HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

4:58 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're going to Resolution E15 in the estimates, the Department of Natural Resources. The PC caucus has 45 minutes remaining.

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I have a few questions. I think somebody else will be coming in later on, but I just want to follow up on something we spoke about on Friday and that was the nuisance hunt with the moose in the North of Smokey area in Zone 1.

I had mentioned there was a concern that, because of the season being in December, there were those carrying calves and bucks that have no horns. I was corrected on that, but I just want to bring to your attention, in your own Web page, the third season, December 8^th to December 10^th, persons considering this late season hunt should be aware of the following - I'm not going to read them all, for the sake of time - but it says: Many mature bull moose have already shed their antlers. So I guess the biggest concern with the constituent at that time was in that case you don't know whether you're shooting a bull or a cow, so I would ask that be taken into consideration.

I'm going to move on to deer hunt and another concern that has been brought forward to my attention that maybe you can answer for me. It is my understanding, if you register for a deer licence in the province, you are also entitled to purchase a licence in 2A, which can be for antler-less deer. The constituent's concern was with the on-line registration. What he said was that you have 24 hours to register your deer and he said that because of this, anyone could shoot an antler-less deer anywhere in the Province of Nova Scotia, report it within the 24 hours, and say they got it in 2A. I wonder if you could mention something about that.

105

[5:00 p.m.]

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Well, I have to say the member raises an interesting point. I'll actually try to address both the moose hunt and the - yes, Nova Scotia is not very big in the sense of where you could drive to in 24 hours, so I think that is a possibility. I'm not clear on the issue in the sense that you're saying they could shoot it somewhere else in the province and drive to 2A and say they got it there?

MR. BAIN: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding you can just register your deer on-line.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. BAIN: So they don't even have to travel anywhere.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. BAIN: They can say that they left 2A, got home to register their deer, without even having left the area.

MR. MACDONELL: Right. Yes, I'm not - they have only one tag. I mean they have a tag for the deer so - I'm trying to get my head around the complication. I guess where we're going is the possibility of a second deer in 2A, is that where we're going?

MR. BAIN: No, I think antler-less deer can only be gotten in 2A, from my understanding.

MR. MACDONELL: Oh, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder, gentlemen, if we could not have toing and froing, for the purposes of Hansard. We will allow a full question and a full answer and no toing and froing. Thank you.

MR. MACDONELL: What can happen - you can enter an antler-less draw to shoot a doe anywhere in the province, but the issue with 2A, as I understand it, is that you don't have to be in a draw to get a deer that's antler-less in 2A. So I guess the thing that I'm trying to get my head around is, can you shoot a deer anywhere in the province and then a shoot a second one in 2A that's a doe? That's the question and maybe my deputy could answer that.

My executive director who could answer that is not here, but he will be in a minute, but anyway, on the Web site it raised a good question on the antler drop for moose. I'm thinking that it is possible, because of individual differences, variation within the population, that maybe the odd bull would drop his antlers in December, but I don't think all the bulls will drop their antlers in December, and probably the majority of them, I think happen after January to February.

So I'm thinking that if all the bulls dropped their antlers in December, and I think this is just the first week or so of December, if I'm right, I think there will still be a lot of bulls in the population with antlers that - I suppose if you only see one moose in the whole season and you shot it and it was a bull that dropped its antlers, you might have an issue. But I don't think there is any restriction, a bull or a cow, on your licence, so it would only be the regret of the hunter that he didn't want to shoot a cow and he shot a bull. But as far as the population, I want you to be aware that the population of moose in the Highlands is not endangered.

The number of licences that are issued, I think, would go on the idea that 342 licences that go out, that if they were all cows and none of them bulls, I think that's probably considered that it was a possibility. I don't think there is any restriction on a cow or a bull. I could be wrong, but it would only be the regret, I think, of the hunter who didn't wish to shoot a cow and shot one by mistake.

MR. BAIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that's probably the concern, that the hunter is more concerned about the conservation side of it than just the fact that he shot a moose.

I'm going to change topics here now and I want to go back to the lands that the province has purchased. That was discussed on Friday and the member for Kings West was talking about Wagner, and I think what I would like to do is ask about the land just purchased on Kelly's Mountain in Victoria County.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'll try to keep you in the loop. Kelly's Mountain, I will let you proceed with your question then.

MR. BAIN: It is my understanding that these lands were lands that were owned by NewPage?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking they were. Just off the top of my head, that wasn't one that I know I've seen, but I'm thinking it was the NewPage land, yes.

MR. BAIN: From what I could see, looking on-line at the piece of property, it appears to be the NewPage property, because it is a big chunk of property, anyway. I guess my question is, with the talks that are going on now with Emera and NewPage and the biomass project that they're looking at, and getting back to what the member for Kings West mentioned about Wagner, would it be the intent to let NewPage clear that land before they've paid for it? What are the plans for that piece of land?

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I think the significance of that property was, in particular, around Aboriginal interests. I'm not clear as to whether it was archaeological or exactly what that interest was. I'm thinking more of the conservation side than on the harvesting side, but I can try to get that verified for you. I think there were significant ecological interests that were the driving force behind trying to pick up that particular block. I can try to have that made more clear for you.

MR. BAIN: Mr. Chairman, I think there is the Aboriginal connection there that plays a very important part. I know that in the piece of property beside it there are mineral resources there as well. There is limestone that is not being mined at this point, but has been mined. I guess my biggest concern was, is there just a specific area that is being looked after for the Aboriginal concerns? If you could provide me with that information at some point, I'd appreciate it.

MR. MACDONELL: I'd be glad to provide you with whatever we can get. I am aware of the limestone issue, and I'm not entirely sure, because these purchases - generally one of the mechanisms for these purchases is that they go through Aboriginal Affairs and the Mi'kmaq lens, but if there are particular issues we like the Mi'kmaq community to be aware of the purchase so they may raise some issues. So whether that Aboriginal issue - because there was an interest in buying this related to Aboriginal concerns. Whether that was a small part of the entire block or a much larger area, I'm not clear. It is not clear to me yet about that. I have more of a general interest because of that community. I can try to find that out for you, as much as I can, yes.

MR. BAIN: Thank you. Just one final question for my own satisfaction. Where there is Mi'kmaq concerns and Mi'kmaq interests, I guess is the best way to put it, if there is development proposed to take place and if the Aboriginal groups and your department are fine with it, can the development go on?

MR. MACDONELL: It depends on all the reasons, I guess. If it was bought for conservation purposes basically, then we may not allow a particular development, simply because it overrides the main interest of the reason for the purchase. I think that if you're thinking about the limestone issue - obviously, it's one that my department is aware of. I think our view is that mining has a very small footprint, generally speaking, on the province if you look at the percentage of land that is actually used in mining operations today, compared to forestry. So it is just a question of whether that particular operation is a fit for our expectation or the reason we bought the land in the first place. So if it's possible to do that and it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the purchase, I think we'd probably be fine with that, but if it turns out that they can't co-exist then we would probably be thinking we can't allow it in that particular location.

MR. BAIN: Thank you. I just want to talk in general if I could, Mr. Minister, about the budget. I think your budget is forecast to increase about $2.9 million this year. I'm just wondering, is that increase for any specific area of the department or just small increases here and there?

MR. MACDONELL: It's actually an increase of $3.9 million, and actually there is salary - there was a conversion on salary from casual conversions and reclassifications and bridge repair. Actually, the salary conversions, $3.7 million, bridge repair . . .

MR. BAIN: You're hitting the wrong one there. You're leaving yours on and shouting . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. How did we do that? There you go.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So bridge repair, $3.5 million; salaries, $3.7 million; park maintenance, $0.5 million; and abandoned rail line, $0.5 million. Those were the increases. There were some reductions as well, but anyway, it was $3.9 million to the good.

MR. BAIN: So it is spread out pretty much throughout the department.

I note, as well, that senior management is being reduced in staff size by 20? I don't know if that's correct or not.

MR. MACDONELL: My deputy could probably speak to that better. It is the $20,000 difference transferred to casual conversions, but it is not more than that. The FTEs are the same - full-time equivalents.

MR. BAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess that since the FTEs are the same, I'm going to have to jump over a couple of questions here, so forgive me for that.

[5:15 p.m.]

The Land Services Program has seen a small increase, and again, it is an increase from $3.1 million to $3.3 million, if my figures are correct. I'm just wondering what the additional $200,000 would be required for.

MR. MACDONELL: There were some reclassifications in that division, so it really was just a salary increase for the people in that survey division who were reclassified. That basically made up the $200,000 difference.

MR. BAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned the biologists the other day when we were speaking of coyotes. What is the funding level for wildlife biology in your department? Or is there a funding level for the wildlife biology part?

MR. MACDONELL: I would be assuming that because we have a biologist on staff, there would be a funding level for salaries, but then there would have to be funding for the work that they do, so I'll just see what we have there.

MR. BAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I brought up biologists and everything else and we did speak about coyotes on Friday, I think we're fortunate enough that we didn't have any mishaps over the weekend, hopefully. I'm just wondering if you have anything new that you could report to us since our discussion on Friday, and once you got all the information on . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Actually, I'll answer your previous question on the wildlife biologists and the department there. I'll have to get you a breakdown on that. I don't have that right here. On any new developments, no, you probably saw on the news around the department being able to get two coyotes in the Brooklyn area around the elementary school there, which is new - the department had been working at it, but it was new to the news.

As far as my discussions with my staff around a possible potential for a bounty and if that would achieve what I was hoping it might, would be a change in behaviour for coyotes, because I'm thinking we're not going to spend money to try to eradicate them. I haven't had that - as far as my staff and their fact-finding, I was hoping for that for tomorrow. So we haven't done that yet, but I've given it a lot of thought over the weekend, I can tell you that.

MR. BAIN: Thank you, and I'm sure you were giving it a lot of thought over the weekend, minister. Park development - it seems that the park development portion of the budget has jumped from a predicted $133,000 in 2009-10 to an actual of $672,000, and the forecast this year to $738,000. Again, I hope I have my figures correct there. That's quite a significant jump. Could you tell us what took place there?

MR. MACDONELL: I hope I can - $500,000 was removed from last year's budget and replaced by infrastructure money, and that $500,000 was put back in the budget this year.

MR. BAIN: So that would be the Federal Infrastructure Program, is that what you mean? So that enabled you to save the $500,000 that would normally be in the budget, am I correct?

MR. MACDONELL: So $500,000 went from us last year to TCA for park infrastructure and it came back to us for operating.

MR. BAIN: Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. I understand now. Shubenacadie Wildlife Park seems like it has taken a hit this year, down from $747,000 to $586,000. What would be the impact at Shubenacadie Park?

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, the budgeted amount really hasn't changed, but if you look at what was spent compared to what's budgeted, what was spent is more than what was budgeted. So we budget a certain amount, but then we try to find dollars. In terms of a cost recovery mechanism, it doesn't generate enough funds to operate it, but we still kind of - our expectation would be to spend the same as had been spent previously, but we've got to search a bit for those dollars over the year. That's basically what happened last year as well.

MR. BAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the plan would be to spend about the same amount of dollars this year in Shubenacadie as the previous year?

MR. MACDONELL: Right, yes.

MR. BAIN: We spoke earlier, Mr. Minister, about wildlife biologists, and I'm on a roll with wildlife biologists, I guess. Any funding that they might have access to, is that what's called the wildlife administration? Is that what they call it?

MR. MACDONELL: You mean the funding for wildlife biologists to operate, to carry out their duties?

MR. BAIN: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: The administrative part would be the director of wildlife, his secretary - what you would think of as the administrative component. Money for the wildlife biologists in carrying out their duties would be different programs - furbearer, whatever - so that's where those dollars would exist for them. So the administration is purely what you would read it as.

MR. BAIN: My reason for asking that, minister, is I notice a $95,000 reduction in that section for 2010-11 and I'm just wondering why that reduction would be there.

MR. MACDONELL: We just moved it into the program budgets. Rather than for them to come to the director for gas money or fuel, that money just got moved into programs. That's how that happened.

MR. BAIN: So it's just a shifting around. Enforcement - $786,000 being budgeted for DNR enforcement in 2010-11. I'm just wondering, how many charges were laid under the Wildlife Act last year? Would you have access to that?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, well, obviously, if those numbers are tallied by this point, we should be able to get them for you. We don't have them. We can get those for you.

MR. BAIN: Sure, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have to write this down or I'll forget. I guess I'll go from - well, it's still wildlife, it contributes to it, but it's also - the spruce bark beetle. It's an issue of concern to a number of people across Nova Scotia, I think more so in the Cape Breton Highlands, and it seems that the beetle now has a grip on at least six of Nova Scotia's 18 counties and no signs of slowing down. So I guess my question would be, what's the department doing to try to combat the situation?

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, we're monitoring the situation, but I have to say we're not buying wood. I think we try as much as possible to encourage landowners to try to harvest that wood while it's good to see how they can make out marketing. It's probably no advantage, the fact that things are - as far as lumber, things are in a bit of a slump. They may be able to market, certainly in Cape Breton they may get that wood to the pulp mills, they might be interested in that, but certainly I think our emphasis would be to encourage landowners to try to move that wood while it still has some value for them, not to have it standing dead for too long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While we're awaiting the response, I would point out to the member for Victoria-The Lakes that we have about 15 minutes left. We started at 4:58 p.m. and there were 45 minutes left from last week.

MR. MACDONELL: I'll inform the member, the only piece of information that's different from what I've indicated to you already is in 2009 department staff held information sessions and conducted harvesting on severely damaged stands in the Mabou Highlands. I'm thinking that that was probably mostly on Crown, but it may have been some private land as well. I think that's the only other piece. I mean, there's more information here, but I think you probably are aware that this is a bark beetle - it's under the bark, there's no pesticide that's effective for spraying it. I think our intent would be to try to inform landowners. They would obviously know themselves if they see trees dying on their property - they may want to try to get those down, number one, to market them at whatever value they could get, and number two, they would help reduce the infestation if you can remove them from the property.

