking about forestry, we know it's the long-term picture that needs consideration.

At this stage, is there any kind of an update or any way that the public of Nova Scotia can be informed about what has taken place to date? Now that there has been a change of government, are there any kind of lead areas that your Party, your government, will want to have some influence on? I'll just leave you with that first.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, if I understand your question correctly, you're referring to the strategy and . . .

MR. GLAVINE: Its current phase, what's taking place with it, is there some kind of an update or is it a process that we'll only see when it comes to the final draft?

[4:30 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: I think, probably, we'll see most of it when it comes to the final draft, it is a work in progress. I do have a concern around the timeline that I actually set, which was for the end of March, to have the recommendations written. You may remember that the initial phase, Phase 1, was a voluntary planning phase and the panels of expertise now are looking at the more technical aspects of what came through that voluntary planning process with the view that they'll make recommendations that will come to Cabinet. Then after that, the strategy will be written on those recommendations.

I don't really have any more of an update, although I have to say I've been thinking I should at least touch base with the steering panel to ensure if they have any concerns or issues. I want to be clear when you prefaced your question, you talked about what could

[Page 64]

impact the next couple of generations because of the forestry component. Those panels of expertise, there are four of them - forestry is one, parks, minerals and biodiversity. We're expecting that what comes out of those recommendations will guide policy for some time, so I think, as minister, I'm very keen to see what it is that they do present.

MR. GLAVINE: Madam Chairman, until we get to that final phase, what I was really getting at is, is the public going to get any update as to what is in place after Phase 2? I'm just wondering, I've had a few people who attended meetings and people are always, of course, wanting feedback if they went and did a presentation, presented their perspectives. I know I attended one of the ones that took place in the valley and I'm asking on their behalf, is there anything between now and what will be the final draft?

MR. MACDONELL: The recommendations out of Phase 2 will be made public, so at that point the public will have some insight as to their comments through voluntary planning and the panels of expertise and what recommendations came out of that.

MR. GLAVINE: Will something follow along the lines like we saw with voluntary planning for OHVs whereby there was a draft document and, in fact, then there were a reduced number of public forums to react to some of those recommendations? I'm really wondering, is much the same model going to be followed?

Voluntary planning, I believe, is a very strong process. It has lots of good filters within it and I'm just wondering if it's going to go through that kind of second stage process.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking not; voluntary planning was the first phase of this. I think that once we get the recommendations, we're probably not going to start to work back through another public process because that's how we initiated this process. So I think the recommendations - once they're written by the Phase 2 process and the oversight by the steering panel, then I think it'll be a question of which of those recommendations, then, that Cabinet will support or endorse. I would be hoping for all of them but I don't really want to - I really try to keep my distance from that process. I didn't want it to be seen as in any way manipulated by the department or by the minister. I wanted it to have a free hand to do its work and then I thought the public would receive it as a very open document, so that's what our hope is.

MR. GLAVINE: I guess then, just related - that's fine, I know that voluntary planning around OHVs, it was so controversial that probably going back for a second round actually had some inherent value within that process. So I'm not disagreeing with the process and don't think it won't reflect a lot of the voluntary planning and the community input and so forth, I'm sure it will.

Some of the areas that I know were there during the voluntary planning process, then in many ways I suppose they're in a holding pattern. I think of things that - now you're in

[Page 65]

government, in Opposition, you definitely had some positions on sustainable forestry practices, clear-cutting, how we should shape our Crown lands to be the model forests areas. Will they stay in a holding pattern until the natural resources strategy comes forward?

MR. MACDONELL: It depends on the issue - I guess not, if I can help it. We deliberately didn't involve uranium mining as one of the items in this process. I'm thinking the department was working on policy regarding biomass, which I think is not addressed in this process, if I'm correct. It's in the strategy, okay.

So because the world doesn't stop, I certainly have no intention of sitting back, if there's an issue that we have to deal with. The question would be that if a recommendation on a particular item comes forward out of this process, if we haven't gone far enough, or whatever, that's when we can certainly tweak what we do. So, I'm really more concerned about trying not to influence the process, but I'm not keen to see significant issues that I feel that I have to deal with wait until this process is done. I'm not excited about doing that.

Mr. GLAVINE: I'll move back to the area that did have the impact of Voluntary Planning, I guess, to some extent, still working through some best policy and so forth. I still see the OHV and ATV needing some fine tuning. So, with that, one of the areas that was neglected on the minister's task force was filling the position of a medical practitioner. At one point there was a doctor and he decided to leave the minister's advisory panel on ATVs and OHVs. I'm wondering if that position is now filled and/or is it going to be filled?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, we're getting ready to advertise for that position and as a kind of an overview of the whole committee, some positions there, but that's one.

MR. GLAVINE: I'm very pleased to hear that because I think great strides have been made around the safety of our youth using ATVs, perhaps some elements of training in particular that can still happen with young Nova Scotians. However, so far this year, and maybe you have that statistic, I think it is either five or six adults killed in the province in ATV accidents. I think to have that medical voice may, in fact, influence that at least some kind of minimal requirement update around training.

It's always interesting when, for example, as an adult you get a refresher on a particular license that maybe you have had for years. I happen to be at one of the events demonstrating safety for ATVs. Even though I've had one for 20 years, I learned quite a few things. I think that's still perhaps the missing part of as to where we're going to go with having adults do some type of minimal safety around the OHVs. So, I'm wondering, would that be a part of your mandate to the panel, to at least give some look at that whole area?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, it's not my intention to mandate that. Actually, the four panels are forestry, biodiversity, parks and minerals. Those are the four panels of expertise if you're referring to the strategy - if you're referring to the Minister's Advisory Committee,

[Page 66]

I try not to mandate them. I let them relay the issues that they feel are ones that they worked on, or see as the highest priority for them, and use the expertise around the table of the committee to advise the minister. So, I try not to mandate, I guess, that they do this or that.

MR. GLAVINE: One of the areas I still get phone calls to my office about, since I have a fairly considerable rural riding - out to as far as East Dalhousie section of the Trans Canada Trail, the multi-use trail that goes through my riding - we do get calls wondering if the enforcement officials are ever in our area, for example. So I'm just wondering if you could provide a little bit of an overview as to the number of times that they've actually put out this year, to give some accounting of their work in terms of enforcement of the current regulations?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, we don't have those numbers here but we can get you those numbers.

MR. GLAVINE: Okay, I'm interested to see the number of fines and the nature of fines from these and if you hear, at the department level, that perhaps we still could use a few more of these enforcement officers to carry out much needed work around safety and also the breaking of current regulations.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, that certainly would be something I would be willing to look at. When we finish this budget process, I expect we'll be heading into the next one. So, depending where there seems to be deficiencies, that would be one that I certainly would want to discuss with my staff and see whatever constraints we face, what the possibilities are.

I have to say that it's not one - there have been some hot spots, I guess, but generally not one that I have been approached on a lot. But, for sure, if it turns out there seems to be a greater need on the enforcement side, then that would be something we could take a look at.

[4:45 p.m.]

MR. GLAVINE: Madam Chairman, I was also wondering, is there some plan developing in the Department of Natural Resources with a very defined provincial trail from Sydney to Yarmouth, because we do have some areas that now have been handed over to other authorities. They haven't necessarily gone to trail groups, they have gone, for example, to a walking group. One of example, of course, is Coldbrook to Kentville. So, the challenges of having a province-wide trail seem to be very difficult to surmount.

I look at other provinces like New Brunswick and Quebec, who have a flourishing tourism sector around this. I keep hearing from them on the kind of multiplier effect of people who use the trail and stop at a hotel, gas up, meals and so forth. I'm just wondering if there is a real defined strategy or are we just going to fix a bridge here and a bridge there

[Page 67]

and we're going to incorporate off-highway vehicles into a policy and a provincial plan to try to capitalize on that?

MR. MACDONELL: The Minister's Advisory Committee is working with my department on developing a system of trails from one end of the province to the other. The issues around that trail system are multifaceted, I guess, in the sense it's trying to have community organizations who are willing to take on the oversight of a particular section of trail anywhere, and also to try to accommodate what the area and the community and the people want to see for the use of the trail, whether those trails have multiple users and whether they want to have some of them motorized or not, and some walking. Not every area seems to want the same thing.

I think our hope is that we would have a trail system from one end of the province to the other. Some of that as you might well expect, because we took over trails in the sense of taking over the railroad beds, which quite often make up parts of trails, and any infrastructure there that's deficient, a lot of it doesn't come without some significant costs. How fast that can progress will depend on who in a particular area shows an interest, what they deem to be their vision for what they would like to see the trail be and what dollars there are to upgrade or ensure that the infrastructure is sound and safe and so on.

MR. GLAVINE: Madam Chairman, I guess then, probably, it's a little bit early to talk about a particular area. One very troublesome area has been around Paradise and I'm sure you heard the issue brought forward in the Chamber. Is that now a legal issue or is there some resolve there? Are you familiar with where that troublesome situation is?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm a bit familiar with that issue. It's still in court.

MR. GLAVINE: That's fine. Have you, at this stage, heard anything from the minister's advisory committee about looking at the whole age piece or are you satisfied with the present pattern in which our youth graduate to larger vehicles?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think you're thinking of the younger than 14. I've got to say, it's not an issue that the committee has raised with me. What their internal communication is around it, they may have had some discussion, but if they've come to a position there, they haven't articulated it yet.

MR. GLAVINE: I soon have to leave so I'm just going to ask a couple of other questions. The one around about the game sanctuaries is one that I continue to find troublesome. I know that we've had a little bit of a change of heart here from the minister, from what was a very strong NDP position, and that was to give the highest regard to our game sanctuaries and to restrict industrial activity and definitely clear-cutting and so on, so that they would have the true status of a game sanctuary. I know that giving permission to East Rock and seismic testing here, it may have been along in the process, but I'm wondering

[Page 68]

if that's an area that you as minister will review and we'll see some definite policy around what will be permitted and not permitted inside game sanctuaries?

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I do have concerns. I have to work closely with my colleagues in Energy and the Department of Environment because actually the Department of Environment has had significant oversight in any of these exploration permits.

In terms of the game sanctuaries, I think it's now that they've been identified that there's significant ecological features. They're on the list as possible wilderness areas or Chignecto is. The testing that was done last year had some oversight there by - I forget the name of the group. There is a group in Chignecto that actually was concerned about the environment there and so they had some oversight as to what that company did and what the impacts were. Chignecto is a special case, not only in that it's on the list of one that there's interest in, at least parts of it, being declared a wilderness protected area. The Cumberland Wilderness society, they had some issues and I think the company worked quite closely with them - and the mainland moose there is an endangered species.

I think for our purposes, depending on where the interest may lie in having it as a protected wilderness area, we would like to know what's there, in terms of what are the resources. I think the next step, depending on what may or may not be there, will give us some indication of how much of what we want to allow and what way we may allow it. I guess it's not only just the Chignecto Game Sanctuary but there is other Crown there as well that I think we'd like to see protected.

I think we're eager to see what the data indicates. The wilderness society there seemed to be quite satisfied with the way exploration went on last year and if that could be completed this year, then there will be more data on the availability of what resource, if there is any, and then that will help steer the path for designation of that property, so anyway that's what we'll wait and see.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: Madam Chairman, I'm just going to start by following up on my colleague's question. It does sound like a change of policy from what your Party said in Opposition, which was very firmly against exploration in the Chignecto Game Sanctuary and now it's, well, maybe it's okay. Can you can reconcile those two?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, well I don't think it was me that said it, but I think for us the issue - definitely I have some issues around an area deemed to be a sanctuary and clear-cutting and what the effects are on moose habitat and certainly with an endangered species there. There doesn't appear, from the testing that was done last year, that there was any negative impact on any of the issues that we would have concerns with. I guess the question

[Page 69]

for us is, what's the possibility for down the road and I think that's when we may have to start drawing lines in the sand about those areas we want to see protected or whatever out of that area.

MR. YOUNGER: Madam Chairman, there are a couple of areas I want to go through. The first one is actually an issue that has been going on for about 20 years. Ironically this started with the Liberal Government where they started acquiring land for the Second Lake Regional Park. Now, my understanding is the land acquisitions have been complete for some time but it still has yet to receive the designation of regional park status by the government. Are you going to be moving forward on that designation?