I think it's one we're probably - we don't have a lot of tools in the toolbox to combat other than try to remove those trees as quickly as you notice something wrong with them.

MR. BAIN: I'm trying to make sure I have this straight, because a lot of the problem some people attribute it to is when a homeowner purchases firewood, it's possible that the beetle could be transported. I thought these were dead trees. If the damage has already been done and the beetle has moved on to another healthy tree, what happens in a case like that?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not an entomologist, but it seems as though I knew more about the brown spruce longhorn beetle, which was in the news for a while, than I know about the biology and life cycle and physiology of the bark beetle.

I'm not sure it's one you have to worry about, necessarily. I guess maybe some people do use softwood for firewood, but I don't know what the implications are, that if they took it to an area that we would deem to be relatively clean of it that they would cause an infestation by hauling wood out of one area. There's no restriction on the movement of wood in the province because of the bark beetle, as far as I know.

[5:30 p.m.]

MR. BAIN: Big Harbour in Victoria County was one area that was exceptionally hard hit last year with the white spruce population. Do you have any figures as to how much forest land was actually destroyed as a result of the beetle?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure if the department does. I know they recognize it in Cape Breton, in the Mabou area and other areas, and I don't know if they actually have an acreage or a tonnage that they figure has been affected worse than other parts of the province. If there is one, it has never been disclosed to me, but I haven't asked. I can find out if we have a tally on what we think the indications might be. We can find that out for you.

MR. BAIN: I guess there'll be no prediction as to how much could be destroyed in the future?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, there probably is a prediction. It seems as though one of the conditions we're facing has been our milder winters, which seem to enhance its ability to survive. If this bug survives most winters, it sure survived last winter. I would say that depending on how much population information the department would have, whether we could extrapolate over time that this is what we expect the loss to be, then that's probably doable. That's a question we can ask to find out if there's a prediction as to what kind of acreage might be affected.

I think landowners shouldn't wait for that information. I think they should just have their own plan to remove those trees as quickly as they possibly can if they have a market for them at all.

MR. BAIN: Finally, have you had any discussions with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency of late as to what can be done to slow the growth?

MR. MACDONELL: This is not one for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The brown spruce longhorn beetle is the one that's the invasive species. The bark beetle, the spruce beetle, is not it, so CFIA wouldn't be involved. This is a natural pest in Nova Scotia, been here forever; it's only those ones that come from other jurisdictions - that are not native - that the CFIA is the responsible party for.

MR. BAIN: Thank you for that. There are so many different beetles out there, you never know which one is the right one, I guess - none of them are the right one.

I'm going to go back to land purchases again. Your government, since coming into power, has spent an inordinate amount. How much exactly has been spent to date?

MR. MACDONELL: We budgeted $75 million for the Large Land Purchase Project. I think it turned out to be $77 million, maybe slightly more, by the time the last purchases were made. It was another $2 million or some such thing. I saw that number and I think I conveyed it to the member for Kings West previously. I know I'm pretty close on that.

MR. BAIN: That's part of the government's large land purchase conservation plan, I know that. I wonder, are you able to provide any details as to exactly how that $75 million was reached?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think we could provide specific details. I'm trying to remember, because I'm pretty sure I had it the other day as to the difference - the extra $2 million, how that turned up.

DNR was $75 million. We had $1 million from Aboriginal Affairs and we had $1.5 million from Environment that all got thrown into the mix, so it turned out to be $77.5 million. I can get you a specific breakdown on the JDI purchase, how much that was, and Wagner and NewPage.

MR. BAIN: Thank you for that, minister. If you could, that would be great. Are you going to be able to meet your target of protecting 12 per cent?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, at this stage I'm going to say yes.

MR. BAIN: How much additional land has to be purchased to meet that goal?

MR. MACDONELL: We went from 8.6 to about 9.8, I think. If you consider that 1 per cent or 1.2 per cent was about 150,000 acres, so for every per cent, 150,000 acres. We have about 2 per cent to go, a little better, so somewhere in the range of 300,000-plus acres is where we need to go to hit our 12 per cent.

I think your question was on how much more acreage, not the money, so yes, maybe someone will give us 300,000 acres and we won't have to buy it, but certainly it's going to be tough enough sledding to get there. I don't think I'm fooling anybody - $75 million this year - and I'm not predicting $75 million a year for the next two or three, so we're going to have to work very hard to get there.

MR. BAIN: Just one other short question before I turn it over to my colleague for the remaining few minutes. Are you in negotiations with any other companies for land purchases right now?

MR. MACDONELL: I think we probably are. My land branch - this is something they do pretty much on an ongoing basis, but they won't have a pocket of money like this to work with this year. We had money in other accounts, or programs, where we bought assets from some of the mills - you know, because of the downturn they had assets they wanted to let go to aid their cash flow. So we tried, and we bought land from private individuals. There are those parcels that we would be interested in getting if they meet the ecological standard that we're looking for, or if there are parcels that abut Crown land, those are more attractive to us than buying small parcels that are disconnected.

So yes, I think in the department we look at buying land all the time, but we have targeted criteria that we deem make it worth doing. We're not buying just anybody and everybody's, although we get a lot of offers. Presently there are a lot of people, not just lumber mills but landowners, who have land they would like to sell and are interested to find out if it would be something that would meet our criteria for what we're looking for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are less than five minutes remaining in the PC caucus time.

The honourable member for Argyle.

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's my pleasure to speak for a couple of moments to Natural Resources. Most of them are specific to my riding and maybe a couple of park issues - I'm a bit of a camper, so I just have some questions around some of the parks that I do get to visit.

The first question, in and around JDI lands: there have been a lot of questions on what has been purchased, when are we going to find out what has been purchased, and what is going to be the access to those parcels that have been purchased? So I'm just wondering if we can have a more general statement on when we might expect to know the further details about JDI lands.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think you should know now, or we should be able to tell you now, I think some of that has already been public - Electric City, some of the common ones, the Buy Back Nova Scotia project people who were proposing that. So I think we can get you a list of what those parcels were. That's not impossible. I'm trying to remember your other question?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Access.

MR. MACDONELL: Access. Those parcels did come with - a part of - we buy the land or agree on the land, and then we would have to account for additional funding in the sense of surveys, rights-of-way, but our concern was we didn't buy a piece of land and then be left as an island. I think along with the purchase was the condition that we're able to access the land. So yes, I think Nova Scotians could expect that they could be making use of that land, as far as I know, any time that they want to go to it.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you for that, Mr. Minister, because a lot of the concern, especially when we went back to the originating Buy Back Nova Scotia, was the worry that the gates would be locked should the properties go into private hands. Now, knowing that we didn't purchase the whole piece of property as it stood forward because it would just be absolutely beyond our means, just to make sure that the gates still won't go up on some of those properties because of other purchasers who might be interested in some of the lands that are there - over the years what had been allowed to happen is that a lot of the roads that would have been DNR roads originally were redesigned, taken over by JDI, straightened up.

Actually, there are some pretty neat highways in those backwoods and people were worried that they would not be able to drive their ATVs on them and those kinds of things. The broader question of access is not just being able to hike on them or canoe through them but to be able to get to them through all-terrain vehicles, and to access, in some cases, some in-holdings that are there - people have cottages and stuff like that, in some cases through agreements with JDI.

MR. MACDONELL: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable minister, after the answer, that will conclude the time for the PC caucus and we will begin an hour with the Liberal caucus.

MR. MACDONELL: I can't say what might happen. Environment would have more to say on this if some of this becomes wilderness area. And if they have roads on them, I think the Department of Environment, new wilderness areas are kind of - the thought is that there would be ATV use.

It wasn't our intention to buy land that Nova Scotians couldn't access. I think that would be an important consideration that we buy it, that there are roads on it - people can use them and access the lands.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you, and the next time I come up I do want to ask about electricity in some of the parks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The time is 5:43 p.m. We have one hour, to 6:43 p.m.

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to share my time with the member for Kings West, who will be here shortly.

I wanted to pick up on some stuff we were talking about in estimates just a few - seems like it wasn't that long ago that we were here . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Shubie Canal Commission?

MR. YOUNGER: Yes, Shubie Canal - good guess - and you have the right guy sitting to your right there, because I know he knows all about the Shubenacadie Canal Commission.

I want to start by talking about the Dartmouth Inclined Plane Site, which I think you're probably familiar with. The Canal Commission had arranged $500,000 from Halifax Regional Municipality, $500,000 from the federal government and had - I think they met with you, but they certainly sent the letter if they didn't meet . . .

MR. MACDONELL: They did meet.

MR. YOUNGER: . . . indicating that in order to trigger those amounts they also needed $500,000 in capital - not necessarily all in one year, just a commitment by March 31^st. Can you tell me what happened with that?

MR. MACDONELL: I can tell you they didn't get it. Actually, I think - is it . . .

MR. YOUNGER: Dr. O'Connor.

MR. MACDONELL: O'Connell?

MR. YOUNGER: O'Connor.

[5:45 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Yes. Anyway, they were in to see me, Mr. McNeil and he, and we had a good chat. We sent them to Economic Development, I think is where the conversation went, because we didn't have any funds to give them. But it is one that - and this will only seem like something to be recorded in Hansard, but I would say if at some point we could do something for them, and there are a number, not just their project which I think is a good one, I have a number of parks that could use some funding, but we didn't have it to give to them.

MR. YOUNGER: One of the concerns, of course, is these two grants were hanging - obviously they've expired now and I don't know whether they're recoverable or not. They were expecting a letter from your department one way or the other, a yes or no, which they had understood somebody had committed it would get to them by March 31^st, and they didn't obviously receive a yes or no. In fact, you've given me the answer now, but the answer is one they've been waiting for from the province as to whether it could be funded. Do you know what happened there?

MR. MACDONELL: We can draft something. I'm thinking that the day they came - it's been awhile, so if it's in the system it wouldn't take that long. But the day they came to us I don't remember them leaving us with correspondence that required a response. I can check on that, so if that was an issue I apologize for that.

Also, when we get to the Minister of Economic and Rural Development you may want to quiz him for tourism because actually I think we sent them there too. That's where the Canal Commission file was and the former member for Dartmouth South, Tim Olive, he brought it to DNR with him when he became Minister of Natural Resources, so I think it's something we may have acquired by design rather than accident and probably have just never been able to budget appropriately for that. Anyway, we do what we can.

MR. YOUNGER: That actually brings me to a question I was going to ask. I have to wonder whether the Canal Commission is under the right ministry. As I understand it, it's like those other things where you're the Minister of Natural Resources and then you're the minister responsible for a whole slew of things and the Canal Commission ends up being one of those - is it your view that they're under the right department or the wrong department?

MR. MACDONELL: Good question. I guess the impression we probably left them with when they left was that this probably wasn't necessarily the appropriate department, that maybe tourism might have been a better fit, but that doesn't mean - you know, you take what your responsibility is and try to see if you can find something to be helpful.

If I think about more of what I consider about the kind of mandate of the Natural Resources Department it probably would seem to me not to be the appropriate fit considering the man-made infrastructure side of the canal. Anyway, I don't think we're keen on driving them away, but we'd like to see if somebody could have some funding for them.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Minister, I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that you want to drive them away, but I do have a concern that they end up under the right minister. We seem to have, even if we take aside the 200^th Anniversary of that canal that Nova Scotia will be celebrating in just a few years, the Heritage Waterway designation that they're trying to achieve, more importantly from a strictly environmental point of view, even a water management point of view, we are at a point now where some of the infrastructure along that canal from end to end - you're probably aware - is in critical shape.

Some of it's collapsing into the canal and yet some parts of your own municipality actually draws water from the canal . . .

MR. MACDONELL: From the river, not the canal.

MR. YOUNGER: From the river, yes, which is all part of the waterway, I guess. The commission and the municipality up there have looked at building some water control structures to deal with some of the drinking water issues. It strikes me that it's a bigger issue than just making something look pretty. There's obviously the heritage restoration aspect which is expensive, we all know that, and maybe everything can't be reconstructed in heritage form and we have to accept that.

There is also the issue that in some places, in my own riding and actually in the riding of the Minister of Tourism, we've seen flooding of land as a result of canal infrastructure collapsing into the water. It strikes me that we are now at a critical point, and that's why I want to get at this point of, what do we do to move this stuff forward? Even if we can't do the pretty and esthetic stuff at the moment, but we're going to do the stuff that's critical, that's going to get more expensive every year. I'm just wondering, is it your suggestion that we move it to a different department? It's a provincial asset that obviously has a problem.

MR. MACDONELL: No, I'm not sure, maybe moving it to another department would work but the issue is money - we're in a recession; we have a deficit. I've never been to all the parts of the canal in my own constituency, but I've been to a couple of them and I don't think it's deteriorating to the point - I mean, the biggest deterioration, it happened many, many years ago. I know a guy who had some of the blocks from the canal on his front lawn as a boundary, and actually they're not there and I've wondered where they went.

Some of the canal never was completed. In my constituency they made some - I guess the project kind of died by the time it got through part of that and it never did get beyond. There's one section, Lock 6, where it's like taking a canoe if this was open and running into the bank right there. You have to turn around and come back out, they never even completed it. In some cases, I think it may be closer to the Dartmouth end, maybe more of it was completed and it could be maybe brought back and restored. I think in some of my areas you might have to decide whether or not you're actually going to build a canal system. But to get to your question around financing, there are just not enough resources to go around.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, if you want to talk to someone who is trying to canoe the whole thing you should talk to the Minister of Finance, because he is trying to kayak the entire canal and I know he has a very keen interest in it.

Getting back to this, one of the things that you mentioned is the deficit and everything, and I understand that, but it strikes me that there are also lost opportunities. Listen, there is always capital money around. You make choices - you're going to do this project or that project - and I'd like to get at how you make those choices, because obviously in the case of the Dartmouth Inclined Plane Site there was $1 million sitting on the table that has been lost for want of a one-third contribution. Now, whether it should have come from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, at the end of the day it's a decision that's made at the Cabinet Table.

I'm concerned that what has ended up happening here is that we could have turned 33-cent dollars effectively to deal with not only a heritage site but also a recreation site and, frankly, a brownfield site in the middle of downtown Dartmouth. It could have been dealt with at 33-cent dollars, and now what's going to happen is ultimately somebody is going to come back looking for 100-per-cent dollars - probably from the province. How are those decisions made in terms of the criteria for funding, is there anything that says if you have matching funding you move up the priority list?

MR. MACDONELL: Usually, if a decision gets made at Cabinet, like you say, that has to get to Cabinet. I would say if it's depending on getting to the top of the list in my department, it's probably not getting to Cabinet to make a decision on it. So that's the conundrum that they're under. I'd have to have someone on my staff who would be looking at eight or 10 items about what we're going to pursue and . . .

MR. YOUNGER: Well I guess, Mr. Minister, I understand that and that's kind of my point. What I want to know is, what is the ranking scheme within your department that ultimately shortlists the two or three projects that you go to Cabinet with? I'm just trying to understand what gets something to Cabinet and what doesn't - I assume there's some sort of score sheet or something.

MR. MACDONELL: I guess the things that are raised around occupational health and safety, like there's a flag, Labour and Workforce Development, somebody's going to be on you if you've got issues around your staff and there's safety in the department. You've got to say, well look, we've got to spend X-dollars there so that means something else isn't going to get it.

If you have infrastructure issues - as a matter of fact there's a trail, one of the rail beds that's a trail that we were, I think, being pursued pretty hard by the Department of Environment and I don't know about federally (Interruption) And DFO - because there was a washout on a trail and there was siltation in a stream and DFO was after us, and that's a bill of $500,000 that we had to come up with to take care of that. So DFO - I don't know, actually I think they might have been thinking about charging us, but because we were another government agency, although not a federal agency, they probably were willing to say all right, show us that you're going to do your due diligence and do this, which we had to budget.

So those are the kind of things that kind of come at you that you would say - and if that turned out to be something we weren't planning on, if there's a washout there because of weather or whatever sort of thing that caused it - and maybe it existed for awhile - with somebody breathing down your neck telling you to fix it and in the first year you couldn't find the money and another year you couldn't find the money, then you have to say, well okay, that project over here that we were going to do, that's going to have to be on hold because we have to address this.

In a way, that's partly how things are done, which might appear to be quite ad hoc, but the issues around priorities that the government might have when we look at our park system, and whatever, is what's the infrastructure like and how long has it been neglected - we have an obligation, because we own those things ourselves as a department, to look at that first. That's kind of the thing that helps make decisions.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I understand that. What I will say, and I can't criticize you for this because it was a previous minister, but your department did receive from the Canal Commission, because I was a member of HRM Council at the time and received a letter from the city listing a good couple hundred thousand dollars of legal liability issues on provincial land along the canal that the department didn't even respond to the letter and didn't address - some of those were fencing that had deteriorated where people could fall down the cliff. In the end the city brought people in to fix a lot of those things. There had been boat docks that were sinking into the water when people stood on them and so forth. There have been a lot of those cases along the canal and even the legal liability ones may not even reach as far as your desk, I don't know, but that's obviously a concern.

MR. MACDONELL: That was on Crown land, you're saying?

[6:00 p.m.]

MR. YOUNGER: Yes, provincially owned Crown land. So that is a concern, and I know we spoke in the Fall, I think it was the Fall, about the leaky roof - it's getting dealt with now, but the leaky roof at the Fairbanks Centre, which is a provincially owned building and I've checked the registry and so forth and it is owned by your department.

While I appreciate the fact that you got back to me very quickly and in the end the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, I think his staff are trying to figure out a way to fix the problem. Your department didn't have money for that either, which is why I get to the point of whether the Canal Commission is even in the right department, because in that case that building was at imminent risk of being shut down for occupational health and safety issues for the staff working in that provincially owned building. And while I hear you saying that occupational health and safety and liability issues make it to the top of the list, what concerns me is even those don't seem to be making it to the top of the list when it comes to the canal.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm curious as to how it got fixed.

MR. YOUNGER: The roof is still in the process, but the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal is taking a look at it at the moment. My understanding is that they came out, looked at it and said this is a serious imminent risk - like the province would be at significant liability if they don't deal with it. That's why I say, if they're in the wrong department let's move them. If they should be in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, if they should be in the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage, I don't know. I agree with you that it goes back to the former MLA for Dartmouth South when it got transferred, but maybe it's the wrong place.

I know you were also given - I'm going to give you a piece of paper. I don't expect, Mr. Minister, you to remember every piece of paper you're given so I wanted to just give it to you again, but you've probably seen it. You talked about deficit and everything and these are ways that the province can help the commission without spending a dime in most cases - well, some of them, arguably, maybe do have that.

Right on the top is the fact there are six vacancies that have not been filled by your department on the commission - that's pretty significant. Some of them you may very well end up deciding should just be reappointments, which is fine, it just obviously hinders the commission's ability - and they're all volunteers, they don't get per diems, they don't get anything. What process do you have in place to address filling - I assume you have more committees than just the commission - in terms of ensuring they're filled in a timely fashion?

MR. MACDONELL: My deputy, Mr. Underwood here, indicates that he saw the ad in the paper today and this was on the list for seeking members. So I think that's probably step number one.

MR. YOUNGER: I agree it is step number one. Unfortunately, step number one seems to happen after the vacancies - and this has happened, in fairness to the minister, under all different governments. The vacancies are there for quite awhile before they even end up getting posted. Somebody obviously knows that, say, John Doe's appointment expires on December 1^st.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. YOUNGER: Well, one would think there should be somebody appointed to do that because obviously it prevents the commission from holding a legal - I mean they still hold meetings but they can't make any real legal decisions on contracts and so forth because they don't have the quorum if they don't have enough members.

MR. MACDONELL: Right. I can find out how this goes from the ground up, the process, because usually when they get to my desk, sometimes I get a list on various committees or whatever, you know, that the minister has to make a decision, so anyway we'll get that information for you.

MR. YOUNGER: I would appreciate that, Mr. Minister. I just think it's something that would be easy, hopefully easy, to address so those appointments get filled in a timely manner.

A couple of the other things on there for your department - obviously there are all different departments, but a big one here is about landowners who have expressed some kind of interest in possibly gifting their land to the province, in terms of tax receipts which, obviously, I mean arguably there's a cost to a tax receipt and all that but let's say for the sake of argument here there's no cost. They may still say no, but has your department made any approaches since . . .

MR. MACDONELL: No. As a matter of fact, if they want to give us land, call us. There are a lot of landowners in Nova Scotia, so we're not calling them to ask if you want to give us land, but if they're interested - you say there are people along there who are interested, so if they're interested, then by all means have them call us. We would be glad to chat, but I don't think we're going through the phone book trying to phone people and ask them.

So if you know of some who are interested - because that's actually not necessarily related to this, but I mean I go to my local Shell station to get gas some days and people approach me, they have land that they would like to sell to the government, and actually we bought some from that very intervention. So, yes, all they've got to do is call us. We're always interested in purchasing land and if we can do it based on the criteria - this would be slightly different but, yes, we would take a look at it for sure.

MR. YOUNGER: I appreciate that people can call you. I guess what I have to wonder is you have a provincial staff person who sits on the Canal Commission and is aware of this list, and you've been given this list and there are three parcels mentioned with PID numbers and everything on the list that you've had for . . .

MR. MACDONELL: But the owners of those haven't approached us, have they - have the owners of those lands approached us?

MR. YOUNGER: Not to my knowledge.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, if you think they want to sell it, have them approach us, you know. I think what you're saying is the Canal Commission would like us to purchase these lands and have identified the lands - is that what you're saying?

MR. YOUNGER: In perhaps all three of these cases, but certainly two of them I'm aware of, the commission has had discussions at various times and there is interest. I think it's all about, you know, who makes the first call and in some cases there's interest in arranging it as a gift potentially. But I guess what I don't understand is your department is aware of it because you have a staff person on the commission who's aware of it and it has been presented to you previously by the commission - I understand why you wouldn't go through the phone book and call anybody who maybe has land, but when you know that there's a possibility, why wouldn't somebody just pick up the phone and call when you've been given the PID number, the owner, the whole bit, and say, listen, we've already had some . . .

MR. MACDONELL: But they want to sell the land - so what you're saying is these people want to sell the land?

MR. YOUNGER: Well, in this case it might even be a gift, you know, this was in the document you received a month ago.

MR. MACDONELL: And they don't want to call us, you're thinking?

MR. YOUNGER: They haven't called you, so I'm guessing they're expecting that somebody from the province might give them a call.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

MR. YOUNGER: I'm just wondering why - you know, I assume you called the Irvings or you called the other land . . .

MR. MACDONELL: I think they may have called us. Look, somebody may have called these people. I don't have that answer for you, so I mean they might be ready to sign on the dotted line right now for all I know. I got to tell you, the preoccupation with my land services people has been . . .

MR. YOUNGER: Very busy.

MR. MACDONELL: . . . some other stuff, up to March 31^st, and they may well have made these contacts, and I can find that out for you. But it seems to me that these are private landowners and they want to part with land and they haven't called us - it would seem like an odd thing to me, if they want us to have it. But otherwise, yes, we can approach them, but I'd be curious as to why they haven't, if that's their intent.

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you. I think some of them - like I look at No. 6 on the list, which is actually owned by an estate at the moment. I mean the thing that I find baffling is that there is a piece of land that has already been designated by the provincial government as a "special place" under the Special Places Act. So it's obviously already a piece of land that we have decided has significant archeological interest to the province. It's a piece of land that has been identified numerous times over the years, both by provincial folks and also by the Canal Commission, to the province - and predating your time as minister.

I mean there's a perfect example of one where, okay, we know it's now owned by an estate, the staff representative on the commission knows it is now owned by an estate, the commission has told the ministry it is owned by an estate, and the province has gone ahead and designated it a special place, so they can't do anything with it anyway. One would think that that would - like I understand why you wouldn't call and say, oh, that's a nice woodlot, I think we might want to buy that, but I don't understand why, by this point, especially after it was designated a special place, somebody wouldn't have called and said I think we should own that.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, if the designation means that it is restricted in what can be done, it might fulfill our needs without worrying about owning it. And maybe it is like I indicated, this might already be in the works. I just can't give you an answer for that, that it is or it isn't, but I can get an answer for you by tomorrow probably.

MR. YOUNGER: The last thing I want to address, and then I'll be turning the rest of my time over to the member for Kings West, who will ask you about something else - I'm sure you are happy to go to a different subject.

You know it's funny, you go around the world and the Shubenacadie Canal, when you go to canal conferences, is recognized as a significant site, both archeologically, historically and otherwise around the world. It is ironic that a lot of people in Nova Scotia don't really know that. I'll call it the Shubenacadie waterway, maybe I'm better saying, because really it's that whole corridor that was used by the Mi'kmaq and then subsequently used - some of our greatest or most well-known Nova Scotians - Samuel Cunard, Alexander Keith, and so forth - were all involved in building this thing.

It is rapidly falling into the water and yet we have a commission where people are not - they don't get any pay, they don't get mileage, they don't get anything, and what frustrates me is that when they look at their annual operating subsidy from the province, which I think is around $32,000 or $40,000, give or take, which hasn't gone up in a dog's age, they have looked at ways to raise the money to do these things without coming to you for capital money, by doing fundraising campaigns, yet they can't get the money, the increase in the annual operating grant, to hire a fundraiser and so forth - they managed to get the city to pay for a fundraising study for them, which was pretty good.

What I'm concerned about is they're looking for ways other than your budget to fund this, yet they can't get the $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 extra a year in the operating grant to let them go that route. So then when they come and they say we've found $1 million, but for want of the province being a partner in this, we can't do it that way either. There's got to be a solution here. Either they're going to be coming to you, or whatever ministry, looking for money, or they go off and do it themselves, but they need to be given the resources. They are mandated under provincial legislation to do this work, yet they are basically being kneecapped from doing it because there's no money.

They are fortunate in that they've managed to cook up some deals that allow someone else to pay the power bill at their building and all that, because otherwise the building wouldn't be open either because the grant they get wouldn't even cover the power bill or the plowing of their parking lot, let alone the maintenance that they are legislatively required to do. I'm just wondering, do you have any ideas of what the long-term solution to this problem is?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think the long-term solution is more money, and if it was possible to get them that I'd be glad to do that, but I'm not going to tell you that that just moved to the top of the list. It is one that we're aware of, it's one that if it's going to stay with my department - and I'm thinking it is - that if we could help them out better, we would. I'd like to, but presently I can't. So long term, I'm not sure. I'm thinking the next three or four years, while we're balancing the books, I don't see any big flood of extra money. Actually I'm even thinking of the things that the department deals with on the parks that we can't even find enough money for.

So yes, it's another one of those items that I would like to raise higher as a priority amongst a number of things that I'd like to raise as priorities, that I can see over time have really never gotten the funding that they require, but I can't make them a promise - I'm not going to make them a promise I can't keep, I can tell you that.

[6:15 p.m.]

MR. YOUNGER: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister. I guess I would just leave it as saying that this is obviously no different than a park, it's the trail system that links and it's a waterway, but more important I think we need to understand that this is a provincial body constituted by provincial legislation that has a provincial mandate and a provincial requirement to achieve certain goals - no different, although obviously of lesser importance than, say, the Health Department or something.