MR. MACDONELL: I'll get an answer for you. I'm interested, and I've talked about a number of parks with a variety of colleagues, and I don't remember that one.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, and I look forward to that. My understanding, obviously, it's not the area that I represent, but today I actually received a number of calls knowing this was coming up today, and I'm just wondering whether that would receive its designation since the understanding is that the land acquisitions were finalized within the past year or so by the province.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. YOUNGER: I want to spend a bit of time talking about the Shubenacadie Canal Commission. I know that you're familiar, your own riding borders the waterway. They used to have an annual operating budget of $150,000 provided by the province. That was cut by 75 per cent, to $32,000, and unlike the departmental increases for CPI over the years, they've really not received much. Obviously, as you probably heard in my remarks in the House recently, they are approaching their 20^th Anniversary. They were asked by the previous minister, although the previous minister under the previous government wouldn't meet with them. They were asked by him to create a business plan, which they did, to rebuild the canal and look at the economic and tourism benefits. I would be interested to know what your vision is for the canal commission, which of course comes under your ministry.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I guess I have to say I haven't had a lot of discussion - actually, I haven't met with them, so I would be glad to do that. I know from their vision of restoring the canal project as much as they could, to the Minas Basin, I would be glad to take a look at whatever funding is possible for us. I mean, we're going to be starting into the next budget year after this one. So yes, I have a section of the canal through my constituency on the Shubenacadie River, but in Hornes Settlement, which is not far from where I live, there is a kind of park in there where you can go into that section. I think it is Lock 6, if I'm not mistaken. I certainly don't want to see the canal deteriorate to the point that you can't have it restored, but I don't know what the possibilities are budget-wise, what that kind of project would actually demand to complete it the way they would like to see it.

[Page 70]

[5:00 p.m.]

MR. YOUNGER: Well, I can tell you that over 10 years they're probably looking for about $12 million in capital funding.

Now, interestingly enough - and I guess the good news is that the canal is well represented by government ministers, not just members, because of course we have the Minister of Education, yourself, the Minister of Economic and Rural Development, as well as a number of backbench MLAs, so hopefully they're all aware of the importance.

One of the concerns is, the canal commission, for example, this year was able to get a federal grant, but under the previous government was turned down for the matching provincial and so lost the federal grant as well, which would have been worth millions of dollars.

At the moment they have been raising funds and, of course, one of the problems that they have at the moment is they've now received another commitment from the federal government and one from the municipal government - HRM - yet in order to trigger that, they need $750,000 from the province. Now that application, obviously, was in to the previous government before, that request, and things change and I know we're in a budget time, but I notice that there is a ubiquitous column here in the budget documents of $20 million for grants and contributions, $3 million of which was under Parks and Renewable Resources. I'm just wondering if you could give me some idea of how that breaks down? Because when I look at that, I sit there and I say, well, that line item has gone up this year; that seems to be the place to find that money.

MR. MACDONELL: I would be glad to answer. A large portion of that is silviculture funding. I'm trying to find out if we can determine how much of that. Okay, some of that is about $7 million in silviculture funding, $2.5 million for Bowater, and the rest we would have to search around to get your total for $20 million. But I'm thinking the canal is not in there.

MR. YOUNGER: Madam Chairman, I'm guessing it's not as well. I have to assume that under Natural Resources, there are other organizations like the canal commission that are mandated under provincial law. I really think, Mr. Minister, we need to get at how we're going to deal with these groups who were obviously - the provincial governments over the years, and governments of all stripes in fairness, have downloaded the need to maintain these assets. But as I'm sure you're aware, heritage assets are extraordinarily expensive to maintain and they get more expensive to maintain each year they go by.

I'm just wondering whether you've put any thought yet into a plan to ensure that whichever commissions might remain under your jurisdiction over time - because you might choose to get rid of some of them - how you would ensure sustainable funding, and even

[Page 71]

more important than sustainable funding, sustainability of their operations on an ongoing basis.

MR. MACDONELL: No, I actually haven't given much thought to that. It's not something that's really come up in my 90-some days yet. But actually, I'd like to review a list of what those responsibilities are and try to determine that in some kind of level of priority where we think they should be placed and then search to see where we can address their funding issues.

MR. YOUNGER: Madam Chairman, one of the things that I would like to see happen is for you to meet with representatives of the commission. Obviously, they are appointed by your department and they report to you. The previous government actually refused to meet with them or didn't set up a time or it just never worked out. I know, of course, in fairness to you, you've been very busy getting the budget ready for the past 90 days, but I know they have made some requests to your office to meet with you that haven't been answered yet. Are you willing to meet with them? I'm not asking to meet them during budget time, don't worry.

MR. MACDONELL: I've met with a lot of people since I've been doing this job. So yes, if they've contacted my department, then I'm sure we'll fit them in somewhere, as much as I can get some flexibility for doing that. I would be more than happy to do that.

MR. YOUNGER: I appreciate that, thank you. I would like to move on, I don't want to use all my time there. One of the things that I noticed in looking at the budget is in terms of staffing numbers on Page 18.2 of the Nova Scotia Estimates, although the estimated number of FTEs have gone down, from 864 to 842. The actual number last year was only 829 and so it does show an increase in staff of 13 FTEs. I'm wondering - obviously we're all trying to cut back here and save some money but why would the staffing numbers be going up?

MR. MACDONELL: If you compare the estimate in 2008-09 and 2009-10, there's a transfer out of the IT section there, about 20 people, and the difference between the estimate 2008-09 and the actual for 2008-09, that's vacancies. That's why that number is lower there.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The other thing I want to ask you - on the page before that, based on the document shown here, it would appear that the department has gone over budget in each of the previous two years by varying amounts - by $2 million last year and by about $8 million the year before. How confident are you in this year's budget number?

MR. MACDONELL: Well I'll get my explanation, but pretty confident, because we're presenting the budget. Last year it was the Porters Lake fire that drove it up. That wasn't really an expected expense.

[Page 72]

MR. YOUNGER: That makes a lot of sense, obviously the Porters Lake fire wouldn't have been predicted. Are you taking any measures? What are we, nine months, six months into a fiscal year and so obviously you are in a bit of a challenged situation to save money this year, but your government is going to be dealing with a massive deficit. I'm just wondering what programs in particular are you looking at as possible targets for cuts, before next year?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not looking at cutting any, if I can help it. Actually I guess the way the asks come in would be a question of whether you can actually give additional funding in more places, rather than cut. I think our directive would be that we're going to try to balance the books in this province.

I think trying to maintain what we have, as much as possible, would be where I'd like to be but I'll have to - when we crunch numbers further, we'll see what the writing on the wall indicates. There might be things that I'll say no way, I don't want that to go and if that went for a year or two then we can probably survive with that, so we'll just have to see what we come up with.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate that. I have to believe that - I mean I'm sure your department is already looking at next year's budget, just because of the timing of this whole thing. I've got to believe that in order to pare down the budget numbers and to really get to a balanced budget at some point, that every department is pretty well going to take a hit and it is going to be much harder to make that hit in education or in health care, if nothing else public optics. It strikes me that as much as I or somebody else around this table may not want to see Natural Resources take a hit, that you could be first on that chopping block.

Am I hearing that you haven't put any thought to what might be the top priority programs and the lower priority programs in that department?

MR. MACDONELL: I've had, I think, what I would deem at this point in my career, some other, more pressing issues that I want to deal with, so I'm assuming that as things come across my desk, either by phone or out and about in communities, where people see particular services offered by the Department of Natural Resources, that will flag things for me, where they are and levels of priority and what the risk is around not funding them appropriately.

MR. YOUNGER: That's a good political answer. I mean, in all fairness, Mr. Minister, I don't envy your position, in terms of having to deal with that deficit and having to find those, and I guess we'll discuss more about that next year.

One of the things that did come up, and there has been a lot said about, is the increase in money for land purchases. Frankly, it is something I think has the potential to be a good

[Page 73]

thing. I think we need to reach or exceed that 12 per cent, and there's obviously some high-profile pieces of land on the block at the moment.

What does concern me is there seems to be a number dropped in the budget for land purchases, in the tens of millions of dollars, yet with no indication of what parcels of land you might be considering, even if it is a list of parcels that exceeds the available resources. Can you give us any more insight into that?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think there's probably been enough public attention around some of those parcels. I mean, the JDI must be the obvious one that would come to people's minds.

There is an extremely large holding by Neenah Paper that they have and is up for sale. I think there's some - I think Atlantic Star is the company generally referred to as Wagner Forestry - So yes, I mean it was pretty hard not to - if you're going to have the number, you pretty much have to tell the public that you have it, so how that impacts - certainly the people you're thinking you might want to buy land from, they know the number. But look, even at that my gut tells me it's not enough, and so you dicker on the best deal you can get for the people, and that's kind of what we're hoping we can do.

[5:15 p.m.]

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. We see the number with only a few months left in this fiscal year. Do you feel that you're - I'm not suggesting that you're going to be able to buy all those lands, and you're probably right, you probably can't afford them all - do you feel that you're going to be able to expend all those dollars by the end of this fiscal year in land purchases? Are the negotiations that far along?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I don't think I can give you any kind of an assurance on that. I mean ,we've got the money to buy land, we'd like to spend it to buy land, and that kind of depends on where on the ground the numbers - I mean the thing is, when you're negotiating with somebody and it is their land and they're not too hard up for dollars, then they have a fair bit of flexibility. So the question is, who else in the marketplace can offer them a better deal? Certainly our interest would be in larger acreages, which is not necessarily the kind of thing that a lot of people out there would be interested in, but they can lop off smaller ones and sell them that way, which for those significant features, those lands with significant features that we'd like to have for the people - we'd like to avoid that. So this is a negotiation, and we can only say we're interested and what are you asking?

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you. I would like to actually encourage the minister in the larger parcels. I know sometimes it's very sexy to buy a one-acre parcel down the street from somebody who has been itching for everybody to buy it, but when we look at wildlife corridors and all that sort of thing, I think there's more bang for the buck in terms of

[Page 74]

acquiring larger parcels. That's certainly my personal view, which leads me into the next area I wanted to discuss, and I apologize if I'm jumping all over the map here, but it is the way it is, I guess. I heard you say in your opening remarks about the species at risk funding, and I believe you mentioned you anticipated $90,000. If I understood correctly, and this is sort of what I wanted to get at, all that funding comes from things like the licence plates, and I believe there were some wildlife tags and things like that. Is that the sole source of funding for that? $90,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to me, to be working on species at risk.

MR. MACDONELL: That's what we give out to wildlife groups, but we have our wildlife staff and people in our department who we have working on issues around habitat retention and trying to actually prevent species becoming at risk, number one, and then in hopes of implementing practices that will stop any depletion that we think is happening with any particular species, and then, hopefully, bring those numbers back, but the $90,000 is what we would give out to various organizations for promotions.

MR. YOUNGER: So that is basically a grant program, essentially.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, a grant program.

MR. YOUNGER: I'd be interested to know, on species at risk in protected areas, what your department's plans are around marine protected areas - or whether there are any plans, or whether you're leaving that solely to the federal government, or - and I'm sure this overlaps a bit with the Department of Fisheries, but it is sort of across that department thing, I guess.

MR. MACDONELL: I'll get that for you, where we may be on marine protection and where that lies jurisdictionally.

MR. YOUNGER: All right, thank you. You mentioned uranium mining in passing, when my colleague was asking. What is your position on uranium mining in the province?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think our Party had campaigned on legislation around a ban on uranium mining and we haven't moved off that.

MR. YOUNGER: Do you anticipate introducing that legislation this session?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm hopeful.

MR. YOUNGER: The secondary was biomass that came up, and obviously there's been a bit of a debate in the province - I'm sure you're well aware - especially around this idea of NewPage, up in Cape Breton near Port Hawkesbury. They were originally looking at a biomass operation to produce electricity and steam. What I'm wondering is, where do you sit in terms of defining the amount of available biomass for co-generation and that sort

[Page 75]

of thing, versus what should either be left in the forest or to ensure that the forestry industry, and obviously the ecology of the forest, stays sustainable?

MR. MACDONELL: That's a pretty reasonable question. Look, I made it clear to my staff that when it comes to - the present Code of Practices requires coarse woody debris to be left on the forest floor. When it comes to biomass, I've indicated that I want that still left on the forest floor and I want what was referred to as the fines, which is the branches and tops and so on, to be left on the forest floor as well.

The issues around sustainability are very important ones. I think on the present co-gen project that you mentioned, because that's actually for the most part - for the government's interest for sure, I think the reason it came to us was around access to wood on that Crown licence. So if I thought that that wasn't sustainable, to harvest that level, then I wouldn't think about approving it, but I think we have a wood supply there that would support that. I don't think it would support a whole lot of those projects in the province but I think on that one the supply is there, but I'm not interested in seeing tops and branches and, of course, woody debris ground up and burned at all.