The Shubenacadie Canal Commission Act requires the department to appoint people to a commission and requires them to get this work done, but if the province doesn't either give them the tools by way of an increased operating grant, whether it is $10,000 or $20,000 extra, that will give them the resources to go find the money elsewhere, or start funding them with capital dollars, then arguably they are in violation of their own legislation.

MR. MACDONELL: I'd like to read the legislation actually. It sounds to me that it's part of the Financial Measures Act, the way you have spelled it out - that because they exist, they should have money, like lots of other . . .

MR. YOUNGER: Well, they do get money - I don't want to suggest they get zero, because that would be inaccurate. I'm not sure what the grant - it was $32,000, it may still be, but it is certainly not very much. I'm sure you're complying with the Financial Measures Act and thus by allocating them a line of money because they do get that. My concern is that if they are responsible for all these things such as maintenance and reconstruction - not even so much reconstruction, but just keeping the thing from falling into the water, that takes money and there are only two ways to get it - they either fundraise for it, in which case they need the tools to do that, or they get capital grants, which is a more expensive option for you, in all honesty, so you probably prefer the previous.

I will now turn it over to the member for Kings West.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be back to follow up on a few of the areas that we were embarking on the other day.

First of all, I took a closer look at a few of the numbers in the actual estimates here for Natural Resources, the Estimates and Supplementary Detail, Page 17.4: Program Development, 2009-10 estimate was $4 million, the 2009-10 forecast was $3.7 million. The 2010-11 estimate is down to $1.4 million and I was wondering if you could provide some explanation. That's a pretty significant drop here and I'm just wondering, what will be impacted as a result of that?

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, to the member, that $4.027 million, community trust fund money of $2.5 million came out of that and went to Bowater and that's why you're down to $1.4 million.

MR. GLAVINE: Okay, so that was a straight off, one time probably, development, that's good. Looking at one other figure, Park Development had a big increase. Is this in any way related to, you know, obviously wanting to renew our park system but also interprovincial tourism, I think, could very well be a significant part of our future planning for tourism in Nova Scotia. It's looking like we're not going to get some of the influx that perhaps we traditionally had, especially from the northeast, and I think having a more appealing, a more viable park system, and is this a small number of parks, is this part of a bigger plan for park renewal? That's a pretty considerable investment so I was just wondering if you could provide some background on that.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I'm wondering if the member has a number in his head.

MR. GLAVINE: Okay, Park Development in 2009-10 estimate was $133,000, it looks like, and it's going to $738,000 estimate in 2010-11.

MR. MACDONELL: There was about $500,000 that was transferred to TCA for park infrastructure and we got that back, so that really is the increase that you're seeing there.

MR. GLAVINE: So it's not necessarily translating into a major renewal.

MR. MACDONELL: I do want to mention to the member, although I'm not sure where he'll find this line item, but Laurie Park, I think the Mira - yes, Laurie Park, Whycocomagh Park, Mira Park and Cape Chignecto Park, we are spending money on those four parks; as a matter of fact, Laurie Park will be closed this season to do the work. I think the biggest expenditure is in Laurie Park - $2.5 million, yes, so it would be about $1.2 million. Anyway, the other ones are quite a bit lesser numbers. I think because there was some community trust fund (Interruption) Park infrastructure that we - the direction, I think, you're hoping we might go is the direction we're hoping we might go, that parks need some investment. So we're trying to improve those four, and I think this coming year.

So what the future may hold, if it's possible to kind of maintain that kind of investment and say do four more in the next year, but I don't want the member to think that the $500,000 we talked about, we would certainly hope to spend that on parks, but these were kind of big projects that were funded because they needed the work and the investment. If we look at the draw that they have for the public, they were worth doing.

MR. GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, just in dealing with parks, do you have any figures around the trending of the past five years in terms of use of our provincial parks? It may not have any breakdown of Nova Scotians or Maritimers versus those from other areas who come to our provincial parks. What kind of trending is taking place with use of our park system?

MR. MACDONELL: I'd be glad to try to get that for you. I know we have data on a wide variety and I know that it seems - the number that sticks in my mind is, and I'm thinking of camping in parks - about 90,000 people a year which, I thought, was a significant number, I didn't realize it was that high. If I'm wrong on that, I'll correct myself.

If we do it jurisdictionally, we would know how many from outside Nova Scotia or not, that kind of data, but I think it's not declining. I think there is good uptake on our parks and the use of our parks. I think you would probably recognize any of our parks that have a trail component seem to get a lot of draw. Even in the Shubenacadie Wildlife Park, when the park is closed, people are still going there in the winter and using the trails.

I can try to get you better information. I think the uptake is good.

MR. GLAVINE: I was thinking of our provincial parks, the one that comes to mind in southwestern Nova Scotia is obviously the national park, Kejimkujik. I think the park system and some way of doing a greater amount of advertising and some unique features of some of these parks may be one of the ways of offsetting what we know will be some decline of tourism in southwestern Nova Scotia by losing the ferry, at least in the short term. That's why I was looking at what's happening with our park system, generally, and if there are any trends, certain regions of the province that we can capitalize on, in particular southwestern Nova Scotia. Thank you for that, minister.

Shortly after I started, in my first hour on Natural Resources, I was wanting the minister to go into some detail about the Northern Pulp land purchase. I think, from what I read by way of op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and some e-mails, was whether or not Nova Scotians got a good deal here. Nova Scotians need to have a sense of, is this a good deal? Also, why didn't government just include the protected lands as part of the original $75 million loan?

That money's then buying the protected lands separately, the coastal lands and so forth. It seems to convolute the deal as far as I view it, and I'm wondering about some details on this.

MR. MACDONELL: I am going to get you that. As a matter of fact, we had it here the other day when you left so I'm pretty sure I don't have it on me.

I can speak to the deal a bit without a piece of paper. I don't know if there's a specific place you want to go. About the only area that I don't have an answer, in the sense that I think the purchase price was about $175, which you raised in the House in Question Period one day, and I said it was closer to $200. There was an additional $20 fee per acre, which is the thing I don't have on the tip of my tongue, as to what the consideration was to compensate for that $20 which brought it up to about $195 per acre.

It's my understanding there were conditions that we bought ours back. We bought the 55,000 acres for $300 an acre. There was to be - there's a negotiated benefits agreement with the Pictou Landing First Nations, and I'm going to get you this on paper. They were to contribute, I think, $5 million toward odor reduction at the mill.

I think in the first 10 years we have an option to buy the land; the first five of that we can buy it at the purchase price. For the next five years I think we only have an option at that price for 55,000 acres, and the second five years, and then the rest of it would be at market. If they sell any of the land I think they have to give the province half the profit. I think there's a condition on that related to at what stage they are in - if they are closer to the end of their loan period, obviously the conditions are stricter at the start than they are at the end. It would be based on how much of the loan they have left owing to us.

The 55,000 acres - probably what we survey it at will be slightly larger in the sense that if they - they would probably run their survey line in a straight line rather than in kind of jigs and jogs, so I think it's expected that we will probably get about 5,000 acres more that would be acreage that the lumber companies or the mill could harvest outside of the 55,000. It's not necessarily deemed to be the ecologically sensitive area, but just for convenience sake it's the cheapest way to run the lines to accommodate the land.

[6:30 p.m.]

Those are the bullet points I can think of off the top of my head. There's not an awful lot more to it, but there's a little bit more that the member might be interested in, so when I can get that to you - I apologize for that, because I had it on the idea that I would get it to you.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Where exactly - I didn't go to my maps to locate the land, but where is most of it located? Secondly, was Northern Pulp concerned in terms of fibre supply? Again, we have 30,000 to 40,000 small-woodlot owners who always have stumpage available to the mills. I'm just wondering, why this necessity to get the Neenah Paper lands?

MR. MACDONELL: I think we were - I don't know necessarily if I could say we were worried about supply, because you might assume, and I think we could have assumed, that if another entity - like Wagner, for example - had bought that land, then I think we probably could assume that that wood fibre would be available to the mill. There's no reason we should assume it wouldn't.

The issue was the lack of security around whether or not it would be supplied to the mill. The jobs associated with the mill - and although there's a number of sawmills in the area that might be considered, there basically were about five significant sawmills that are on an exchange with Northern, as far as Northern supplying them logs from the lands that they harvest. Northern was still harvesting - Neenah owned the land, so Northern was still harvesting that land, although in agreement with Neenah that they could. They were supplying roughly five sawmills and then the waste was going back to the pulp mill in this exchange that they did.

I think for security reasons, I mean the price - I guess we could always say it could be lower, they could have given them the land, but I think in the real world this was bargain-basement low in the price of the land. That's probably partly related to the present economic downturn and how much ability Neenah might have had, the difficulty in trying to unload their land without chopping it up - and the size of the parcel, you know, you're getting close to 500,000 acres. You can buy 10 acres probably cheaper than you can buy one, so the sheer volume would probably mean they would market it at a lower price.

Yes, there were a number of concerns, I think, that the province had and I probably was one of the people who said we should probably buy it ourselves. According to regularly used accounting principles - whatever that phrase is that we keep repeating - when it came to booking that, it would go on the debt and so that was a bit of an issue. We could lend them the money, they could purchase the land. If they default on their loan, it comes back to the people of Nova Scotia. So we're concerned about the jobs, we're concerned about access to wood. The fact that Wagner kind of got the other half of the Neenah land, I don't think that necessarily means that Wagner wasn't fine for Northern Pulp to deal with - and they probably do on a regular basis - but to have a mill and not have a land base would be a bit of an issue. So I think we felt that for the economics of it and to ensure that it stayed associated with the mill, it was something we should consider. It's a loan, not a grant.

MR. GLAVINE: Is the timeline for repayment very exacting in terms of the demands here on Northern Pulp? Is that laid out in the deal and will those details be able to be provided?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, the loan is amortized over 30 years, with interest payable only over the first five - interest only is payable over the first five - so it's 30 years on that.

MR. GLAVINE: One of the questions that was raised around Northern Pulp is their harvesting practices. I think it's no secret that they haven't necessarily been subscribing to sustainable harvesting and the stewardship practices, unlike NewPage which FSC is very strongly part of their mandate. If the province is putting up $75 million, and I know that the resources strategy is not on the books of the province, why wouldn't there be some safeguards around the way we do business in terms of forest practices?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, that's a good question. I guess it comes back to my thoughts of what will come out of the forest strategy for DNR - and you referred to it - that I'm not sure anybody would gain in terms of applying a different standard to them than any other mill in the province. So actually they could make the argument, and I'm sure they would likely make several - but to be at a competitive disadvantage, you know, which was what we were trying to eliminate, we were trying to maximize our security as much as possible rather than put in pitfalls.

I think whatever we do for forestry practices, that it applies to everybody, you know, I think across-the-board would be a more appropriate mechanism. I think they would probably make the argument: don't penalize us more so than some other operation. So, you know, to try to maintain a level playing field for harvesting practices across the province, that's what we're hoping will come out of our recommendations for the forest strategy - part.

MR. GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, when that does come forward, will these commitments here be grandfathered or will that become the determinant for future forest practices? Once that either comes by way of legislation or by Cabinet decree, what is the plan in terms of existing contracts that do exist?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not entirely clear where you're going in terms of the commitments because the commitment of dollars and the mill's commitment to odour reduction and the benefits agreement with the First Nations community, all these things are in the agreement, there's no backing out by the mill on their commitment. Because there was no commitment, or no mechanism I guess, whereby we said you must harvest this way or that way and in respect to that, there's no assurance to them that they can maintain harvesting in a particular way out of this agreement.

So what will come out of our strategy as far as the forestry policy, probably if I was minister and wanted to act as quickly as I could, I'm thinking probably through regulation because I think this process, at some point we're going to look at a lot of legislation that affects the Department of Natural Resources. I'm assuming that a fair bit of that legislation will probably have to be rewritten - some of it hasn't been changed or looked at much in 40 years maybe. So that will be kind of a legislative side of that.

It comes to, if we want to impose changes in harvesting practices, probably the code of practices would be the place where we could go the fastest - I mean in that now we have our stream buffers, wildlife clumps, and a certain amount of coarse, woody debris that's representative of the stand and has to be left on the forest floor. So if we're going to impose any changes on harvesting practices or whatever practices, probably to do that the quickest is that would be the place I would say we would do that without necessarily waiting for kind of a more protracted process around changing legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has just about expired - one more question, perhaps, for the Liberal caucus.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other question was in addition to coastal lands. Was there another block adding to the 12 per cent of protected lands in that purchase or was the addition to the 12 per cent primarily the coastal lands?

MR. MACDONELL: Are you're thinking of the 22 kilometres?

MR. GLAVINE: That's the Wagner deal, but was there some inside of this deal?

MR. MACDONELL: My deputy says yes. I can't think of what that is because it was about four counties, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired. I understand that the NDP caucus has some questions, as well, but we're going back to the Progressive Conservative caucus for an hour, starting at 6:43 p.m. and finishing at 7:43 p.m.

The honourable member for Argyle.

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be back and ask a few more questions, more pertaining to some of my past times and the people I get to go camping with, talking about some of our parks.

The first question will revolve around Ellenwood Lake Provincial Park, which is actually not in my riding but is just next door, and I do get to use it once in awhile as I bring my trailer in to do a little bit of camping with the children. I'm just wondering if there are any upgrade plans for Ellenwood this year. It does need - I think the comfort station is getting a little outdated and they need some work there. I'm just wondering if there are any plans and, maybe more generally, what kinds of upgrades might we expect to the park system this year?

MR. MACDONELL: I'll get someone to respond specifically about that park, whether we have somebody who could do that right now. There are four that are going to have some significant dollars spent on them this year: Cape Chignecto, Mira River, Laurie Park and Whycocomagh. Those four are targeted for funding.

We'll get you some information on Ellenwood because I don't have what might possibly happen there - although the strategy process, parks was one of the four panels of expertise that we put together. I know we're going to look at the whole park system and I think probably the conundrum I'm expecting to find is it will mean we should spend some money.

[6:45 p.m.]

Anyway, along with all the large land purchases and what we've been able to do in the past year, there are parks we own that are fantastic places. I have to say, on the camping side I'm impressed. I was told - at least I thought I heard - 90,000 people camp in our parks in a year. We have some beautiful places for Nova Scotians to use.

So as much as I can, at some point I'll get you that information about what might happen with Ellenwood. I'd be glad to do that for you.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much. Ellenwood over the last number of years has gotten a little bit of update, some things have been changed, but there hasn't been any real big work done on it in awhile so it would be nice to see. I think the thing that Ellenwood lacks is a lot of the trail system - there's really no trail system that you can use within it. I find that sometimes, especially when you have children - I have two boys and we love to do a little bit of mountain biking, some hiking. Ellenwood's great, but you go swimming and you stay at the campfire and that's about all you get to do. It would be nice to see some more investment done to that one.

The next one we use quite often is Thomas Raddall down in Port Mouton - I guess Port Joli is what you'd call it - and it's a phenomenal park. The caretaker there, Norm Anderson, is a phenomenal individual as well. But there are a couple of issues there. One is actually access to a couple of the beaches. There are pathways and if you're able to walk long distances, you're okay. If you are slightly disabled or elderly, you would probably have a real hard time getting down to them. I know there has been a proposal for Thomas Raddall, especially when it comes to the day-use beach, to have some kind of access - and I know the deputy stays there once in awhile as well - to try to find a way to maybe get a car closer to the park. It would have to be done in a certain way.

The road system is there so it wouldn't take a whole lot of work, it just needs a bit of a turnaround so an individual who is mobility challenged could actually get to the beach. The beach is gorgeous. We have these little parcels of land around the province and this is probably one of the more beautiful ones, but few people get to see it because it's that difficult to really get out to. There are times when that's probably a good thing. I'm just wondering, it's more of an update that if it ever came across your desk, to look at that favourably because that's something that park could really use.

Then the broader issue of electricity in our parks. The frustrating part I have is that I only have a small camper and I can't pull a generator along with me, but there are a lot of campers that are big and have big generators hooked up to them. There are a lot of people who run their generators all day. Now, the whole idea of camping is to get away from it all and listen to nature and participate in it, but those roaring generators tend to really tick you off. I was wondering if there's any move afoot to really look at maybe some of our planning, to include some more electrified sites so that people can leave the damn generators at home - or at their constituency offices. (Laughter) I hear the NDP making funny noises over there so I thought I'd throw that joke in for their edification tonight.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess more power to you. (Laughter) I don't know, actually, it's a good question. I'll see if there's a plan in the works, actually. So are you telling me there's no power in that camping park?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Ellenwood does not have any serviced sites. I'm not saying full service but electricity would probably be a good start, as well as in Thomas Raddall, I don't think there are any electrical sites in that one either, but just because of those darn generators that run all day.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, interesting. I'll run that through the system and see what the potential is.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Because in my mind it sort of defeats the purpose a little bit because you're there to enjoy nature and as much as electricity - to me it wouldn't matter because my little camper has a 12-volt battery and it runs my lights and I'm pretty happy with that. For those people who have the bigger RVs, they've got their microwave to run and they've got their TV to run, and God bless them, I don't know why they're camping.

Anyway, that's more of a question for later on but I do want to say that we do still have a very good system and I'm going to try my best to get to as many of them again this year as I can, because there's only so long that you can visit with your children. Like I said, mine are 11 years old and 7 years old so they're still the perfect age. Our camping system has a lot to offer, so anything that you can add to it will be well received by me as well as the people we camp with.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, since you raise it now, I'll consider it to be the current issue. (Laughter) What I kind of hope or think might come out of the strategy process is that there be some of our campgrounds - there are people who are looking for that kind of nature-based experience and they're not looking for electricity. So yes, it's a question of what parks might be the appropriate ones that we think that's the important way to go, without electricity or amenities, and other ones that you would or you might go 50-50.

Anyway, it's a good point that you raise. I'll try to find out if there's a plan afoot around those parks and doing something in the upcoming season or, if not, at least I can get you some specific information on those.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Thank you very much and sort of my last question before I turn it over to the member for Inverness, I'm just wondering about deer populations. Maybe you've already gone through this one but I'm just wondering if we're seeing a rise in the deer population, because in my seven years of being an MLA I have never seen more deer on the side of the road than I have lately. I'm just wondering, is there a rise and, subsequent to that, is there a plan to open up the doe hunt any more and just try to keep that population down?

MR. MACDONELL: We don't have the final tally for last season but I think you could kind of take a leap and say the numbers really haven't been dropping. I'm sure with the winter we just had, that wouldn't take too many deer out of the population. At some point soon we'll have those numbers, but I think the deer population is really quite healthy. We're looking at probably creating more zones so we can get better population numbers and actually by having more of them, having them obviously in smaller areas where we can kind of target some places that - I think Amherst to Antigonish is one zone. So when you try to do your population stuff or target areas for a certain number of animals you might want to see come out of that zone, if we could create more zones we could kind of target better.

That doesn't answer your question for the past season, but we'll have those numbers soon and I'd be glad to get those for you as soon as they're made available. You didn't ask about bears but 1,300 bears last year, and I have to say it amazes me. The trappers take about 2,000 coyotes a year too. Actually, I don't think we have the final number on that because the price started out this season quite low. March 31^st was the end of the season but I know for previous years, 2,000/2,100 coyotes was kind of the standard. Anyway, on the deer numbers, I'll try to get you the most up-to-date ones as soon as they're available.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: The final comment to that, before I pass it over, ultimately I've been in my house for 13 years now and probably the first 10 of it I never saw a deer anywhere on my property; now I've got droppings within 10 feet of my back step. So to me that means there are more deer around than there were.

Thank you very much for those comments, I'll look forward to those numbers as they come forward. I pass my time off to the MLA for Inverness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Inverness.

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Minister, thank you for this opportunity to ask some questions about Natural Resources issues. I don't have too many so I'd like to start out with a couple of questions around silviculture work.

I understand there's a rate per hectare given for silviculture work. Some years back the original top rate was $750 per hectare. This question centres around spraying versus other methods of silviculture work, more hands-on methods. I believe the current top rate per hectare is $350, although I think the rates aren't necessarily consistent across the province and there is some negotiation - if companies are doing the work, they may negotiate for different rates with those that are doing it. The question is - silviculture work is more expensive than spraying - should we be looking at changing that rate because I believe the $350 rate may be more in tune with what it would cost to spray an area, a hectare? I'll leave that for your commentary.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think when you start talking about silviculture my question would be, how many days do you have to sit down and chat about this?

The program is generally delivered through stewardship agreements between mills, contractors, and I think it could be with private landowners as well. You're right, there are definitely some indications, certainly from the contractors who deliver the service because when you refer to silviculture work, there's now seven categories and so the spraying is one and I'm going to say PCT, which is pre-commercial thinning, which is probably where you're going with this.

There seems to be a fair bit of controversy between the contractor and the rate. If you throw into the mix the fact that the department actually looks at the credit - there's a credit system. I'm not even going to say this correctly, I'm sure, it's quite confusing, but the government bases it - it used to be one-third, one-third, one-third: the property owner, the mill and the government. We funded it to one-third. Presently, in this downturn, we're funding it all. That's also with 50-cent dollars from the federal government on that.

I think you'll find if your question is coming from a contractor on silviculture work, he may try to explain to you when you see him next time around the fact that the province kind of bases its contribution on the credit amount, which to my mind would indicate that's the government's third, but what gets paid to the contractor doesn't necessarily indicate the other two thirds. There does seem to me to be some kind of disconnect on this. I have asked a fair number of questions.

One thing I do intend - maybe the most sensible way to try to answer your question is to say that I do intend to do more investigation of this to try to see if those rates should actually be changed. I'm assuming it may come out of the strategy process, but certainly something that I've kind of thrown into the mix is whether or not that work should come back into the department and we collect the funds and do the whole thing ourselves. But I think probably by now enough of the contractors have indicated there's not enough in it.

[7:00 p.m.]

It deserves a look, but just exactly where it should land I don't know. I think they have a valid point and the explanation of the credit system in association with the payment fee did not make sense to me, although I think I understood it. Why we go that way, it struck me as though we seem to be preoccupied with the money the contractor might make in relation to the work being done. Anyway, it's one I'd like to have a much closer look at for sure.

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. I would appreciate it if you'd have a closer look at that just to make sure there's not more of an incentive to spray versus doing more hands-on silviculture work.

MR. MACDONELL: That's something we are going to look at.

MR. MACMASTER: The other item involving silviculture is, there are evaluations done on the silviculture work and a key point that was brought to me by somebody was, there should be a time frame that the department evaluates the silviculture work. In some cases they've waited three years to review work and by that point the forest has changed a lot. The person who came to me about this point felt it would be better to try to do it within one year. That way a more accurate evaluation could be completed because the work would be more freshly completed.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, you're right.

MR. MACMASTER: I just raise that as a point. I'm not asking you to make any comments unless you'd like to, but have you any comments on that?

MR. MACDONELL: I do. As a matter of fact, I was told that we only inspect about 20 per cent. That struck me as kind of low.

MR. MACMASTER: It sounds almost like an audit - maybe if they target certain ones here and there it kind of keeps people in check.

MR. MACDONELL: That may be. Whatever resources we have, you know, it might be an issue about trying to have enough people on the ground all the time to inspect silviculture plots. But, for sure, I thought it seemed like a low amount.

MR. MACMASTER: I have a couple more questions. One is just about biomass, and NewPage is a very important employer in the area that I represent. They just announced earlier, or I guess it was last week, their deal with Emera to start a project using biomass.

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. MACMASTER: I thought it was good. I feel good about what they're doing there until somebody can convince me otherwise. What would you say to people who are concerned about using biomass?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, well, I think that the concern is a legitimate one. I mean, obviously, there are two things to consider. One is do we have the volume, like is it sustainable? The other part of that is how are you harvesting it? So one of the things I think I've always said in Opposition, you know, around the issue of clear-cutting and whatever, is that my worry was we were overharvesting. It was not just how we harvest but the amount we harvest. All indications would tell us that that Crown block, about 1.5 million acres, what NewPage has in their licence can certainly stand the 175,000-ton additional harvest that we just gave them permission to harvest.

Actually, it seems to me that there was another component to this or that NewPage was either supplying another mill, or actually for some period of time their harvest was greater than it presently is and that had fallen back for whatever reason. That's why we're quite sure that that volume exists because they hadn't been harvesting it for sometime.

So that's the volume issue and we would not allow them to sell biomass. In other words, they were limited to 175,000 tons off the Crown land for this project and they were not to harvest 40,000/50,000 tons to sell to other operations. They were not allowed to do that. They're not allowed to do whole-tree harvesting, and because they were FSC certified we knew they had an auditing system around the appropriateness of clear-cutting and whatever. I have my concerns. I think presently they're at about 60 per cent clear-cutting and it's my understanding that over time that's to be reduced under their FSC certification. So that would be one that I would tend to kind of watch closely but I'm willing to - because they made the decision to go to FSC on their own, as a corporate decision, which I have to applaud them for, and under that they are to manage their clear-cutting or reduce it and they're not using herbicides on their operations.

That doesn't say that necessarily everything has been easy for them to do that. They've had to go to a larger seedling because they're not spraying, competition, and try to get those seedlings to have a better start, and probably what you referred to as the mechanical means for doing silviculture work would be a place where they probably have to use it more often than other operations. So I think I'm kind of making a long answer long.

Anyway, there were these considerations around sustainability, harvesting practices, no whole-tree harvesting, and also there was a time - like we have a 25-year agreement, you know, with them on this and that's kind of, I guess, a moveable target. Every five years we will kind of sit down and look at whether we want to extend it five years, I think, and also with the idea that if anything was to ever happen to the mill, the co-gen facility would exist, and we would try to accommodate the wood supply. If it became a stand-alone entity and the mill shut down, that would still continue as a power generator.

Also, we have in that agreement that if we allow another project in the province, a similar project, that if we allow lesser conditions on a new project, it applies to this one and if we allow stricter conditions, it applies to this one. I'm not keen to allow lesser conditions.

We did this in the absence of a biomass policy. We had the strategy process going on, but I don't think I had the chair at the minister's desk warm when this was coming across my desk. We wanted this to be at least a template for where we might go with a biomass policy, or other projects they would see the government had written this agreement with them to give them access to use that wood for a different purpose. That was the reason they had to come to ask for consent because they already had a licence on the land anyway. Those are some of the components of that agreement.

I guess your question was around if it's sustainable. Yes, we're fairly confident that this is probably as good a mix as you can have. I think, and someone made the comment - I saw in the Atlantic Forestry journal - that I don't necessarily see an advantage of turning the province into a moonscape, burning the trees in the name of reducing emissions in the environment. If this is going to work, it has to work on all levels. We have to think that we still have a forest that acts as a forest, and we can make the environment a better place.

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, I appreciate your comments. NewPage is a significant employer and I think your decision around the biomass will help them. We're seeing them hire new people, which is nice, which is a surprise in an industry that's quite depressed, the pulp and paper industry. I know from looking at their stocks, they're not ones you'd want to necessarily be investing in. But NewPage seems to be doing something, they seem to be stronger, they seem to be the fittest. They have good equipment, they have good relations with government, we have an experienced workforce there, and I think this is almost taking it to a new level. I appreciate your comments and it's very important economically for the area.