MR. YOUNGER: I'm glad to hear that because although I think there's some merit in biomass and so forth, my concern is about the woody debris and obviously the continuation of the ecological cycle in the forests. Tying into that, there has been a lot of concern expressed, particularly lately, about clear-cutting. Obviously it has been going on for years but particularly lately. Is your department willing or looking at introducing legislation that would ban clear-cutting in the province, except where there's no other alternative?

MR. MACDONELL: Not at this stage but I'm fact-finding. My concern presently around the biomass issue and particularly on this one project, is that Forest Stewardship Council certification is adopted. That mill, that's what their harvesting practice is. It's a certification I've looked at the most, that has an auditing system and supposedly clear-cutting that is done is done on those stands that it would be an appropriate thing to do.

I think we introduced legislation some years ago, when I was in Opposition, I did twice, actually. Our legislation was to ban it as the overall harvesting practice but there were those sites where, well if you were to think of the Hurricane Juan areas or longhorn beetle infestations, any diseased stands, probably the most appropriate thing would be to clear-cut those stands. Generally, as the overall harvesting practice, we didn't see that as appropriate and I think Forest Stewardship Council certification goes a long way to accomplishing what we hope we might see in legislation.

MR. YOUNGER: I agree that certification certainly helps, where the mills choose to take it, but I think you can just drive down the South Shore and drive by the line of trees that is maybe 20 feet deep with a clear-cut behind it. There's certainly been some concern raised.

[Page 76]

In terms of your fact-finding, as you mentioned, and that's what I was going to bring up, is that you, of course, introduced a bill that is along those lines, twice. In doing this fact-finding, when do you anticipate coming to a decision and deciding what those practices should be? Should we expect consultation with the industry - not only the industry but, of course, the public in the coming months?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm hoping I might have some designs of where I'd like to see us go with that, before Christmas, so we'll see what the facts find.

MR. YOUNGER: When you come up with those designs, is it your intent to put those out to the public for comment, prior to the next session of the Legislature? That would obviously give a couple of months for people to give you feedback.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm thinking that there's been a lot of input around this issue already, I'm not sure that I need to go to the public any more on it but I'll give that some consideration.

I do know of surveys that have been done that indicate where the public was on this long ago, but probably is more around the appropriate mechanism to accomplish it. I'm not really looking to have a big study and task force and that kind of thing. I'm more interested in just looking at data that shows already where people would like to go and see if it is possible to have regulation or legislation that is appropriate.

MR. YOUNGER: I will just quickly say that, and I don't suggest a task force or anything, but my thought is that if you are thinking you are going to have this ready by Christmas - I'm not sure when the House will go in in the Spring, it probably won't be January so if it's February or March, it just seems there is time to put it on a web site and ask for comments. Thank you. Now I have to run to the other room.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MACDONELL: We have the strategy that is ongoing now, one of those panels, one of those areas we're looking at is forestry, so we're certainly expecting we'll get information from that process, which is to help direct policy.

My concern around ramping anything up faster is more related to biomass, because we don't really have policy there, and I see that as barrelling toward us in a bigger rush, but we can probably look at other aspects of forest harvesting and see what the strategy provides in that regard.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

[Page 77]

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. First, may I start off by congratulating the minister on his new position. I want to wish you well, but I'm going to do my best to make it hard on you.

I'd also like to say, from my discussions with people across the province so far in my new role as critic, the staff of the DNR is held in high respect right across this province and I want to compliment them on that. Certainly I know with the dealings I have had in my own local constituency, the people there are very professional and they work hard to make sure that the right things happen for our province and for our parks and so on. So you have a good department to work with and I congratulate you on that.

However, I too am new to the role, so I am going to pick through a few different issues here and see where we can get to. One of the challenges that a lot of people have in dealing with the Department of Natural Resources is when there are land purchases that are trying to settle old granted land and land that had been in the family and people have been there for a long time. It seems that the process is very, very long. I'm dealing with one case in particular that I know of that is into a couple of years. Can the minister speak to how we could streamline that process to make it easier?

I'm not talking about vast tracts of land; I'm talking about individuals who sometimes have an estate tied up because there's an old road or right-of-way going through their property and it takes years to get this problem fixed.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess I'm not sure if all cases are exactly the same. I'm thinking that there's a significant legal component to who owns what land. Sometimes people think the department owns a piece of land and want us to release it to them, and come to find out that we don't own it at all, so all we can say is we don't have title and we can't be sure who does have title.

[5:30 p.m.]

I think quite often those issues are very much tied up in legal jurisdictional things that we can't be - as much as we'd like to see things go faster, it's quite often not possible without due diligence. In order to ensure that we've done due diligence, you have to go down a certain road. I think we don't really want to know that it has been sitting on somebody's desk for three months and not looked at either.

I think the people who do this in my department, they do a lot of it and they are familiar with the process. For them, they like to get these things cleared up as quickly for them as for the people who may have a particular issue with it. So it's not that anybody is going out of their way, I think, to drag it and make it slower.

[Page 78]

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I agree that there are complicated issues here. I guess the question is, is there a way that your department can find a way to help streamline this and make it easier for individuals. Again, I'm not talking about big corporations that I'm dealing with. I'm talking about people who are trying to settle estates, people who are trying to settle their own home land issues, if I might use that term.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you. I've got to say that most of what has come across my desk around those have been exactly what you said - they were families. We are engaging in a re-look of those processes to see if it's possible at all to streamline them and make it go faster. So hopefully that process will yield something that actually will speed things up.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the minister for that answer. Mr. Minister, there is now about $81 million in the fund to purchase land, and I would just like to hear some of your comments toward what type of land you think would be appropriate for this land trust to be used for, and if there are any negotiations undergoing at the present time for this land.

MR. MACDONELL: I think our goal would be to pick up those parcels of land which have been identified by the Colin Stewart Forest Forum, to have those significant features that we would deem to be the ones that are worth protecting, that would get us to our 12 per cent of the land mass protected. As I answered in the previous question, the JDI land would be one that has been in the news, and so some component of that is certainly one we would be interested in. Whether or not we can acquire any part of that, that's still to be determined. I mean, those negotiations have gone on for a time, to let them know we're interested, and I'm hoping that things will happen faster rather than slower, but the land is theirs and it's not ours. So depending on where the push and pull goes, we're trying to get what's deemed to be significant for the people of Nova Scotia.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, with $81 million being announced in the budget as being available to that fund, are you or anybody in your department worried about the fact that people may try to inflate their prices now when it comes to dealing with these types of lands for land trusts? Because there have been cases in the past, places in Victoria County, where some land prices that were put on were extreme - initial talks with JDI, as I understand it, the land prices were extreme. So are you not concerned that identifying this amount of money and putting it out in front of the whole public - that now, indeed, people will be trying to inflate their prices?

MR. MACDONELL: I guess I should always be concerned. It is not enough. So I think the people who know that we have that amount of money would know it is not enough. So we'll get what we can and at a price we think is appropriate and, like anything, somebody holds out and the price is too high, I guess we won't get theirs. So that is what negotiation is about.

[Page 79]

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, when we talk about protected lands and bringing it up to 12 per cent - which is I think a very worthy goal, and I'm in favour of that - but there have been some leases let out to do exploration on lands that are protected. We've seen you've allowed some of this to take place already, I believe, some exploration permits, seismic testing and other things. Is that something that's going to continue? Is it going to be happening on other protected lands or am I misinformed?

MR. MACDONELL: I think you're misinformed. If you're thinking of Chignecto, the game sanctuary is not protected other than you can't go in there with a rifle and hunt. That's the level of protection. That was set up as a game sanctuary - I think in the 1930s, I may be wrong on the date - but it was really more as a reservoir for wildlife that actually might provide a nucleus for wildlife to enter the surrounding area outside of the sanctuary, but nobody could go in there and hunt them. So that's really the level of protection. It's not a wilderness area or park or - as far as I know, it doesn't hold any level of protection other than that. It is being considered as one of the sites as a wilderness area, but it hasn't gone through that process yet. I think it is a good reason for us to be watching and be concerned about what happens with that, but it has been identified as a potential wilderness area but it is not a protected area yet.

MR. MACLEOD: Madam Chairman, in the budget that was tabled in 2008-2009, there is a difference in the number of staff people, there is a difference of three I think it is. Would you elaborate on that just a little bit for us, please?

MR. MACDONELL: Would you want to tell me the page you're looking at?

MR. MACLEOD: There are 842, which is a reduction of 3 from the budget that was defeated in the Spring, 842 positions versus 845 that were introduced in the Spring budget.

MR. MACDONELL: The two positions in Renewal Resources and one is a position of an EA - the former minister had two executive assistants, I only have one. So there has been a reduction in the EA position. Those are the three positions.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, in Senior Management in Salaries and Benefits, it appears to have decreased to $355,000 from a Spring estimate of $420,000, it is $355,000 now and in the Spring it was $420,000 and with an actual expense of $425,000. Could you elaborate on just what that means? Does it mean that less people are working or less people are going to be working?

MR. MACDONELL: The difference is the EA salary. Actually, it's a difference, really, of two positions in the sense, my EA is paid for through Agriculture, so it is a change of two salaries in that line item.

[Page 80]

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, when we talked about protected areas, you're probably familiar with an island off Cape Breton called Hay Island. Hay Island, as I understand it, was never meant to be a protected area but got caught up in some descriptions that were put in place for an adjoining island. Are you aware of that problem?

MR. MACDONELL: Madam Chairman, I have to say I wasn't that familiar with the process of how Hay Island got protected, although I'm aware I think, to a point, of the process around protecting wilderness areas. As you indicate, it wasn't intended to be protected but got rolled in with another area that was intended to be protected. I don't know anything, I have to say, about what happened there, no.

MR. MACLEOD: Scatarie Island was the island that was intended to be protected and Scatarie has had in the past a number of people living there. As I understand it and your deputy may be able to explain it better than I, Hay Island got caught up when they starting talking about high water marks and low water marks and other things like that. Hay Island is a place where we see a lot of seals landing and making it their home. Because of the protected area, it has created some controversy when it comes to a seal hunt. Is there any way that there could be a correction made to the description, because if Scatarie Island was the island that was meant to be protected, not Hay Island? Is there a way of making that a reality?

MR. MACDONELL: I guess I would be curious as to why the member would want to do that. I think to be seen as de-listing a wilderness area would not have a lot of upsides, but this is the Minister of Environment's territory, not mine. Whenever you get to him, ask him.

MR. MACLEOD: I most likely will be doing that, Mr. Minister. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the firefighters who are employed by the department. This summer a number of our members went to different areas, British Columbia and other areas, and all reports that came back were that they did very good service out there. How many firefighters do we have employed in the Province of Nova Scotia?

MR. MACDONELL: I'll have to get back to you. We have full time firefighters, then a lot of our parks people are trained to be firefighters, but they're not always used as firefighters, so it would take a little search, unless you are just interested in full time?

MR. MACLEOD: Yes, Mr. Minister, I'm interested in the full time people and I'm also interested in the type of training that they would receive and how often they would have to be requalified, for information purposes, please.

MR. MACDONELL: Sure, we can get that information for you.

[Page 81]

[5:45 p.m.]

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, one of the things that is taking place right now is that there are a number of investments being made in different provincial parks across the province. Could you tell us which parks the investments are going to be made in and what the time line would be on trying to get that accomplished?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm curious, I'm thinking we'll probably invest in all of them but I'm thinking you're probably thinking of some higher projects or some . . .

MR. MACLEOD: There are some major projects going on and the Mira River Park would be one of them.

MR. MACDONELL: The Mira Park, Cape Chignecto Park, Laurie Park, and Whycocomagh Park.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, what is the timeline for these projects, is there money in the budget for it to start this year and, indeed, when would the hopeful completion date be on that?

MR. MACDONELL: Two years, this year and next year, depending on which park.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, that's good news. With the upgrades of these four parks in particular, will that mean increased nights for them to be open? I think about the Mira River Park, which is in my constituency - it is one of the few provincial parks that is close to a major city on Cape Breton Island and the number of stays, I have been told, have increased dramatically over the last little while. If we can see that increased, because in the Fall of the year we have a Celtic Colours celebration on Cape Breton Island in which we see many visitors coming from many different areas, sometimes they're travelling in motor homes and campers and they are looking for places to book. Unfortunately, there are no provincial parks in the immediate Sydney area that would be open to that. I'm just wondering if these types of upgrades could help toward lengthening the camping season?

MR. MACDONELL: I'll try to find that out for you, so that you can know that. Actually, it's a good question.

MR. MACLEOD: Again, I seem to be harping on the Mira River Provincial Park. I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that there is a group called the Friends of Mira Park and over the course of the last number of years, working with department staff, and getting good co-operation I might add, they've helped in facilitating a number of improvements there. I was wondering if there would be a time in his future that he can come and maybe meet with them and thank the people of the Friends of Mira Park for the work that they have been doing in conjunction with your staff?

[Page 82]

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, for whatever reason, I do know there is a group, Friends of Mira Park, and I would be glad to meet with them sometime, whenever that's a possibility, sure.

MR. MACLEOD: Madam Chairman, one of the things, I believe, that also comes under your department, Mr. Minister, would be mineral resources and mineral exploration. I'm just wondering, what if anything, is the current policy of your department when it comes to strip mining?

MR. MACDONELL: I don't think there's been any intention to have a change in policy. I think that I was supposed to do a tour of some strip mines back a while ago, and actually wanted to have a look at some of the mines that have been remediated. That didn't happen, actually, we were fogged in, so I didn't get to go. But it is something that I do want to do.

I have to say that in Opposition, it seems to me that we heard on a number of occasions, of people who were not too impressed with strip mines. So I really would like to do some investigation of some sites to see if we need to make policy changes. I've heard good things and I've heard bad things. I would like to get my own personal view of what the lay of the land is in that regard, and that will help me decide if we need change, how significant that change is.

Our strategy is ongoing right now in the department. One of the areas that we're looking at is minerals. I think we'll probably get some policy direction from that when it is completed next Spring. But, yes, it is something that I certainly would like to investigate and see how much policy change is necessary, and what we can do to allay the concerns that communities have around strip mining, and see what the good things and the bad things are about that.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, I believe there is currently a moratorium on strip mining. I wonder if you could confirm that and if so, what the duration of that moratorium is?

MR. MACDONELL: The mines that are currently underway are underway, but I think there is presently a three-year moratorium on new mines, but the ones that are active continue to be so. That is only in the Cape Breton coal field.

MR. MACLEOD: So the moratorium that is in place is only in the Cape Breton coal fields, is that correct?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. MACLEOD: And it is in force now for another three years?

[Page 83]

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, and we'll make absolutely sure on that, but that's what we're thinking.

MR. MACLEOD: It's probably two and a half now. There has been a lot of passion, Mr. Minister, when it comes to strip mines in communities, especially when there is talk about doing it virtually in people's backyards. One of the strangest - well, not the strangest but one of the unique things is, we have people in the Morien and Donkin areas who are adamantly against strip mining but very much in favour of underground mining, which is something that they're used to. There is a deep concern, especially in the village of Port Morien when it comes to strip mining in backyards, strip mining in the community in general.

I'm wondering what criteria the department uses when it comes to deciding how they're going to move forward with a strip mining operation, or recoverable operation, it might be the other term that's used. Currently the Cape Breton Development Corporation is spending millions of dollars cleaning up old coal sites around Cape Breton Island. I'm of the opinion, and it is my opinion, that indeed if they're doing that type of cleanup, there should be no need for any other type of remedial work around the different communities, especially in people's backyards.

I'm just wondering if the department and the minister have any thoughts on that considering the amount of money that is being spent by the Cape Breton Development Corporation remediating lands right through the Cape Breton coalfields?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure I understand the question.

MR. MACLEOD: Maybe I could clarify that for you?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, please.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, the long and the short - if Cape Breton Development Corporation is spending millions of dollars remediating lands, there should be no need for any other type of strip mining to go forward. Does the department have an opinion on that at this point or are they willing to look into it?

MR. MACDONELL: I still don't understand the question. Are you asking that, because Cape Breton Development Corporation is remediating mining sites, there's no need for other remediation?

MR. MACLEOD: Well, my understanding in the past is that one of the justifications for going forward with strip mining was to remediate lands and bring them back to a more natural state. If we have a corporation that's in there doing that now, one of the sites, for example, was in the Port Morien area where there used to be a wash plant and that area has

[Page 84]

been redeveloped, capped, proper procedures put in place. Again, one of the things that was said, especially when the department was talking about doing any strip mining in the Port Morien area, was that this place had to be looked after. It has been looked after so then, therefore, I believe that it has removed any need for any type of strip mining and other remediation in the area.

The question is, and I hope this is clear, does the department have any intention to move forward with strip mining in the Port Morien area after the remediation of the mine sites that were there is completed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation?

MR. MACDONELL: It would seem to me if they were remediated appropriately, there wouldn't be a need but I'll (Interruption) It would appear specifically to Port Morien that we're not going back, like we're not going to go back to mining there. There is Crown land that's ours that may have issues.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your clarification there on the strip mining. I would like to speak a little bit toward the redevelopment of the Donkin Mine and I would like to get an understanding of where the department now stands when it comes to the development of the Donkin Mine and what they see in the future.

I would add to you, Mr. Minister, that I actually was working in the lab at the Cape Breton Development Corporation at the time the mine was originally opened and was involved with a lot of the sampling that took place and the coal that came out of that seam. I'm very interested in finding out what your department's stand is as far as the development of the Donkin Mine and that resource.

MR. MACDONELL: We are interested in someone mining the Donkin Mine and I think we've been supportive of their interest and we're just waiting to see where that moves on to the next phase.

MR. MACLEOD: So you and your department are supportive of what's taking place in Donkin Mine?

MR. MACDONELL: So far.

MR. MACLEOD: Pardon me?

MR. MACDONELL: So far, yes.

MR. MACLEOD: Does the minister have an opinion on the use of ATVs in wilderness areas and protected areas?

[Page 85]

[6:00 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Well I definitely have an opinion. I think probably the initial intent of wilderness protected areas was to keep those as pristine as possible. I think the first, if you want to say, the first level of areas that were protected, those are kind of - those areas are deemed to be the most obvious ones by the environmental community that should be protected.

I think now we're entering a phase of protecting areas that may have some uses or some other things going in those areas. They may not be quite as pristine as the original ones in the case of an area that already has a road going through it or something like that. So I think that if trying to keep ATVs out of those areas meant that you can't designate the area, then you probably should allow ATV use and still get the designation as a wilderness area, as long as the route is a clearly identified route through the area and you're not going to have people wandering through it, off that route.

I think they would have to be very clearly identified as a passageway through the wilderness area. I think in some of those areas you probably can justify ATVs going through them. I think some of the others, the first ones identified by the province, probably would go against the intent, and since those areas didn't have much traditional access, it was easier to maintain those. Depending on the area you're trying to choose now and identify as a wilderness area, if it has got roads in it, that's already an issue. You got another use occurring and I think, probably to a point, you're going to have to try to accommodate that and still protect the area.

MR. MACLEOD: One of the areas that comes to mind when we're talking about ATVs and protected areas is Scaterie Island. On Scaterie, there are a number of people who have cabins as a result of their families having land there.

My understanding is - and of course I'm always willing to be corrected - that they've been told by department officials that their only use of an ATV is to take materials to their cabin, they can't use it any more than that. They can't even use it to go to another cabin on that site. Again, this is an area that was described as a road.

So I'm just wondering if what we just talked about would have an effect on something like that because it was actually a road listed by the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. The individuals were moving back and forth on this island, wanting to travel on that road at will. It may be something that you have to look into, Mr. Minister, I'm not sure.

MR. MACDONELL: I may have to and it's not I, it's the Department of Environment.

[Page 86]

MR. MACLEOD: That's twice you did that. Do you hear that, Sterling? But we'll go back to it - you also did say, I believe, that if an area had an existing road in it and it was made into a wilderness area, that road should be considered to be able to be travelled on.

MR. MACDONELL: Well I think what I should tell you is, it's my understanding that for some of the newer wilderness areas, they're looking at ATV access into those areas. That's about the best I can tell you, but that's the Department of Environment leading that, not us.

MR. MACLEOD: That's three times. Could the minister give me some kind of an indication as to what his department's position is when it comes to clear-cutting?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I guess I probably should give you mine. I have my issues with it. I don't think it's appropriate at all that 97 per cent of harvesting in the province is clear-cutting. Supposedly you harvest on what's appropriate for the stand and I just don't believe that all those stands demand that.

I think there is a place for clear-cutting, though. Actually I think clear-cutting should be used more as a treatment than as a harvesting practice. I think it should be used to improve a stand, if it's possible, in the sense that probably there are those intolerant stands, firs and intolerant hardwoods, popple, diseased stands and hurricane Juan damage. There's no way you could do anything else with that other than clear-cut those stands. I think that it would be virtually impossible, dangerous. So yes, I think there are places where it would be an appropriate thing.

I have to say I'm more keen to look at Forest Stewardship Council certification as the method that looks at an auditing system that determines clear-cutting on some stands is appropriate and you shouldn't do it on another and so on.

MR. MACLEOD: The minister mentioned earlier about biomass and its use as a fuel. I may have missed part of your answer so I don't want to put words into your mouth. I was just wondering if you could reaffirm what your position is when it comes to using biomass as a fuel, in particular when we think about NewPage and what effect it might have on that.

MR. MACDONELL: Well I think it's a doable thing. My concern would be around sustainability of the resource. So yes, I don't think the forests of Nova Scotia can stand a great number of large projects of cutting trees and burning them, but we can probably appropriately handle some. I mean the one we're looking at right now, obviously the NewPage one, I think the resource there on that Crown land is significant enough to be sustainable and harvest at a level for that project.

MR. MACLEOD: So it's fair to say the department is looking at it very seriously for when it comes to looking at the NewPage operation for biomass fuel?

[Page 87]

MR. MACDONELL: Oh, yes.

MR. MACLEOD: And the minister knows as well that NewPage is a very integral part of the economy of Cape Breton Island and Eastern Nova Scotia . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Sure.

MR. MACLEOD: ... and the stabilization of fuel rates and power rates are something that would make that operation more viable. As you mentioned in your opening statement, it's harder and harder these days for the mills to continue to operate. Small sawmills seem to be a thing of the past. It's not something that seems to be able to sustain a livelihood for people any more. So the support of the government towards this bio-fuel project, I think, is very, very important.

MR. MACDONELL: I think not just our government but previous governments certainly saw the Strait Bio-Gen activity in terms of any of those mills, that they were able to cut down - one of the big costs is electrical cost, so they are big drawers of electricity. If they could use some of their wood resource, generally waste stream resource, to generate electricity and reduce those costs, that was deemed to be a pretty significant improvement for them. So this is actually going to a slightly higher level, but as long as the resource is there and sustainable, I think it is doable.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It seems like I've been jumping around a lot, because as I say, I'm new to this role as well.

One of the things that I'd like to talk to you a little bit about is the Two Rivers Wildlife Park. Two Rivers Wildlife Park was a park that was operated by the Province of Nova Scotia until around 1995 and at that time it was diverted to a community group and there has been some support from your department over the years towards that.

I was just wondering if you have had a chance, as the minister, to be brought up-to-date on where that park is and the activities of the park and then, based on that, we may go farther.

MR. MACDONELL: It's still going and we're still involved in helping. I guess that's where it's at and what the future will bring, we'll see. We're not distant from it, I'll say that.

MR. MACLEOD: Yes, Two Rivers Wildlife Park certainly is still going. It's a very popular destination with people in Cape Breton. You mentioned earlier how successful the open house was at Shubenacadie and certainly Shubie is something that we, as a province, can all be proud of. I would also suggest to you that Two Rivers Wildlife Park is, indeed, something that we should all be proud of. The volunteer group base that has been there, the community support that we've seen in the past, support from your department and from other

[Page 88]

departments of government, and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation has put funding into that park.

I guess one of the things that I would like to see and would like to encourage you, as minister, is to do the utmost you can to help maintain that very vital piece of infrastructure in our area, because it's not just about the wildlife park on its own, although it does create jobs and it is a very important part of our community. It's also about the fact that it helps the economic base of the island when people come to visit Louisbourg, or they come to visit the national historic site in Baddeck, or whatever it may be, the park is one more place they can go and it is a reason we can get people to stay there a little longer.

The park, now I don't know if you knew this, Mr. Minister, but it was originally developed for an International Girl Guide camp. When it was developed, the government of the day decided that once it had started, that they would turn it into a park and then we saw it develop into a wildlife park. The song, Out on the Mira - which is a very famous song - was actually written for the International Girl Guide camp that took place at the Two Rivers Wildlife Park. The Mira River, of course, is the longest natural river in the Province of Nova Scotia, so there's a lot of important history, but tie-ins as well, and in my mind your department has a very significant role in maintaining that park and keeping it going and helping it to survive so that the people of Cape Breton can enjoy a facility similar to what you have in Shubenacadie in your own community.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, thanks for that. The Shubenacadie facility is not in my constituency.

MR. MACLEOD: I said your community.

MR. MACDONELL: Oh, well, and close.

MR. MACLEOD: It's pretty close.