The next and last question I have is on the nursery in Strathlorne. I want to thank you again for ensuring that the operations will continue this year. The question I have is, there was some funding announced for the nursery to the tune of $1.14 million. The purpose of the funding was to help those who might be negatively affected by downturns in the economy - in this case the nursery - because of the decline in the pulp and paper industry there's a decline in demand for seedlings. Strathlorne, like other operations, is affected by that and there was some funding announced in the Spring of 2009, I believe. Specifically, are those funds still there? If they are, is there a plan for their expenditure?

MR. MACDONELL: I would say in the present climate, no. They're not department funds, they're provincial funds. The fact that we didn't continue down that track of trying to expend those funds this year would probably indicate to you that we're probably not going to think about that for sometime into the future, although I've never raised the issue with my department staff as to the purpose of those funds, whether it was infrastructure or what. That's a question we both would like to have answered. I can try to get you some information on that, I'm kind of curious myself.

The fact that Strathlorne is still four million trees, I think previously six million would be kind of where our target would be. But at that number, kind of on the cost-recovery side, they're holding their own which I kind of see as a good sign, even in the recession and the downturn in the industry, that they've been able to do that.

Having had an opportunity, although it was kind of my intention to maybe direct my staff to think about what are the other possible things that we could do there to try to help ensure its longevity, but I think it's one of those things that quite often could get criticism in the sense that, probably more from the private sector, you shouldn't be in the tree-growing business, we can do that better. But, you know, in terms of lots of things that governments do, I think it probably has a really nice message to the world that, you know, we're interested in growing trees for our province and the province owns the facility.

In terms of rural economic development, it has got what I hope will be fairly secure jobs for a number of people in the area. I'm not sure that we need to have all of the eggs in somebody else's basket so, you know, I think for as long as we're able to maintain it based on what it produces and doesn't seem to be a real draw on the finances of the province, it's creating work and the people there are spending money in their communities. That's kind of what we would envision as a role of government.

People could make the argument, well, we could put a Department of Health office there or we could put some other branch of government, you know, we could create jobs that way, but I think this suits very well with the goals we try to achieve in terms of forestry, in terms of rural economic development. It's certainly a much better fit there than it would be on Hollis Street. So, yes, I think there's a lot of good in keeping that there and keeping the people working there and it hasn't been a significant detriment financially - actually none, as far as I can see - for the province. So I'm kind of keen to keep it, at least as it is, and if it's possible to expand its role, I'd be interested in that as well.

[7:15 p.m.]

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, and I can certainly appreciate the importance of the private sector and being careful not to interfere with what they're trying to do. Would it be possible for you to be open to, say, work done locally? I know there's a concern about maybe marketing the facility but if there are ideas that the people locally come up with that may not be things that are being done by the private sector, would the department be open to looking at those ideas and possibly expanding the scope of the operations even in small ways?

I can think of one example that was brought to my attention, which was the potential to try - and we're moving away from seedlings here - grape production. I know there was one example of Jost winery. There may be an opportunity to test out varieties of grapes that might be suitable for our climate in Nova Scotia and if it's something that they could test there and perhaps generate some revenue from, would the department be open to things like that?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think I would be, so I assume that I carry some weight in the department. We have the Agricultural College doing research on needle drop on Christmas trees. So we have kind of a forestry which we always kind of deem Christmas trees to be more in forestry than they are in agriculture. So, yes, I was thinking more along the lines of other hardwood species - and I know Scott and Stewart do some of that as well - but I'd consider it, for sure. If we have kind of excess capacity or we have some ability to do that, I mean kind of at first blush I can say I'd be interested. We would spell that out better to see exactly what it is but, sure, that's kind of that thinking-outside-the-box thing that I think we might do. The fact that I'm Minister of Agriculture, and Natural Resources as well, it kind of helps me see things that we might do.

I think we thought about the Advance Payments Program which applies to greenhouses for agriculture. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, I think it would even apply to greenhouses, not just for growing tomatoes or cucumbers but for greenhouses if you're growing poinsettias, but yet it doesn't apply, as far as I understand, for Scott &Stewart who are growing trees. So we've been kind of looking at that to say is that actually fair, you know, it's a greenhouse operation. I mean poinsettias aren't food but they can make use of that Advance Payments Program but yet Scott &Stewart aren't able to make use of that Advance Payments Program. So it's one that I think we should be thinking, you know, there might be some possibility of being a little more flexible in those programs - well, I guess so far we haven't done it but I still haven't had a clear explanation as to why we can't.

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, and I will try to help locally to bring ideas forward to you, and there are just two that I'll mention quickly. One is another idea about supplying trees for planting, for river restoration, along the edges of rivers to ensure that the riverbanks don't erode - yes, river enhancement - because if the banks erode, then you have more shallow pools of water and the water heats up, which is not good for our fish. They don't vote but they're still important. So that was one idea. Another idea was reforestation of national parks, maybe there's something that we can do collaboratively with the federal government.

Those are all my questions and I appreciate your concern for the nursery and forestry sector in general. It's important for the area of Inverness and we thank you. I would also like to share my time with the honourable member for Cumberland South.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cumberland South.

HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good evening, minister.

MR. MACDONELL: Good evening.

MR. SCOTT: I just want to say hello to you and your staff, and thank you for the opportunity to again raise some issues and questions around Natural Resources. I would like to start with, last week in the House you'll recall I brought forward an issue that many Cumberland County residents over the last number of months have raised concerns about land that has been purchased from, I believe, J.D. Irving - or Rothesay Paper, I guess - and Wagner as well. I had asked in the House and you had said at the time that if it was possible to release that information around the contracts that you would. I don't know if you've had an opportunity yet, or your staff, to look at those contracts, whether they're public information. I'm sure there's some third-party business information maybe that I'm sure they would want to keep confidential but I'm wondering, have you had an opportunity to look at the contracts themselves to see if it's possible to release that information?

MR. MACDONELL: I haven't done that but you did raise that question. Actually, the executive director for the lands branch was away when you asked that question but she's back now, so I will pursue that for you. I know you were asking questions around the private leases that people had. So is that the aspect of the contracts or did you want the whole, full-meal deal?

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, minister. Actually it's twofold, I guess, and I'm going to get into it in a moment. There's a letter that went from the Municipality of the County of Cumberland to yourself, and maybe you haven't even seen it yet. It's in regard to the purchase of the lands that I've asked about, so I guess it's twofold. First of all, yes, I'm trying to determine what information was given to the private landowner from the department to kind of determine the future of the land, if there was a plan for it, and there are two or three parcels of land down there that come into the equation. Yes, you're right, the issue around camp and cottage leases is very important to those individuals.

I'm really pleased that you're at least reviewing your plans to see if there may be an opportunity to help these folks, many of them have been there for decades. I know of at least one in my own area, maybe someone in the north has offered - one gentleman has some land near the fossil cliffs. It may not be right on the fossil cliffs but the back of it is. He was even interested in maybe making some sort of trade, if he could, to be able to keep his cottage.

Someone else suggested that they be grandfathered. Would it be possible for your department to allow them to maintain at least their dwelling building as long as they survive, and maybe not to be able to pass it on but make that the end of the life of the dwelling or whatever?

I was trying to determine whether, in fact, there was a plan within the department because I think there was either a release or a media interview with someone from your department who had said that all these lands are being acquired in Cumberland, all the parcels of land from all the various companies. The intent was to make them all protected wilderness areas.

I guess I was trying, first of all, to determine what I could through the contracts, whether there may be something there that would at least show us what your plan was for the future of this land. The second thing is, there is a letter that went from the municipality, as I said. I'm not going to read the whole thing, Mr. Minister, but basically one paragraph says, what the municipality has some questions and concerns around now: We cannot understand the inconsistency in the efforts and discussions put forth by provincial departments regarding restrictions in the Chignecto Game Sanctuary lands - an area that is being considered for wilderness designation - the lands between Apple River and Sand River, and an adjacent parcel of land that is also being considered for wilderness designation.

What they're getting at is you have the sanctuary which is 55,000 acres and there's an additional 30,000 around it, or leading from there to the Bay of Fundy, which has been under management of the Department of Natural Resources forever, I guess. There have been several forest fires in there and I personally think - I arranged a tour with elected officials throughout Cumberland County last year, and your staff in Truro and I think Debert did a marvellous presentation in the morning and then did the tour. Unless people actually get an opportunity to see the sanctuary themselves, get in there and see the type of management that has taken place over the years, they really don't have a real appreciation of what's going on there.

I have to say that the Department of Natural Resources - and there's a gentleman in Parrsboro whose name is Eric Leighton, and I always say the sanctuary is Eric's life. He has worked for Natural Resources for a number of years and there isn't anything about that sanctuary that any one of us could ask a question and Eric Leighton doesn't have the answer, it's his life. I think your department has done a tremendous job there in managing that property.

What the municipality is saying, on one hand you have this managed piece of property and the government is looking at protecting it, so putting real restrictions possibly on harvesting or management in the future, even though it has been managed wonderfully for the last decades. But on the other hand you purchase land that's adjacent to it, in the Apple River area, Apple Head, and allow a good portion of it to be harvested. The local county councillor was very upset at municipal council one day and was saying about the devastation from the harvesters and that, so we're trying to determine, is the plan to protect that land as well? If it is, it doesn't make sense to go in there and cut it.

There seems to be inconsistency in regard to one parcel of land that has been under your care for many, many years, which I happen to agree with, by the way. I'd be very happy and I know many people in my area would be very happy if it stayed under the current management plan that it is, because I think it has been done very well. So there's that part of it. Now there's some consideration about protecting it, which would mean that would be the end of forest management but, on the other hand, purchased more land and allowed it basically - in their words - to be devastated with the cutting, and then still planned to protect that when there's not going to be much left to protect when it's over.

That's why I was wondering about getting as much information as I could about the contracts - the information shared between your department and the private companies, the questions you were asking kind of leading into the contracts, and then the contracts themselves, to see if there is some plan for the future for these lands. I know it's a lot of information all at once, minister. That was kind of why I was asking in the House for a copy of the contracts.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I would say if all your questions are going to be like that, I'll get one more before the night is out.

Well, it's a good point. I'm not sure that the information you seek is in the contracts. I'm thinking it's not. But probably the information around the leases, the campsite leases, I'm thinking there's something in the contracts about that. Now, I'm not sure if it's in the contract because it was a purchase, it wasn't really a contract: we bought land, we got a deed. But probably in the agreement that finally got signed prior to the - like when you kind of nail down the conditions and yes, we'll purchase it, if - I think that the landowners, it was really their responsibility to take care of the leases - so I'll go in two different directions here - and some of that didn't get done.

I asked my staff actually sometime ago to kind of re-look at how we do these Crown leases, that's where we started because we have camps on Crown land. So the issue around - because some areas got designated as protected wilderness areas and that's done through the Department of Environment, that's not done through us.

Then there were these questions about these camp leases on these properties. So I think what I kind of indicated to my staff is I wanted to review this program on camp leases, on the Crown anyway, and on those J.D.I. purchased lands where there are camp leases, kind of indicate, well, we don't have to jump on these people too quickly because one gentleman indicated that he would be interested in moving his camp across a lake or to another location. I don't really have a big problem with the idea that someone could stay there for their lifetime and then their lease expires. I don't know what other issues there might be that would complicate that but that strikes me as kind of a reasonable thing. It would be something I would be considering on the Crown leases that we have. So that's kind of all in the works.

You mentioned about the individual who was interested in maybe trading a piece, so depending on what might be - because I'm not sure that all of this is going to come under wilderness protection, that's kind of the highest level of protection, so there are other levels of protection that would still get us to our 12 per cent. They're not all going to come under protected wilderness areas.

[7:30 p.m.]

I'm interested in trying to find a solution for these people, so I'm not keen to be - I think for me it was the idea of buying more land that had camp leases when we're not offering any more camp leases on Crown. Anyway, we'll try to do that in a way that doesn't really disadvantage people too much, if we can possibly do that. I know in some of the wilderness areas some people were fine - I'm not sure, maybe it was your government that paid people to leave. Anyway, I don't think we want to be getting into that if we're buying land and then paying people to leave it. I'd be glad to try to work with them if they have a long history on the land.

As far as the process around wilderness areas, that's kind of a long year's process. I know the game sanctuary has been identified as a potential wilderness area. All of the mechanisms in place to kick off that process and how long that would take, that's not going to happen this year or next year. Anyway, I'd be willing to think about whatever offer anybody has to make about what we can do to accommodate them and their use of the campsite, if we can possibly do it. I'd just as soon help them rather than hurt them. Whatever we can give you around the contract or what's in the contract that would kind of answer your questions, I'd be glad to do that. We may not give you the contract but we can certainly answer your questions related to it.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, minister, I do appreciate that. I know I said it to you one time before, the idea of buying people out, I mean at first blush a lot of people would say, well, why would you do that? But if you just think about someone who has a cottage that was their grandfather's, it was passed to their father and then they take it over - if they're on J.D.I. land they've spent thousands of dollars fixing them up to be very nice cottages - and they get a letter saying either sign this agreement that you'll be gone by October or be gone by next Friday. That's from one extreme of paying, but on the other hand I don't see the fairness or justice in that.

I appreciate what you've done so far, I really do, and I appreciate anything you can do to help these folks around that issue. There may have been a suggestion somewhere along the line, it was probably the previous government, about even the possibility in situations like this of actually allowing someone to re-establish on a different piece of Crown land.

As you had said to me earlier, you're not interested in new leases, that's fair enough. These would be lands that you acquired that already have been established. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts, minister.

Municipal council, in this letter too, have asked several questions around the contracts. What they're asking is for clarification on the purchase price of the lands. Are you going to be able to provide that to them? There's probably no question around providing the amounts.