MR. MACDONELL: Our open house wasn't at the park, it was at the Shubenacadie depot there, but that didn't mean people couldn't make it to the park, you know, for a walk. Well, I take your comments in the manner I think and the desire of which they're given to raise awareness of that park. Actually, it's a place I haven't been. As minister it's my hope to get around to all the parks, but certainly I would like to see that one, and whatever we're able to do to ensure that it's around or help the park - we'll see what we can do.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, if indeed you would like to come visit the Two Rivers Wildlife Park, I would be glad to give you a personal tour. If you want to come in the weeks leading up to Halloween, we have a couple of fright nights going on. We see thousands of people show up at the site, actually, and it's quite remarkable. It comes to an

[Page 89]

end for my questions in this round and I would be glad to turn it over, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague.

MR. MACDONELL: I appreciate the invite, and while it's still one of the provincial parks and I'm the minister, as much as I appreciate the invite, I just might notify you when I'm around there and I'll invite you for a tour of the park.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.

[6:15 p.m.]

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, back at it, I guess is what we say. One of the areas that you alluded to in your opening remarks was the troubles that the forestry industry is currently experiencing.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. GLAVINE: Probably looking long term, one of the realities for our province will be the difficulty on the mill side. Maintaining four mills for the future will be a real challenge indeed - at least, four mills operating at the capacity that we have traditionally known. So I'm wondering if there is some kind of strategy developing and some kind of plan that will look at, you know, value-added forestry-related industries, no matter how small they may be, and to incent possibilities for employment in the forestry sector - realizing, as you said, that some of our lumber mills didn't turn a blade this year and the outlook is still not strong. So I'm wondering, are you kind of saying, you know, that's business, that's industry, there are always cycles, and let it go at that, or are there some initiatives and some consultations with the Forest Products Association and the like to look at what other possibilities there may be?

MR. MACDONELL: There are dollars in the forest transition program - that's federal dollars - to help the industry. We're presently engaged in the strategy for the department and forestry is one of those elements. So we're hoping that recommendations from that will guide us on the policy side.

Your question around the value-added component is, I think, a good one. Although the recent announcement of $2.5 million toward Bowater on a new line of paper is one, but I think that even came with federal dollars, if I'm not mistaken, from Question Period today - I'm thinking that was what that was - Community Development Trust Fund money. The ones we think about, more particularly, are around the hardwood sector and possible flooring or furniture and so on. There is some bit of the modular home, Kent or whatever, that uses a Nova Scotia product value added to it, along with just the housing industry.

I'm not sure, other than to put out an incentive program for a particular type of industry, because ordinarily it would be entrepreneurs coming to the Department of

[Page 90]

Economic Development and making a case for a particular business that they would be keen to carry out. But I think we both understand that there are more jobs produced in the value-added sector and usually higher value jobs. But I think we would be quite keen to see what is possible there.

The present economic downturn probably has dampened that somewhat, I think, probably for anybody who is looking at dollars through the banks and so on, it might be somewhat tighter. But the forestry industry was really the canary in the coal mine, they indicated that this recession was coming a couple of years ago when sales dropped off for them. They've been weathering this storm quite a bit longer than lots of other parts of the economy and they might be the first signal of when it is changing just because their business cycle might start to pick up.

I hear you on the value added, I don't see it necessarily so much directed by my department, but certainly Economic Development could be a player and I think we should be a player in terms of having some knowledge of the resource.

MR. GLAVINE: Of course, another area, when you start to take a look at small pulp and hardwood operators that may have three, four or five people employed and we all know with such a considerable amount of land, I think it is somewhere around 40,000 small woodlot owners in the province, we realize how important they are to this sector.

Is there anything in terms of a policy around being an advocate for pellets and chips to convert some of the big oil boilers that heat hospitals, smaller hospitals and schools and such institutions? It seems to me that if we are going to have that downturn, it's going to be prolonged or we're going to have a change or a strategy because we won't have, let's say four mills operating, or mills operating at capacity, then those are the people, as we all know - I have had a couple of those small contractors come to my office wondering about what's in their future, especially the succession of their business or investment in harvesters and so on, the layout of money and so on is pretty considerable.

So I'm just wondering if there has been any talk, and maybe the deputy would have some experience with this in the past, about where wood chips and pellets could become a greater use of our forestry resource.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think there are people keen to use biomass - whatever, chips or pellets, taking it and pelleting it. I have my concerns, I have to say, because presently it is really difficult - we have no handle on what kind of volumes. I mean, under the sustainability regulations, we have what the mills are doing; they have to submit information every year, and so we kind of know a bit about the harvest. I don't know what will happen in terms of biomass and whether they're producing pellets and then shipping pellets overseas. So I have quite a bit of concern about the sustainability of the resource on the biomass question.

[Page 91]

I don't know if you would be aware - actually, I did know the percentage - but a significant amount of the energy to heat the Agricultural College is biomass. They have a system there that they have been burning wood to heat that system. So there is, and I wonder what the potential is, and I think when you mentioned schools or hospitals or whatever, since I'm the Minister of Agriculture, I'm interested in seeing what's possible with hay pellets. I think there may be more potential for that . . .

MR. GLAVINE: Yes, especially on the renewability.

MR. MACDONELL: . . . than there would be for wood pellets. We have a lot of acreage that's growing that could be growing grass for pellets, and a pilot project of a school or a hospital or a municipal building might be just one of the things necessary to kick that off.

MR. GLAVINE: Just to respond to one of the areas that the minister touched on, before I go on, and that is the sustainability of our forests. We know some provinces have moved to an annual allowable harvest. I'm wondering if that is, at least, an idea. I think it is a practice that we should have embraced much earlier, but is it one that either through the Natural Resources strategy or one that you will at least have discussions around in the department? I don't think it's any secret why J.D. Irving is no longer in the province. I think they've done a pretty good job in terms of the reforesting and the potential down the road, but if you haven't, as the minister, flown over western Nova Scotia, I think you would soon get the answer. I mean, it's decimated.

I've looked at some recent aerial photos at the College of Geographic Sciences, and I don't think even if they had the opportunity to sell lumber or truck wood out to Weymouth to send off to New Brunswick, whether - again, the sustainability factor. So I'm wondering if you're going to look at an annual allowable harvest as a concept.

MR. MACDONELL: I think the areas that have actually applied one - actually, we have one on our Crown land, really, but since such a large portion of our forest is private, it has been a more difficult issue. Jurisdictions that have been able to apply it are probably those jurisdictions that 70 or 80 per cent of their land is Crown. But it is one that, if I tried to convince you that it wasn't an issue and we shouldn't be looking at it, then you'd probably wonder about the rest of the answers that you got in the next hour.

Yes, it concerns me, and I think it is worth a look. Whether it is doable or what mechanism would be required to do it, I haven't looked that far ahead, but it definitely is an issue.

MR. GLAVINE: Just to go back to the area, again, of finding other value added, I think it is an area where the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic and Rural Development do have to work very closely. I had an experience in my

[Page 92]

riding with a small manufacturer, about 10 people making strawberry baskets, taking the veneer, in other words, using a small amount of product for a value-added end product and getting economic development to see that investing in five new staplers - he was working with 40-year-old equipment, which was an enormous challenge, he is a small little company that could never meet his orders - I struggled to get him just a little bit of small incentive to work on getting the new staplers for his business.

Those are the areas in rural Nova Scotia where you get five, 10 people employed, just like I'm seeing a little development in Lake Paul and the department is working on leasing some Crown lands for a maple sugar operation. An area where other than some trimming of the Christmas trees there was, again, nothing relating to value added. He is going to do some furniture there, he's going to do maple syrup, Christmas trees, multi-faceted, actually some blueberries as well.

So those are the things that I feel if Natural Resources and Economic and Rural Development were working hand in hand - I see enormous potential in our rural areas. You throw out the idea that along the North Mountain some tremendous stands of ash that, again, even thinned out, that's just exactly what I was thinking. We know that wood is being replaced in hockey sticks and it's almost a thing of the past, but they're still using wooden bats and other products that ash is great for. So that's why I talk about having an integrated strategy of forestry and rural and economic development, that those ideas don't get lost and that they have the potential to come to fruition.

[6:30 p.m.]

I know you're wearing two hats, Agriculture and Natural Resources, but lots of time I think we don't come together enough to try to cultivate those ideas. I'm just wondering how you would view that as a potential for rural Nova Scotia.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, for us, although we're not Economic and Rural Development, but it's how much you can push or pull an idea. You have to have a willing participant but we would certainly like to think that there is flexibility for those people who have ideas, especially those who have a little business, they have been running it for awhile, and they want to go to the next step. They've invested most of their own capital, they had that training/trial period and could use some support.

One of the interesting things that I noticed was at Niagara-on-the-Lake in July, at a Ministers of Agriculture meeting. We toured some wineries and one of the things that - I mean, we have quite a successful wine industry in Nova Scotia, but you know, I got looking at those oak barrels and I got wondering why it is that these barrels have to be made in either New York, or you know. The oak they're using, is there a reason that it has to be that oak? I really got thinking about our own wine industry and if we did a pilot and created or made

[Page 93]

half a dozen barrels and used oak and maple and whatever, and put some of our own wine and aged it to see what the possible flavours - you know, impacts could be.

It would seem to be that the barrels are made in a particular location - and I'm not sure even if they might be made in France, I forget now what they said - but it just seems to be, why does one jurisdiction have to claim that? I'm assuming part of it's maybe they make them cheapest but, you know, it really made me wonder, as the Minister of Natural Resources and Agriculture, whether there was any potential that Nova Scotia could enter into the wine barrel-making industry and come up with wood that enhanced the flavour in a way that really made it quite an attractive vessel for wine. Anyway, maybe in my next life I'll pursue that, but it does make me think that there could be a possible advantage for us. Until I do a lot more research into wine barrels I won't know, but those are the types of things you see and wonder, so yes.

MR. GLAVINE: Despite some of the downturn and looking at some of the mills that have lots of stockpiles of logs right now and some that didn't open, we all know that silviculture, especially in terms of plantings, does need to go on. I'm just wondering what the level for this year, how it compares to some of our - over the past decade, have we still invested, have we had the same number of plantings? Also, have we moved again to a dominant species in terms of softwood plantings? Are we looking at faster-growing trees or ones that we have found best for our climate? I'm just wondering if you could give me a little picture here, at least in terms of silviculture and replantings.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think the department really has tried to maximize funding to the industry, even in the downturn, because we know it was quite impossible for the industry to make the same contribution that it had. Under the sustainability regulations they would have to contribute based on the wood they harvested, so if they weren't harvesting, they weren't going to be contributing.

We maintained our share of the investment and picked up the industry's share for a couple of years, and we're hoping that with the money from ACOA we're going to match a two-year commitment, that we can maintain that. Silviculture is an area where I see job potential in the forest sector as well. So I would like to see that funding maintained, as much as we can do that.

MR. GLAVINE: What would that translate to this year, compared to the trending of the number of seedlings in the ground, for example?

MR. MACDONELL: I might have that. I'm thinking that because that's only one aspect . . .

MR. GLAVINE: I realize that.

[Page 94]

MR. MACDONELL: So we'll try to see whether we can nail that down. Your question around species - I'm thinking red and black spruce, probably predominantly, and there are some areas that I think use some hardwood species in that mix as well. I'll see if we would have a number that would indicate - I don't know if we would have that. (Interruption) Yes, the various silviculture treatments, we can provide you the number that went to each of those, and we probably can get you a number that went to plantings. Whether we can actually get the specific number of trees is something else.

MR. GLAVINE: What I was really getting at, along with that, of course, is the nursery business.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. GLAVINE: Is everything coming from a provincial source or are we bringing some into the province as well?

MR. MACDONELL: No, there are local nurseries in Nova Scotia, private nurseries that supply the industry as well. So the province isn't supplying it all.

MR. GLAVINE: Just to clarify, the province isn't supplying, there's no provincial nursery producing stock for the province, it's all coming privately?

MR. MACDONELL: I think I said we're not supplying it all. I might be told that we're not supplying any but I hope not. I think Debert (Interruption) Strathlorne is ours, and to my knowledge they're producing trees that we plant in the province.

MR. GLAVINE: While on this topic of silviculture, I'm wondering if you, as the minister, will be reviewing the use of Vision as a control in terms of creating the monoculture, the softwood stands that companies like, especially for clear-cut operations and I'm wondering if you're going to maintain current practices, review where Vision is used and the possibility, again, if workers are available to do some of the mechanical processes.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I definitely intend to review that, for sure. We stopped aerial spraying on our Crown, I think, except for a bit where the contracts were already issued by Northern Pulp on some of their Crown. We did that this Fall. So, yes, it's something that I intend to take a look at.

MR. GLAVINE: One of the practices that I know a couple of local contractors in Kings County are involved with Crown lands was thinning and extracting fully ready-to-harvest trees, but one of the issues they brought forward was that it was more time-intensive and longer use of the equipment and it could very well have been large harvesters where you probably needed perhaps the smaller ones, like you see operate especially in Scandinavian countries that have very strict practices. They talk about what it translates in terms of their

[Page 95]

cost versus what they receive for a cord, or however it's being paid. I was just wondering, is this a concern with those contracts?

MR. MACDONELL: I've heard it before. It is a concern. Actually we're going to review silviculture programs and funding and look at why - actually I was hoping to meet at some point with the Silviculture Contractors Association. I've asked for that. But, yes, for the dollars that go into it, it seems to me there should be more people doing the work. It's one that I showed my concern and interest to find out more, early on, when I became minister. I haven't completely worked through all that but, yes, I want to know what the lay of the land is for contractors and what kind of bang we're getting for our buck.

MR. GLAVINE: Before leaving this area, I was wondering, just a few general comments around the health of the Christmas tree industry. That has been, for some of our counties, some of our areas of the province, a real mainstay - again, it is a little bit like the apple industry or anything that becomes an eight - or 10-month, actually - operation to grow good Christmas trees. So I'm just wondering, how do markets look? I know we did lose one big supplier on the South Shore when prices went down. I'm just wondering what you've heard in the past year, what is the potential outlook for our Christmas tree industry?

MR. MACDONELL: A month ago, I guess, the Canadian Christmas Tree Council invited me to their dinner that they had in Truro, and so I did get to talk to a number of Christmas tree producers, and not all of them in Nova Scotia. I think they're quite optimistic. I think the dollar is not at a place that's scaring them. I think, by and large, they're thinking - and most of them have been in the industry long enough, they know their customers and they know what they need to provide them with. There is a research project going on at the Agricultural College on needle retention, so I think they are being proactive in their industry and I'm not hearing any rumblings that would indicate that they are expecting a terrible year. What could happen yet is the weather could be a deciding factor, and only time can tell on that.

MR. GLAVINE: I'm glad to hear you say that there is optimism in that sector, because I look at areas of Lunenburg County, Kings County, Annapolis - that sector is very, very important.

Are we still looking at the same varieties of trees, are there some different varieties? Markets to places like Puerto Rico, are they still strong? I know that we had a little infestation there back a few years ago. Have some of those been regained? I see it as, again, an industry that puts people to work. So I'm wondering if you found out some of those kinds of things as well when you were at your meeting.

[Page 96]

[6:45 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I did learn a little bit. A big part of the market is, of course - most of the export market, I first tend to think about North America, but they do export to other continents. Yes, I think they seem to think markets are relatively strong. There is one point that you mentioned, made me think of something that I've lost, but no, I . . .

MR. GLAVINE: I was talking about the varieties.

MR. MACDONELL: The varieties. As far as I know, I remember a few years ago I used to be a member of the Lunenburg Christmas Tree Growers Association. I had about 10 acres of balsam fir that I used to manage - or tried, along with teaching and some other things. One of the gentlemen who used to work for the department, Les Corkum, was at the open house in Shubenacadie a couple of weekends ago, and if I remember right, he used to graft some varieties. I think he was putting Douglas fir on balsam fir root stock. I could be wrong on that; it's been quite a few years since I talked to him about that.

I don't know if that variety ever took off as a mainstay of the industry. I don't see that. But I think by and large, the industry is balsam fir, and there may be one or two varieties of pine that are in the market as well. I would say that in this country, balsam fir is the king of Christmas trees.

MR. GLAVINE: So most of our export is still to the United States or do we deal with the Caribbean and that area of the world?

MR. MACDONELL: I probably would have to check on that to be sure, to give you accurate information. I think there are markets there as well. But I think a significant portion is to the United States.

MR. GLAVINE: Just to move to a different topic. There is no question that perhaps the strongest part of the budget was the money set aside for the purchasing of land. As you know, Mr. Minister, I've been an advocate of this along with your Party, generally speaking, for a number of years. So I was very pleased to see that. I was wondering at this stage, have you targeted some areas, or are you keeping that - and is it all going to be used in this fiscal year? That would be the second part of that. So are you targeting some areas that you see as vitally important to at least make offers on, negotiate with, because I'm sure there are different prices per hectare of land across Nova Scotia? I'm just wondering if it will all be spent this year and if there are some targeted parcels of land.

MR. MACDONELL: I guess if I could say it would be spent by Christmas, I don't think you're thinking of a calendar year, I think you're thinking of a fiscal year, and we got exactly what we wanted, 10 times more land than we ever expected for the money, and hit

[Page 97]

13.2 per cent of Nova Scotia's land mass and exceeded our 12 per cent, that would be a great message, and I would love to do that, a ministerial statement to the House of Assembly.

Obviously, there are those parcels that have been in the news, the media has indicated, I've indicated in the media, so to be sure there are those parcels that have been deemed to be significant parcels, that if people could get them we would be well advised to pick them up and then beyond that it is a negotiation. We're going to have to try to get the best deal we can for the dollars we have and that's an ongoing thing.

MR. GLAVINE: I was wondering in terms of the J.D. Irving lands and the three parcels that became available and government has made an offer on some of those hectares. Were you given any timeline as to when the people of Nova Scotia would find out if some of those lands, in fact, would come to the province and be available as protected land?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess whenever we buy them. Since we haven't bought them yet, I can't give you a timeline. But it has been an ongoing negotiation. We would like to hit that common ground, I guess, would be the way to phrase it, but it's ongoing. I can't tell you for sure we would get any of that land. We don't know that yet, until both parties come to an agreement on price and particular property, all I can tell you is we're interested in buying and they're interested in selling. So until we both agree on whatever property and whatever price, it's still ongoing.

I guess the issue would be, we're not just negotiating on one property, so if we come to deals on other ones that turn out that dollars - at some point the dollars won't be available, they'll be spent. So it is a question of who holds out for the bigger price. We may not be the ones buying the land.

MR. GLAVINE: Right now, does your department - does government have an offer on the table? Is there an offer at this point, or are there general negotiations about what each one is putting forward?

MR. MACDONELL: I would say general negotiations.

MR. GLAVINE: Okay. That is what I wanted to know. That leads me to the next question and certainly, again, I'm pleased to see the concept of the community land trust come forward. I've attended a few meetings of - I guess they would be organizations, like nature trusts, a similar concept to that - and also a couple of the local clubs like the Blomidon Naturalists Society and so forth, and there's a real growing concern around lands, especially held by Wagner, where they're out there, as I've been told, available to anyone, anywhere in the world, for any use.

I just wonder, again, are you as a government going to put restrictions - covenants, if you wish - on how those lands can be then turned over, such as we see in some of the

[Page 98]

states? There are restrictions, you can sell the land, but it is going to another timber company or whatever it may be, not necessarily going to be all lake frontage developed. If you've got the money, Wagner will make the deal. That's the way it's happening.

MR. MACDONELL: I would say no. I don't think we have ever had a discussion around doing that. We've obviously imposed on land what you can do, we see that in the harvesting regulations for the forest industry - set back from streams and wildlife clumps and such. Probably if we were going down that road, we wouldn't necessarily worry about spending the money. We would just legislate it, just legislate the protection on those areas and if they change hands, then whatever. But we've never had a discussion along those lines. If we can acquire the land and own it for the people, there probably - we know in the Department of Environment we have regulation and legislation around wetlands and what you can do around them. So I suppose that is the other possible step, but we're not there. I have to say, we've never had any discussion of going down that road.

MR. GLAVINE: It is a growing concern. I know there will be one group you'll probably be hearing from very shortly, from Kings County. Because of how Scott Paper viewed their land, their holdings, how Neenah Paper viewed the lands - and looking at them long term, Wagner is an investment company, and they're not necessarily about entirely looking at the future of those lands as a resource for paper, timber, and so forth, but rather what would be the best price. Just like the other week, for example, they sold off an island. So it is a concern, and I just wonder whether or not it is something that merits that kind of larger look, that if it is owned by AbitibiBowater, then it must be resold for those same purposes.

MR. MACDONELL: Like I say, we've not had that discussion. We have concerns around the availability of land, even for the forest sector trying to meet our obligations, to a point. When Ship Harbour Long Lake was protected, that left an obligation on the part of the province to supply timber for Northern Pulp. So clearly that's an obligation that we have.

But no, I'm going to say I have never given that a whole lot of thought. I can see the ease of addressing a large number of issues by doing it, but it would have to be significantly critical to do that and I don't think we're there yet.

MR. GLAVINE: In terms then of setting up that community land trust, I wonder if you could elaborate, what is your concept of this at the present time? I know it is a piece that you've talked about, you have promised Nova Scotians, and also it will take the form of legislation, which I would think so.

[7:00 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I have to say that we don't know if it can work quite like the same model as perhaps the Nature Trust or some of the existing models that are out there.

[Page 99]

I think what our hope was that it could be done, but it would take legislation, that it could be done in a way - because financing is quite often an issue for a lot of community organizations and so on - that it would be done in a way that would ease the burden for them.

I have asked my staff to try to draft what they see as how this might be laid out. We think we have to do a fair bit more research, which would, hopefully, result in something that we can bring back to Cabinet, to see if that actually addresses where we were hoping it might go. So I think we'll look at other models that are available, but I think our intent was that we wanted something that actually worked with more flexibility than present models or we would have just left it that way, but we're not there yet.

MR. GLAVINE: I was asking the question because I was wondering if there would be a cost to taxpayers. Your model looked at partnerships and would that be a way, in some cases, where we have some unique habitat in particular? Back a number of years ago they had started a process whereby all of the different habitats across Nova Scotia would have some representation in terms of protection. I'm just wondering, if that were done, would there be the need for some cost sharing?

MR. MACDONELL: I wouldn't rule it out. I think what we were trying to do was come up with something that kind of empowered communities. It is really difficult to do that, I think, if they're cash strapped. In some cases I think the intent was for them to address local issues, things that they deemed, in the local community, that had a tradition of use and that they deemed were significant for the community that they didn't want to lose.

Actually, one of the other components of this was the possibility of what its potential was in terms of agricultural land to hold in trust as well, not just purely on the ecologically significant lands.

I think it is going to take a fair examination to try to make this work in a way that we deem to be flexible, not particularly expensive, if possible, and touch on a number of concerns that stakeholders we talked to felt were lacking for them. I think it is going to be a bit of a process, to be honest.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. In that regard, every time we have nature trusts or if a community land trust is set up, it is heading us toward the magical 12 per cent, which is a very laudable and important goal for Nova Scotia.

I wonder if, at the present time - and I know you've talked about some revitalization of four parks, I believe it is, Mr. Minister?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I did, I still have them here.

[Page 100]

MR. GLAVINE: What I was going to ask, and you can mention that if you wish, but what I was going to ask, is there anything on the drawing board in terms of any new parks? I don't think there has much development in that way in the past decade. I'm just wondering if the department has looked at some of the special and unique areas that we have. We have some outstanding provincial parks as well as, of course, our national parks. I'm just wondering if there is any further development in this area. Again, as we all know, it can be a wonderful part of rural and economic development if you can provide those jobs, even though sometimes seasonal, for park development.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm hoping that our strategy process the department is going through, because parks was one of the panels - forestry, parks, minerals, biodiversity - so we're hoping for whatever recommendations that come out of that.

I have to tell you, maintaining our present park infrastructure is a major challenge. I mean the four parks that we indicated here, and this was kind of over this year, next year, and the next year, so it's over a two-year period, really, just from discussions with my staff around the need to spend money on our parks, and I have to say, it depends on what you want your parks to do and why you would deem - like when you were talking about other parks and thinking about other parks in the offing, so that means that either we already own the land, it is a piece of Crown that we might convert into a park, or we see a particular piece of land that is privately held that we might buy as a park.

The issues around, when I say, what you might want to do, if we're thinking about parks as camping parks, usually the private sectors have some issues, feeling that we're competing with them on the camping thing.

I have to say, in one of my recent briefings around parks, I was amazed to find out that over 80,000 people camp in our parks. You know, we're looking at a tenth of the population of the province. I just could not believe that many people make use of the reservation system that we have. I was just amazed to find out that number of people camp in the province and camp in our parks. I mean, probably some of them camp in private parks and whatever, but I found that to be so significant that it does make you say, well, this is a resource worth investing in. Nova Scotians make use of it, they enjoy it, they consider the parks to be theirs, so they are theirs.