MR. MACDONELL: I think we can do that. I think we have made that information public already, so I don't' think that's a problem. I want to address part of your other question that I didn't address, around protecting some land and then harvesting on the Apple Head land. The Apple Head land wasn't ours until we bought it. The person who owns it when you're negotiating, we could have said no, you can't harvest it and they could have said no, we're not selling it.

The harvesting of it is about one-quarter of the piece of land, it's not the entire piece of land. It might seem to be contradictory. If it were ours and it was Crown to start with and we let somebody do that, you might say that's kind of a more odd thing to do. As far as the price, I think we can provide that. I think about $600 an acre is what it turned out to be for the J.D.I. land, and $900 an acre for Wagner.

MR. SCOTT: The second thing they were asking was if the department would have determined the value of the lands after the forestry operations. In other words - and I heard what you just said - basically what you're saying is private land that you'd like to acquire and the company that owns it says we'll sell it to you after we do harvesting of a portion of it; if not, then - if I understood you right. So I guess I understand that it wasn't your terms, it was theirs.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I wouldn't necessarily go even that far, but it was obviously not harvested and we bought it. One of the things my staff came to me with was that here's the price we can get it for, but there's a condition - they want to have two years to try to harvest that. We're pretty much bound, we have an independent appraisal on the land, so we don't have a lot of flexibility to move outside of those appraised values.

Anyway, it obviously came to us, it wasn't harvested but with the idea that you can get it for this price if you let us harvest that part of it. So we agreed to that.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Member, you have five minutes remaining.

MR. SCOTT: Time goes by fast when you're having a good, old - thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Minister, another thing they've asked, as well - I guess what I was asking was, has your department done some sort of an assessment as to determine what the value of that land will be after the forestry operations? In other words, you know what it was worth prior, so I'm assuming the department would do an assessment to see what the value of that land was after the forestry operations - would you?

MR. MACDONELL: I think we could. I'm not sure, I don't think we're going to spend any money to determine that.

MR. SCOTT: No.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking, you can look at it in two ways: the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. The question of what is the value of 22 kilometres of coastline in Nova Scotia if you harvest 2,000 acres of it or if you don't harvest 2,000 acres of it, does it significantly change in value?

I'm sure that if we bought 2,000 acres from somebody and it had trees on it, then you cut the trees; unless you bought it for $200 an acre, I would say that section of it is probably going to reduce in value. If you look at the overall price of the parcel, if that was on the market, I would say if they had gone in and harvested those 2,000 acres and put it on the market and had 22 kilometres of coastline, I think you would expect that in the marketplace - this was thought to go maybe in the $1,200 an acre range for this piece of land. I would say that you should expect that particular parcel, if you look at that solely, that it would reduce in value. If you look at the whole parcel, 22 kilometres, 8,000 acres, I don't think you'll find there will be a significant change in the value. It's not going to go from $900 to $300.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, minister. One of the other questions the municipality asked was if there was an approved plan from the company you bought it from for remediation and reforestation so the lands may be suitable for a wilderness area at a future date. In other words, did they provide a plan to the department to show what their plan was for the future for reforestation?

MR. MACDONELL: No, I think when we buy it, it's ours. I don't think there was a requirement by us that they remediate it. I'm quite sure, if that was part of the plan, I never knew it and it wasn't discussed with me if we'd be interested in letting them harvest it that there would be a remediation plan. I think it will belong to the people of Nova Scotia. We're going to remediate it, to let it come back as kind of a natural - as far as I can think of, we wouldn't be thinking of turning that into a monoculture plantation type of forest. It would be a more natural Acadian forest is where we would want to go with that.

MR. SCOTT: Two quick things were on their request list. One was the estimated timelines that the land may fit the definition of a wilderness area. I guess from what you just told me, that's pretty hard to determine. When would you expect, after this reforestation plan takes place - if there is one - and after the harvesting, how long do you think it would be before that particular piece of land on the Bay of Fundy could be considered for a wilderness area?

MR. MACDONELL: Probably, it might be a better question for the Minister of Environment. I'm not entirely sure. Out of the Colin Stewart Forest Forum process, how that next stage kicks into gear to get - whether they look at one parcel or 10 parcels at the same time, that's a question I can certainly get you an answer for. On that particular parcel of land, I'm not sure if that much specific information is even available yet, but I'll see what we can find for you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your time has elapsed.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, minister.

MR. MACDONELL: I think I'm getting a letter with all of those questions anyway.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. At this point, I understand the NDP caucus has some questions.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Thank you very much. Minister, I wanted to tell you immediately how much I've always found fascinating the Department of Natural Resources. It has a wide ambit and deals with things that are of fundamental importance to us in our province. I think about the management of Crown lands, of course, of forestry, minerals. I think of parks, how important they are, and I also want to tell you how thrilled I am that management of the department is now in your hands personally. This all seems to me to be a good thing.

I wondered, however, if you could help us understand the details of some aspects of your mandate. It's a fairly wide one and I think will cover a lot of ground. I know you've already dealt with this in part, but I wondered - I know it's not the main policy area, but I wondered - if we could actually look at the purchase of land and the province's plans once more. There were just a couple of aspects of it that weren't 100 per cent clear to me and so I think what I wanted to focus on was initially the projected cost and the number of acres or hectares required - either measure - to achieve the 12 per cent objective. My understanding is that when this process started out, the Crown owned about 23 per cent of the land mass of the province and the rest was either federal park or privately owned. Is that number more or less correct?

MR. MACDONELL: I was thinking of 28 per cent but I could be proven wrong. I was thinking 28 per cent by the Crown.

MR. EPSTEIN: So we're in quite a different position than provincial governments in a number of other provinces. My recollection is that in a province like British Columbia, the Crown starts out owning about 90 per cent of the land mass anyway . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

MR. EPSTEIN: . . . so set-aside is not a big problem. P.E.I. on the other hand, where the Crown only owns about 9 per cent, it's a major problem. We're somewhere in the middle and perhaps on the small side, I guess, but at this point, did I understand you earlier to say that we had reached about 9 per cent? Is that the current number after the most recent purchases?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I'm thinking we're at 9.6 per cent or 9.8 per cent, I'm pretty sure that somebody gave me that number the other day when we were doing these very estimates. But I'm thinking it's more than 9 per cent because I think we started at 8.6 per cent or something before the land purchases.

MR. EPSTEIN: I think, as I recall, when we deal with those figures of achieving a target of 12 per cent of land set-aside, that does include the federally owned parks. As I recall, the two large parks would represent about 2 per cent or 3 per cent of that projected 12 per cent, is that correct?

[7:45 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Those national parks are included in the 8.6 per cent.

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, 8.6 per cent and now 9.-something per cent?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, well, I had my chain yanked. Until the land is designated, I guess it can't be considered as part of the 9.6 per cent, but anyway.

MR. EPSTEIN: That's a useful elucidation. Does that mean if we assume that the newly acquired lands are so designated, we will move up to 9.6 per cent as over against our target of 12 per cent?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, that's where I'm at, that's what I would think would be a reasonable assumption.

MR. EPSTEIN: Great, so we're within striking distance. So that gets us to the question that I was really wondering about which was your understanding of just what size of territory, then, we still have to acquire and what you project might be the cost of that. It seems to me that given your recent acquisitions, you might have a good handle on what the likely cost is so I'm wondering, could you help us out here?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I can answer it, I don't know if I can help you. I'm thinking that we're in - it's going to take 300,000-plus acres, I'm thinking, to get 2 per cent more, roughly. Yes, the question of price is probably the most interesting one in the sense that if you look at - although at this point I would say I can't speak to all of the parcels identified by the Colin Stewart Forest Forum and how many of those are identified as significant ecological values, but I'm thinking that probably at this point the province has purchased certainly the easiest of that, like with the 31 wilderness areas that we have - or 32, I guess, now - and these additional lands were the parcels that the private sector was willing to part with, number one, and at what we deemed to be a fairly reasonable price.

I think my concern going forward is that we're in a bit of a slump for the industry. There are some conditions that although these were significant parcels and we helped identify them as significant parcels which was, you know, kind of against our - it worked against us to purchase them because you're telling somebody that's the real high-value stuff that we want. So you're telling them right off the bat, you know, hit us with a big price.

Since we were able to purchase those at what we deemed to be a reasonable price under not great conditions for them in a market to try to sell them, but if that changes and the economy improves, you know, I think there's every likelihood that you would expect that some future parcels might be considered by those who own them as having more value. So I would say it would be reasonable to think that, you know, the price is probably going to go up more than go down in the future, and that's a significant obstacle.

MR. EPSTEIN: So the minister plays poker and chose his hands, but I guess what - so the last 150,000 acres that you recently acquired, which I took from an earlier answer to be about 1 per cent of the land . . .

MR. MACDONELL: I think I'm correct on that.

MR. EPSTEIN: . . . what was the cost of the last 150,000 acres that the province bought?

MR. MACDONELL: I think I said $77.5 million.

MR. EPSTEIN: So I guess the answer to the question is 77 times about 2.5-plus, is that where we are?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think that's where we are. That's where we're starting, I think.

MR. EPSTEIN: This gets me, then, to another aspect of this which is the process by which desirable parcels are identified. First, I wonder if that's within the realm of jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, or whether it's in the realm of jurisdiction of the Department of Environment, or whether it's a shared jurisdiction matter. Can you help me out here?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I would say that it's a shared jurisdiction matter. I mean, obviously, it was kind of an interdepartmental committee that looked at the purchasing of these parcels, but I think my department took the lead on that because we have the land branch. For sure, I would say that since the process has occurred - which I referred to as the Colin Stewart Forest Forum process, which really identified those parcels deemed to be significant for protection and trying to get us to our 12 per cent - then I think it would be safe to say that we kind of take our cue from that process for what parcels have been identified and if we're going to put any resources, it would be to hit those significant parcels rather than spend money on other parcels that may not be deemed to get us to the 12 per cent. But the Department of Environment, because they are kind of the lead on the protected wilderness areas, they probably would have a significant role in helping us along the way.

MR. EPSTEIN: Then do I take it that the minister is saying the process of identifying main candidate sites has emanated from what he's calling the Colin Stewart Forest Forum?

MR. MACDONELL: I would say that's true - well, maybe I should add this as well. I mean that was with the five large lumber companies, or forestry companies, out of those parcels. I don't think that process necessarily (Interruption) Yes, I was thinking it was specifically with them, I was thinking it was their parcels of land. It was kind of a compromise between environmental stakeholders and the five lumber companies, or five mills, so I'm not sure of the degree of other parcels that were identified that were not associated with those private-sector groups.

MR. EPSTEIN: So could the minister take me through the process that would actually occur the next time your department turned its mind to the possibility of acquiring land for possible set-aside?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm thinking that would probably come to us through the Department of Environment but since we're the holder of land when it's purchased, I don't know if we're necessarily the main department for the identification of the land. I'll see if I can get a better answer for you on the process - I think I'll get you that in writing.

MR. EPSTEIN: That would be great, that's a big help, and I look forward to receiving it. I take it that, as well, the implications that flow from the significant costs mean that the time frame in which this might be achieved, now that we've taken such a significant step towards it, is still in some question. Is that the situation?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I have to tell you that I think the target is still the target but all of the complexity of getting there has not been identified to me, so yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: This was the target that would emanate from the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, is that what the minister is referring to?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. Minister, on the subject of protected lands, I guess I wonder if I might go to an associated issue which has to do with parks. There are a couple of things that I wondered about. First, I wondered if you could tell us at this point anything about the prospects for provincial parks opening or being closed this summer. Does the department now have any plans or projections as to how many of the provincial parks might have to be closed this summer, or is the situation different than I might be guessing?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I mean other than - I know we're closing Laurie Park because we're going to do work there. I know there are three others that are slated for significant funding but it hasn't been indicated to me that those parks have to be closed for that work. As far as kind of the general opening of parks, to my knowledge there's not a hitch there, everything will go according to normal. But if it's a difference, I'm not aware.

MR. EPSTEIN: This is good news, minister. Thank you, I'm happy with the answer. I was just speculating since we are in tightened financial circumstances, I wondered if this particular aspect was going to be impacted, but thank you.

Since some other members have focused on particular parks, I wonder if I might make a small observation about the land at Joggins. Is this within your department's jurisdiction? I mean the fossil cliffs.

MR. MACDONELL: The fossil cliffs are Crown land, yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: That's what I thought. I have visited it and I was very happy to be there. It's a beautiful sight and the view is spectacular. The building is quite an impressive building, the cafeteria is a great cafeteria, and there's lots of merchandise available for sale. There's an interesting interpretation centre there and for someone who is interested in fossils, it's a big draw. There's a nifty set of stairs going down to the beach but, you know, when you get down to the beach there's not all that much to see. So I just wondered if anywhere in the department's plans there was anything that might improve the experience of people who actually get down to the beach to see some of the fossils, a few of which are still obviously imbedded in the cliff face, or is this even feasible?

MR. MACDONELL: I thought that was the draw, the whole purpose. I'm wondering if the member might have some suggestions, if there was something in particular he thought - this is the thing I'm missing. As far as I know, there isn't a plan for some type of enhancement of that. I'm not really sure where you're going because it struck me that the fossils might be the thing.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, of course, the fossils obviously are the important thing. It just seemed to me that there are relatively few that can be seen by an amateur eye, as one spends time on the beach, that I thought was the problem. It's fun being on the beach and it's very nice and, as I say, it's a beautiful spot and all of those things, but for something that attracted as much attention as it did and the designations that it got and all the effort that went into obtaining those designations and, even as I understand it, from reading geological books, as important as the site is for that still, I was just saying that I wondered if there was anything that could be done to help enhance the experience so people actually get down to the beach. It's not meant as a serious criticism, just as a suggestion.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm curious because the centre does guided tours there so I wonder if you went by yourself or if you had kind of an expert.