I would say that the parks are a treasure that the people have. As much as it's possible to give them access as long as we can, and availability to their parks, we'd like to do that and to keep the parks in kind of a state where they would be proud to know and say that they are theirs. You can never do enough, but anyway, we are hoping that we will bring the four we mentioned up to a standard to really impress the public. That will be an ongoing thing, as one comes off the list, another one will go on it.

[Page 101]

MR. GLAVINE: I know my time is running short here. Speaking of the parks and the potential and so on for the future, you did trigger a little - it may be a bit of a bear bug, but I still see it as a real issue. Just in the last month we lost two call centres here in Nova Scotia, yet we make our reservations with a centre outside of Nova Scotia. I mean, I don't know why we constantly underestimate what we can do right here in Nova Scotia and what we simply should be doing in Nova Scotia. That's an issue that you can change, you can absolutely actually change. You tell me they can do a better job in Ontario?

One time - real campers tell me and I know this, I camped for 20 years - you could call up, two or three different people can call up, all making their own reservations and could get side-by-side campsites. You try that today and it's not going to happen. I still say that if we knew our campgrounds, and through a provincially run reservation system, we could be employing Nova Scotians, why not?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, you're obviously not a happy camper. (Interruptions) Your point around it not being done by a Nova Scotia business is well taken. It was one of my questions. I think what we would have to do - and my staff and I haven't talked about this - but nobody else applied to the terms of reference when we had a contract the province wanted to fill. Unless we revisit - which is probably not a bad idea - the terms of reference for what we want this company to do, the question is, if they were put out with a high standard of service we wanted delivered and nobody here wanted to take it on, then we may want to evaluate what the particular circumstances for this company were that they were able to deliver the service. If some of our own companies felt they couldn't make money delivering that service, we should take a look at that. The whole business of trying to spend taxpayers' dollars is to create jobs in Nova Scotia, it deserves another look.

I will tell you that my impression of the service that's been delivered has been quite good. What you said about trying to get a campsite next to a friend, this service seems to work really well, as long as you're ahead of the game far enough. If you're calling up the night before you might have an issue getting next to your friend, but if you're calling up three weeks before then you probably have a pretty good likelihood.

I've got to say it's working well. The fact that it's not a company from Nova Scotia, I hear you, and if it's possible to tweak that and still keep it around respectable procurement policies in our relationship with other provinces, interprovincial procurement rules and all that, yes, if it's possible to do this in a way that actually we could have a Nova Scotian there. I don't know all the particulars of why we didn't, but I was just told we didn't, that nobody took us up on that.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm pleased that you're aware of that situation and it may be one that can change - obviously we would want a good service, even if it is to be provided here.

[Page 102]

I just have a very short time, and one of the issues - and I may get a chance to come back to it depending on how long my colleague goes - one of the issues that can go from hot-to hotter- to hottest-button issues are pits and quarries. I'm wondering, again, as you plan and look out over a four-year mandate, whether or not reverting to a process that I thought worked very well, and that was when anything over two hectares were required for an environmental assessment, it is now at four and I'm wondering if you have that on your radar.

[7:15 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: That, in particular, is Department of Environment - yes, I dodged a number of questions by the member from Cape Breton on that - but hopefully the strategy that my department is going through, minerals is one of the panels and so it might provide us with some insight as to where we can go policy-wise, or Environment could go policy-wise on pits and quarries. It's a good point I think you raise.

MR. GLAVINE: I'm finished. Thank you.

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

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I wonder if we could just talk for a few seconds about the moose hunt. Last year there were, I'm told, 345 licences issued, and this year there are only 336 licences being issued. That's a little bit of a drop - do you have any rhyme or reason why that would be the way it is?

MR. MACDONELL: With all the consultation with the moose population, that was their request.

I have to say I don't know actually. I'm assuming wildlife numbers may have indicated a need for a slight reduction in the harvest. I think my department has the oversight on bag limits for whatever species in the province, and I'm just going to see if anyone can shed any more light on that. I'm just thinking the overall health of the herd, but that doesn't seem like a big reduction, about a dozen animals or so . . .

MR. MACLEOD: If you're one of the 2,000 people looking for a licence, it's a big reduction.

MR. MACDONELL: We can get that, sure.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that. I appreciate it. I wonder, could the minister tell me, right now, if indeed anywhere in the forests in Nova Scotia we're having trouble with any type of bugs, beetles, those types of issues?

[Page 103]

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think I can tell you. I know there is a problem with bark beetle in the province, and I don't know if it's particular to any one area - I've been told that some of the trees that are dead on my own property in Enfield are bark beetle.

I'm not hearing that this is an issue that we have to go out and harvest large tracts. It seems to be, even when you're driving around the province, you just might notice in amongst the green there is a dead tree over there and another one over there. In the Highlands right now is an insect, I think, in the pine plantations that were planted in the Highlands some 30 years ago and I was told the name - I'm going to say cereopsis, but I don't know by memory if I'm saying that correctly. (Interruption) My deputy says Jack pine budworm, but anyway I flew over the Highlands and you can tell some of those pine plantations are red, they're dying, so there is a definite issue there.

Brown spruce longhorn beetle is still present in the province as far as I know - I'm not hearing that there is any significant damage by that beetle, but it is still a concern because it's not a native species in the province.

So those are the ones right off the top of my head (Interruption) And spruce beetle, which I didn't know about.

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you for that information. So we're not sure as to the degree of the infestation that may be around there. Is there a plan to find out exactly what the infestation is in the different areas?

MR. MACDONELL: My deputy says yes, we have a handle on all the insects that may be causing a problem in the province. The question around the brown spruce longhorn beetle, I think, purely is to a monitoring stage. There were some quarantine areas. I can find out what the plan is, because I know the pine in the Highlands is obviously an issue - I saw that. But the department certainly looks at what infestations are there, and I can get more detail on if there is a plan for any particular one. I'm not hearing anything about spray programs or anything like that, if that is what you're thinking.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, what I'm hearing from harvesters around Cape Breton Island is that the spruce bark beetle is creating a real problem and it is creating an issue for those who are trying to harvest a few logs for lumbering purposes and, as well, it seems to be a growing problem.

Again, this is information provided to me - I have no first-hand knowledge of that. My question would be to you, and to your department, is if indeed somebody could check to find out what the severity of the issue is in Cape Breton when it comes to that particular spruce bark beetle, and if there is any type of a plan to help address it, because the harvesters are, as you indicated in your opening statements, having a hard enough job now trying to do

[Page 104]

anything, and if the very stock that they need to create lumber is in jeopardy then again it's another challenge.

The private stands that are there - if this is going through the private stands there must be a way of trying to eliminate the problem.

MR. MACDONELL: The department obviously indicates the outbreak of the spruce beetle, and it is in particular through Inverness and Victoria Counties. They haven't indicated that there's a plan of action yet for that, but I will ask because I'm kind of curious now - is it mill owners or contractors who are indicating to you the significance of the infestation for the wood that they're harvesting?

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, actually the individual I spoke to in my hour off is a harvester with the mill and he is very concerned about it, and we had some discussions before and I guess from his point of view and from others that I've talked to along the same line, they are scared that it's going to turn into another spruce budworm like we had back many years ago in the 1970s, and what we saw happen in Point Pleasant Park. We don't need that to happen, especially in a vital forest which is actually being used to produce the livelihood of a number of individuals.

So if your department would take on a plan of action for that, I think that it would be something that would be well received in that community and something that would be beneficial to all of us, including you as the minister.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm more concerned around - I'm thinking if it's a question of harvesting, if it's a question of market, with the downturn in the industry, if they could get those trees while they are sound and still sell them, that would be great.

Anyway, I will ask some questions and see what I can find for you.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for your time and your answers today and I thank your staff as well for the time that they put into it, and I'm going to pass my time now on to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Bedford-Birch Cove.

MS. KELLY REGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I hesitate to bring up this topic because it's an area that I guess Halifax Regional Council has kind of owned - but I'm wondering, what is the procedure when someone calls the local Department of Natural Resources to report a missing pet?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, unless your pet is a bear, I'm not sure that that falls under our department. I'm sure the people who work for the department at the local depot would

[Page 105]

probably take that information and be glad to be on the lookout, but I don't necessarily think we have a kind of a pet-searching service in the department.

MS. REGAN: Thank you, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for. I'm asking, I guess, if you have a number of reports, like say five or 10 coming in from one area where you have a number of pets that are missing, and it's an area that is next to a park which is next to DND property say, what does DNR do - do they issue a warning to the neighbourhood, let them know that their pets are disappearing?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure that we would unless - I mean, would we issue a warning if deer were eating somebody's flowers, would we warn the neighbourhood to put wire over your flowers? If people's pets are disappearing, if somebody saw a coyote in the neighbourhood and pets were disappearing, they might, if they let DNR know that, I don't know that we have - a coyote will travel 30 miles in a night on a really easy jog, and since they seem to live quite happily on the outskirts of suburban areas, it's just amazing the places they could frequent.

So unless the department was going to think about engaging in a campaign to eradicate - and even in my case as a sheep producer, if I were to call the department, I think they would tell me to get a nuisance control officer and do it on my own - they wouldn't be coming to eradicate a coyote that was killing my sheep. Other than being aware of it, I don't think we'd be putting out a bulletin to the citizens to say be careful, there's a coyote in the area.

MS. REGAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I guess part of my concern is that in this particular area coyotes have been spotted, and a couple of years back a bobcat was spotted in this area. This is not a rural area; this is in my riding in Bedford.

I have to say it's probably the single biggest issue I've had calls on since I've been elected, just in terms of number of calls. Currently we have nine cats missing, and remains have been discovered, and we don't know what's killing the animals. My concern is that some people don't know and so they're continuing to let their cats out, and some people let their babies sleep outside in the carriage to get the vitamin D from the sun. And my concern is that we're not protecting taxpayers by at least calling up the local daily, or the local weekly, and saying people should watch out for their cats in this particular neighbourhood.

MR. MACDONELL: Look, I have to be quite honest with you, if we were to do that with no significant facts around why they're disappearing - and if they found carcasses it's obvious they weren't consumed, and the issue around people leaving their children out, I mean, I live about as much in the woods as anybody can and, I have to tell you, I don't really worry too much about coyotes, other than their impact on my livestock.

[Page 106]

[7:30 p.m.]

I don't have concerns around their impact on people. Look, we have an expanding urban area, people move into where animals once had solitude. Fur is not particularly lucrative, and once upon a time those bobcats and coyotes were worth trapping or snaring so we had kind of an automatic, or economic mechanism that kept those numbers down. I guess I would be really worried about what kind of an alarm we'd be raising that's not accurate.

It would be difficult. I have to say we'd be putting out press releases every day if it came to terms of this wild animal/human interface between pets and wild animals. I have to tell you if it was an issue of rabies or suspected rabies in the community, I think we would have a responsibility there to try to get information out, whether it would be through my department or whatever department. I think that, through the veterinary clinics, is a reportable disease. I can check on that.

For the most part, I think if people are losing their pets to a wild animal, we're going to say you're off to your own devices in that regard - I know I am on my farm. Other than getting a permit to remove a wild animal, I think they'd prefer that, but no, I think you're running into that because if a coyote is seen that certainly would be indication that we would suspect it's a coyote - but that coyote might be passing through and never be around for five more months, or ever. I think it would be particularly difficult for us to have staff doing that, because I think the number of those occurrences would be significant.

MS. REGAN: Of course it is difficult to get details if no one will come to look at the remains, or look at scat or whatever, to find out what it is that is killing the animals. I understand you don't want to spend your life turning out press releases saying lock your up your kitties, I understand that; however, for these families, these nine families, they literally have lost a member of their family and some of them are telling them that Snowball has gone off to live at another farm or something.

There's a kind of different attitude towards animals in the city than there is in the country, I know, I was raised in the country, but I'm just saying that when the Department of Natural Resources gets nine calls coming in from one neighbourhood saying we've all lost cats, perhaps they might consider and have a sort of tipping point, at which point someone picks up the phone and calls the local weekly newspaper and says that a lot of cats are disappearing, you might want to keep them in because we don't know what's killing them. A fox has been spotted in the neighbourhood, coyotes have been seen before, several years ago a bobcat - we don't know what it is. I think there is a level of unease and a phone call could have averted that.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, it may have, but I don't think that's our job is what I'm trying to tell you, I guess. I think people in the country, their pets or my sheep mean as much to me as anybody's animal may - I'm not sure how you can make that assumption that they

[Page 107]

wouldn't. What I'm trying to tell you is that we don't have the department actually designed - we do have those wildlife things that happen, raccoons in people's garbage . . .

MS. REGAN: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: . . . and I think if people called the department, probably someone from the department is not coming - once upon a time someone did provide that service, they don't do that anymore. They would probably give you a contact list of someone who would be a nuisance wildlife person who would try to eradicate the animal for you.

Now in the case recently around bears, or whatever, I think that is one that the department would jump on. I think we tend to see that as our role. I mean if deer run into situations where they are struck by cars, hit, or caught in a fence - you can envisage the type of thing that we would see as our responsibility. But I don't see - as much as their pets would be important, obviously they have them and they care for them and they are part of their family - that as our role. Maybe someday, but I'm not there.

MS. REGAN: Just one quick final question, if it's not your role, whose role is it?

MR. MACDONELL: Usually you have an animal bylaw officer with the municipalities, you could start there and have them come out and see what the issue is and they may be able to offer some help. I know - not that this was the same issue - I certainly got calls as the MLA for Hants East, people were leaving cats off at other people's properties and actually we approached the SPCA, not the same thing around dead animals. But that would probably be a route I would go, and they would probably advise you to call DNR to get a list of who might be around to take care of a nuisance animal - but you're not even sure what the animal is, whether it's a dog in the neighbourhood or a coyote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am finished with my questions - there will be another day for pits and quarries, especially after the resource strategy comes forward there. I want to thank you and the deputy and your staff for your assistance on the questions I asked. I do have a few follow-up pieces of information to come forward, so thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

MR. LEONARD PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to ask a couple of questions, and I know I've asked this of the deputy in previous years when I was on the other side.

[Page 108]

In my constituency of Halifax Citadel-Sable Island there has been a great deal of interest in the preservation of the Northwest Arm and there has been a great deal of infilling and problems with access to the shoreline. A couple of years ago a committee was created of federal, provincial, and municipal people - and that included some provincial ministries including the Department of Environment and the Department of Natural Resources - looking at developing a protocol around the protection of the shoreline and coming up with something that would protect navigable waterways and things like that.

I know you're not a lead agency in this area, but I'm wondering if there's any progress to report on the Northwest Arm, on that steering committee, and who would be the lead in formulating a strategy around that?

MR. MACDONELL: We'll have to check on the progress of that for you.

MR. PREYRA: Great, I would like to get a report because it has been something that people in the constituency have been asking me.

I also have another related question. I know that the province is interested in designating natural heritage sites and there has been an application around the Shubenacadie Canal, for example. What is the process for these designations and how does one go about doing it?

MR. MACDONELL: I think that's a really good question. I don't know; it's not me. Tourism, Culture and Heritage, not DNR.

MR. PREYRA: Well, I had one last question before I hand it off to my colleague, the member for Kings North.

You mentioned the brown spruce longhorn beetle and it's one of the beetles that is present. I know a couple of years ago it was quite an issue and there was quite a lot of controversy about its spread and its presence and whether it was natural or unnatural. Where is that debate now, what is our current understanding about the infestation such as it is and whether it exists at all?

MR. MACDONELL: I think it's still considered to be a non-indigenous species, so it's an invasive species. I know my department is kind of monitoring - actually, a few years ago I noticed a couple of cars parked on the side of the road next to my property so I went for a walk and it might have been CFIA - that's one - and I think maybe someone from DNR, but they had some traps set in my woodlot trying to determine if there were any beetles in that area.

It seems that the route that the beetle has expanded on was Hurricane Juan, it actually blew it in a particular direction. I'll see if I can give you any information.

[Page 109]

MR. PREYRA: That's my last question. That's okay, I'll pass.

MR. MACDONELL: No, I'll give you this much anyway. The 2009 traffic survey is completed and to date 14 new positive locations outside the current containment area in the Counties of Halifax, Hants, Colchester, Kings, Lunenburg, and Victoria - and this is the first time that the brown spruce longhorn beetle has been detected in the Counties of Kings, Lunenburg, and Victoria. So it's still being monitored by CFIA and the department, but the federal government is the lead on this because it's an invasive species.

I assume at some point there's a protocol around when it's deemed to be indigenous, but I don't know that. So far we're monitoring it and I think probably the biggest concern is not necessarily so much the damage by the beetle, but damage to our trade with the United States, I think, is the thing that concerns us the most.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings North.

MR. JIM MORTON: Mr. Minister, Nova Scotia now owns the lands that lead out to Cape Split - the magnificent Cape Split - and owns the lands that provide access to the Split. I know that the people of Scots Bay are really interested in what will be happening with that, and certainly the people of Kings County are interested in that, and it appears to be an acquisition that could be very important to tourism and maybe to some local development. I'm wondering, is there anything that you can say about what plans are in place at this point and what you understand in terms of the future for those lands?

[7:45 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: I'll see if we have anything with us. I don't have anything - I know I've been briefed on a variety of areas but I don't remember one on that. (Interruption) Well, we recognize it, number one. We have a management plan that we were hoping to get funding for and had a request in - it didn't make the list. So, anyway, like some others we're kind of keen to pursue, we still will actively stay on it. The fact that my department, number one, recognizes the significance of it and obviously the people there do, we would really like to see it be something that enhances the community and, obviously, identified for that reason. So as soon as we can get funding to pursue what we would like to see done there, we'll do it.

MR. MORTON: Just to add another comment - there's interest in different areas. I was in a little community called Baxters Harbour not long ago, which has a fabulous view of Cape Split, and the people there in that small community are interested in creating a small passive viewpoint for the Split, so there may be many angles on the development of that park, some of which could be quite low cost I would think.

Just another area. There was some previous discussion about animal pests. I live in Kentville, Mr. Minister, and I would guess this is a problem in several smaller rural urban

[Page 110]

communities like Kentville, where deer are becoming increasingly a nuisance within town limits and a nuisance to homeowners because the deer eat plants, shrubs and gardens, and perhaps a safety hazard in terms of the possibility of traffic accidents.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. MORTON: Does the department have any plans for deer management in small urban areas?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, the department sets bag limits obviously for big game and small game, and even in Lunenburg County, which has been identified as having, for whatever reason, a significant deer population - I mean noticeably high compared to other areas - I think you can shoot a second deer in that area because of that high population. Kentville wasn't really flagged as one because, I've got to tell you, I think the deer population is high across the province generally. I know around my place there are a lot of signs - I see quite a few animals, the trails through the woods are well-tramped.

I don't think we have any plan to have a two-deer season generally across the province; I don't believe there is any specific plan for the Kentville, Kings County area, that would indicate that we're doing something like that. I'll ask my staff if there's any indication that their numbers would indicate that the population around Kentville is higher than anywhere else or there's something that we should be looking at. Usually for me, as both Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Agriculture, if deer were doing a lot of damage to crops and whatever, I'd be hearing it, but I haven't been - is it just sightings that you're seeing or is there much issue of damage by deer?

MR. MORTON: I think this is more an irritation than damage to crops - like to shrubs and bushes and the kinds of things that people value around their households. Do you know if there's any kind of monitoring, counting program that exists in communities, small towns, for example?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking not. I mean, if people wanted to just call their local DNR depot and say we seem to have a lot of deer, or deer are damaging my property, I know as far as - I don't know if it's present policy - I know farmers can eliminate one maybe or something. I don't think we go do a mass slaughter on a farm, but I'm just not sure around eating your flowers whether we advocate that.

MR. MORTON: I know it's a complex issue, but early one morning in Kentville on the street where I live I counted 13 deer outside my house, so I know they're there and they're having a good time.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, even quite an unlucky number too.

[Page 111]

MR. MORTON: Just on another area, Mr. Minister. Land acquisitions that the province has made or may make may include lands that access shoreline, and I guess I'm interested in what your thinking is about protecting beaches and improving access to beach and coastal areas for Nova Scotians.

MR. MACDONELL: I think land is one of those things we'd like to have more of for the people. They're not making any more of it - unless you're by the causeway going past Windsor, there seems to be some real estate developing there at the present time.

Coastal access. I guess I'd say those areas are identified either through government or other NGOs that indicate that these are areas that specifically should be protected - we have the Beaches Act, and the province has protected some areas and limited what you can do on those beaches, not always well-received by the property owners because it limits what they can do there. So that's a possibility.

I think the department certainly would like to take a re-look at the Beaches Act because it's some years since it has been updated, and so I think that's one thing that we do want to see that somehow kind of addresses issues that have arisen. Originally it was, I think, written to keep people from taking gravel or rock off of the beaches. They were harvesting it and sometimes selling it, so it really was written more for that. But there are a lot of things I guess we would like to allow. I mean, people collect Irish moss and do a number of things. We should take a re-look at that legislation about what's possible, but the province, even with that legislation, has protected beaches and limited what you could do on beaches. That's not out of the realm of possibilities. There would have to be significant features, I think, before we would want to impose those restrictions on people.

I mean, it's one thing if we own it, if we could buy property and keep it for the people, that's good. When you start imposing something that's been in a family for a hundred years and then you say, oh, by the way you can't do this or that on your property, it doesn't win you a whole lot of friends. We would just as soon not impact people on their private property, but if we do see things that because of structure - we all know about deterioration of dunes and the things that would happen and we see them as significant features to holding the beach intact, so those are areas where when we think, well, we better act in order to protect for the greater good.

MR. MORTON: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. In your introductory remarks, you mentioned conservation partnerships as one of the means that might be used in increasing our acquisitions for provincially owned land, and I'm curious about whether there are particular conservation partnerships that you plan to emphasize in the year ahead.

MR. MACDONELL: We are looking at community trust legislation, trying to work through that because that was a commitment during our campaign. I think it's probably whatever interested parties come to us in that regard. We're kind of aggressively moving to

[Page 112]

buy land as a government. I guess most people would understand we kind of have our sights set on some significant areas and, as much as it's possible to acquire those, that would be our focus at the present time. I think on the partnership side, we will probably say it would be the other partner who would approach us and be interested in trying to preserve a particular piece of land and seeing if there is a way that we can partner, and we could be helpful and help them do that.

Quite often either community groups or whatever - for a parcel that's significant to a specific community and because of their concerns around development or whatever, they would come to us and we could enter into some kind of a partnership that way, but I think usually initiated by the other partner rather than by us. It would be great if our present direction around acquisition could have been more initiated on the partner side - anyway, we'll see where that goes, but I think those partnerships would be more initiated by whoever is interested in preserving something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Queens.

MS. VICKI CONRAD: Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for your time and the time of your staff here today.

I have a couple of quick questions that I'd like to ask, and one is around the issue of Cherry Hill Beach. I know that we have discussed that particular issue and the issue of concern with the residents feeling that they didn't have enough consultation, or any consultation, before DNR put in a blockade, if you will, to limit access to one part of the beach. It's the understanding that the reason for that blockade - it's a barrier, I guess - is because there are piping plovers that are nesting close to the beach area. Those piping plover nest areas were identified many years ago, and certainly I understand from a lot of residents in the area that they've always respected those nesting areas.

The most recent concern that I'm hearing - and I understand that the minister is looking into the issue around why the barrier was put there exactly - the fire department did bring a concern to me just recently, and their concern is should anything happen at the other end of the beach, having that barrier in place really prevents access for emergency vehicles. Apparently a couple of years ago there was an accident at the far end of the beach where there was a person in the water who was in distress, and they're very concerned that they don't have access.

Now, I have also heard that the fire department may be open to perhaps a gated barrier as opposed to boulders and perhaps having a key for the emergency volunteer department to be able to have access if need be - that's one suggestion that did come from some members of the community - so I guess my question is, would the minister entertain that type of suggestion coming from the community as maybe a possible solution to protecting the piping plovers with that barrier, but also allowing some access in the case of an emergency?

[Page 113]

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess I would consider it - is there a home there, is there a building?

MS. CONRAD: No, there isn't.

MR. MACDONELL: No. I've got to say I'm probably not that keen on doing that to be honest with you. The issue around if somebody gets in trouble on the beach - I mean that's a concern, but I can think of the miles of beaches where a fire truck or a rescue vehicle couldn't get to, and so I think we would be in a position of making access for fear that somebody might get in distress in the water. So, no, I would have to say, as much as I hate to turn down a fire department. If there was a house there that they couldn't approach and we were blocking the entrance, I would have some real issues with that but, no, I don't think in this case - I think that the plovers are going to one-up this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize that questions are closing so, Mr. Minister, you have about a minute if you would like to have the final word.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess that's one of the perks of this job. Thanks to everybody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E15 stand?

Resolution E15 stands.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, and staff, and thank you for all the information over the last eight hours.

MR. MACDONELL: We'll get back on those questions. Thank you to my staff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Subcommittee on Supply is finished for today.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:01 p.m.]