MR. EPSTEIN: Guided tour.

MR. MACDONELL: You had a guided tour, okay. I'll take that question and run with it.

[8:00 p.m.]

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. Perhaps I'll switch to another aspect of your jurisdiction and see if we can learn a little bit from each other here. I was wondering about the overall management now of Crown lands. It seems to me that at one point there was an attempt by the department to put in place what I would think of as zoning. I think this might have been called the Integrated Resource Management system, the IRM system, in which Crown lands were categorized for their potential uses. The categorization was fairly broad, as I recall.

This was a number of years ago and I'm wondering if the minister could bring us up to date as to whether this system is still in place, what the categories are, how they've worked out, whether there's any thought of altering or changing the categories, whether it has turned out to be a good or bad system. I'm very interested in hearing the minister's comments on this.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, the system is still in place. I don't think I can speak to the categories well at all, I'm not so familiar with them. I actually am of the opinion that probably what comes out of our natural resources strategy will make a determination whether that is worth doing, if it actually has worked. So it is a good point.

Actually, my memory at the time it was done, there seemed to be a fair bit of controversy around whether it was appropriate at all, and I haven't turned my mind to it in my time as minister, actually, to raise a lot of questions with it. I guess I shouldn't pre-empt what might come out of the recommendations, out of the strategy, but I would see that as what was a very significant piece for the department and I cannot believe that that wouldn't be re-evaluated through this process at all, to determine whether or not it was appropriate, whether it worked and whether it's where Nova Scotians might deem to go in the future. (Interruptions)

The panels of experts did meet with the staff around it so I'm expecting there will be something.

MR. EPSTEIN: Since the minister has mentioned the natural resources strategy, I'm wondering if he could just bring us up to date as to when he expects to have a document that he might be able to release publicly?

MR. MACDONELL: The last information I had, which I was kind of counting on being gospel - and I'll turn to my gospel writer - I was thinking probably the middle of April was when I was expecting recommendations on the strategy. I think everything is on track so, hopefully, if not by the middle of the month, soon thereafter, and then before the end of the month I would expect it would go to the public.

MR. EPSTEIN: This is good to hear. Can I ask to what extent coastal zone management or planning is part of the mandate of your department? My understanding is there has been perhaps an interdepartmental committee at work on coastal zone planning and I'm not sure whether responsibility lies primarily within your department, or whether it has been Fisheries that took the lead or whether it was Environment. I'm not sure where this responsibility lies.

MR. MACDONELL: The lead is within my department and it's Minister Belliveau - actually, I was just trying to think if it was Environment or Fisheries because it was Minister Belliveau - it's Fisheries.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. Did the Department of Natural Resources have any input into the process or was it just Fisheries entirely?

MR. MACDONELL: Parks people on protected beaches, geologists on coastal erosion, and habitat people were all involved with that process.

MR. EPSTEIN: Since you've mentioned beaches, as well, this leads me to another point I wanted to ask about. I take it you have some responsibility for the Beaches Act and I'm wondering if issues around the Beaches Act will form part of the Natural Resources strategy. Is that part of the intention?

MR. MACDONELL: Actually, that is a good question. I'm being told yes. I just remember from circumstances last summer/Fall, it was really kind of made clear that the Beaches Act had to be looked at. I guess my thought was it was probably going to be looked at whether it was part of the strategy process or not. But it is part of the strategy process.

MR. EPSTEIN: What about wetlands? Is that also part of the natural resources strategy? Or again, does all responsibility for that go to a different department?

MR. MACDONELL: One of the panels of expertise is biodiversity, which I would think would take in wetlands, but the wetland policy presently is being drafted by Environment so I'm not sure that we'll be necessarily telling them what to do. On the biodiversity side, we would be looking at all habitat ecosystems.

MR. EPSTEIN: I wonder if we could move to another aspect of the minister's jurisdiction inside his department. This, I think, touches more on forestry than anything else, although it may have interaction with other things. I was wondering about the problems that our sister province, Newfoundland and Labrador, has had with Abitibi over the government's takeover of forestry and water rights. My understanding is that Abitibi has filed a NAFTA claim as a follow-up to that. I'm wondering if the department is following this and knows anything about the current state of play around this claim.

MR. MACDONELL: If they are, that's never been brought to my attention as the minister. We're thinking that someone on my staff is probably following that in some detail, but I'd want to verify that for you.

MR. EPSTEIN: Perhaps I'll pursue this conversation with the minister on another occasion, that would be just fine. I'll leave forestry, I think some of my colleagues have questions about that, and I wonder if I might turn to minerals as well. I'm wondering what the province's role is still in providing information to the prospecting and mining undertakings in the province. Is there any ongoing mapping, for example?

MR. MACDONELL: Actually, I'm just trying to think - I think we've recently completed some mapping information, I'm thinking like last Fall/winter. But as far as information available to the mining industry and prospectors - actually, I think we have it on-line, information that they can readily make use of.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you, but what I wondered - and perhaps I just didn't hear it in the answer - was whether the department has an ongoing program of mapping. Does this continue to happen every year; that is, developing in more depth the information about what the province might have?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, it's my understanding that we do have kind of ongoing mapping work.

MR. EPSTEIN: I wonder, in particular, whether you have any information about salt caverns in Nova Scotia; that is, whether it has come to the department's attention of what the potential is for salt caverns and their use in storage. Has this been a focus at all of the research in the department?

MR. MACDONELL: I would say that probably when it comes to salt caverns, we definitely know about the locations of salt caverns. As far as the second part of your question, I don't know to what detail we might have information around - any specific one or all them generally, I'm not sure.

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, can the minister tell us what the potential uses might be for the salt caverns; that is, what exactly they might be used for? Are we looking at natural gas storage or is there something else that you have in mind?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, if the department has another use - natural gas was the one that I would have said before you mentioned it. The only one I can think about is the Alton caverns, so that's the only project that has even been kind of talked about. As far as another use, I'm not sure what else my department might have identified.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, that's fine. Likewise on the subject of minerals but also again on a NAFTA complaint, I'm wondering if the minister has any up-to-date information about Bilcon's NAFTA complaint. I wonder, can the minister tell us what the current state of play is? You'll recall this is the complaint that was filed after the environmental assessment for the proposed Digby Neck quarry.

MR. MACDONELL: The Department of Environment is dealing with that through their Environmental Assessment Branch but I don't have any information that I can share with you - but I might be able to.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. I have just one final point for the minister. I want to read into the record something that I know he has heard but many others here may not. It's an extract from Hansard, November 16, 1998, and the minister and I were both members of the Legislature at the time. There was a resolution put forward that relates to the minister's present jurisdiction. It reads as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:

Whereas the latest issue of the Nova Scotia Trappers Newsletter published by the Department of Natural Resources reports that "weasel harvest declined by 42 per cent" last year; and

Whereas members of the New Democratic Party caucus pay close attention to the details of this and all other aspects of matters of concern to rural areas of the province; and

Whereas the decline in the weasel harvest ought not to be allowed to continue and ought to be reversed;

Therefore be it resolved that this House look forward to the next election and the sharp increase in the weasel harvest that will no doubt accompany it."

I thought the minister would like to be reminded of this resolution. Madam Chairman, I'll yield the rest of my time to my colleagues.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings North.

MR. JIM MORTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's a pleasure to have a chance to ask some questions, minister, of the department. I guess as I've been sitting here and listening to the discussion, I'm reminded of the diversity of the responsibilities that you have within Natural Resources. Also, I think of how central Natural Resources is to the being of Nova Scotia, it's what we are in lots of ways.

I wanted to ask, I guess to start with, a kind of practical question around hunting and the proximity of hunting in populated areas. I know that currently the regulations or rules suggest that hunting can only occur within certain boundaries, distances from dwellings or schools. I wonder, could you comment on how that's working at this point?

[8:15 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: Well, the fact that I haven't heard anything about it before right now makes me think it's okay, unless you're going to enlighten me. I have to say there are some issues in Lunenburg County; the deer population there, for whatever reasons, seems to be significantly high. One of the points raised as a possible explanation - and I'm sure it's not a one-explanation situation - is that because the deer seem to be in the kind of more urban/suburban areas, that the inability to fire a firearm to remove them is a problem.

Now, obviously the deer are quite smart, they seem to realize that they can't get shot in there. Anyway, I would think there have to be other factors that would allow - probably the milder winters and the fact that maybe in that part of the province there might be even better winters than other areas, even when we have good winters. So that is obviously one thing that seems to be an issue in that area.

Generally, around the province, I'm not hearing - or at least nothing has come across my desk - that there's a problem, so is there?

MR. MORTON: I don't know if there's a problem. I've been approached by some people who are involved in agricultural activities, for example, who are perhaps dissatisfied with the current distances between where it's possible to hunt and farming activities. It has been suggested to me that it might be an improvement to actually create distances from the edge of a pasture, for example, or a cultivated field, as opposed to simply from a place where people live or where kids go to school or things like that.

MR. MACDONELL: So I'm thinking that they're thinking the distance is too short, obviously.

MR. MORTON: People have had animals maybe spooked when a gunshot goes off, those kinds of things.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess that's probably an easier situation to fix, by extending the distances. I think about the large area of agricultural land because you can't hunt on agricultural land in the province anyway without permission, I guess. You can do it with permission, I'm thinking. So they would have to be on the edge or they would have to be on woodland, and we'd like to think if they don't own it they might ask for permission to be there. But, of course, you can ask permission from the neighbour, it's his land but it comes out against a field and somebody's livestock.

Interesting, I can almost see it creating more problems than solving. I guess you probably can appreciate that whatever we look at in terms of policy changes, the occurrence would have to be significant. I'm not saying the phone would have to be ringing off the wall, but I would think that extending the distances even further - not to say that's a lot easier than making them closer, I appreciate that. I guess it's one my department could have a look at and see if there's some room to do that.

I don't know, I'm trying to think of what the other side - the other phone would be ringing off the wall if we did it. Anyway, it's a much more reasonable thing to be thinking of than the other way.

MR. MORTON: I think the comments you made about increased deer populations in urban areas is an interesting one. I live in Kentville and the member for Argyle mentioned in earlier comments that maybe the deer population is increasing. I don't know whether it is or not but I know things are changing a lot, so it's quite possible that the deer population is just getting better adapted to living in urban areas, I don't know. So we're seeing them closer to the places we live.

It's an increasing issue that would be worth paying some attention to, both because the deer population seems to be doing more damage to people's properties. At least in my neighbourhood, I guess, I'm sensing a level of frustration among householders that could lead to rash acts that could be harmful. I don't know if that is an issue at all that has been considered within the department as something that should be addressed.

MR. MACDONELL: I have to say we actually hear more, as far as the deer population goes, it's more on the agricultural crops side: in blueberry fields, grazing on the plants, bears in blueberry fields, bears knocking over bee hives. Last year I think there was one around - the circumstances seemed kind of odd, a bear tearing the silage wrapping. Anyway, the occurrences of those kind of unwanted - other than they do eat people's tulips or plants around their homes in the night, prune the bushes, it's much more difficult with houses close by.

My executive director for forestry can always advise me - I'm curious, you can use crossbows in the province and some people seem to think in urban areas that might be a way you could shoot deer. I was just wondering about the distance (Interruption) 182 metres, pretty good range.

I'm not saying that's necessarily all that helpful. I think for farmers they can intervene, I think they can get a permit to remove a nuisance animal. I think in the more urban areas that's far more difficult, even for the department people to go in. When it comes to bears, I don't think we farm that out to nuisance people (Interruption) We do that. Other things: we'll hire trappers and we'll let farmers take care of deer problems, but they get a permit to do that.

The one around the homes is a very dicey one. I don't really have a good answer for you on that - get a dog, I think, would probably be the best thing to keep them out of there.

MR. MORTON: Thank you for that reflection. This evening there has been quite a lot of discussion around biomass. I just wanted to pursue that a bit further. I know there's a considerable amount of concern when people hear the term "biomass" in Nova Scotia, among Nova Scotians, that conjures up images of clear-cutting. I guess I'm just wondering, could you comment a bit on what your department is doing to ensure sustainability as we pursue a policy-related biomass?

MR. MACDONELL: I don't know just how far down that road I can go because I don't want to be pre-empting - we don't have a biomass policy yet but I'm expecting that what comes out of the forest strategy, or the natural resources strategy process, will give recommendations in that direction. I will say that my concern as the minister, and I think I tried to reflect that in the consent agreement for NewPage that we would have sustainable practices - and I took the FSC certification by them to be that - that wouldn't allow whole-tree harvesting and, as much as possible, to set a limit.

Now, that was because it was on Crown, it was easy for us to say you can't have more than this, but that doesn't mean there doesn't have to be some evaluation of exactly how much potential material there is in the province, you know, even on private-land projects. So I think we do have some responsibility there. I can't give you anything more fleshed out than that but I do want you to be aware that in coming up with guidelines around this, these are the issues that we want to have dealt with, and supply and harvesting practices are two components of that.

MR. MORTON: Just pursuing that a little bit further, are you assuming that those guidelines will engage people who are concerned about sort of wildlife sustainability - getting back to hunting, I guess - that hunters and fishers will be engaged in that process?

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking not, at least not in that part of it. I think what will happen is the Department of Energy will set some standards for these large electricity projects. It doesn't mean they won't have input from the Department of Natural Resources, that's not entirely the end of the biomass story for me. Presently we're heating a big part of the Agricultural College with biomass. There's material leaving the province down on the Eastern Shore from a mill, I think, going to Europe and probably used for co-gen, that's biomass. Enligna, which is part of what was the old MacTara mill which is the pellet part of that mill, you know, that's biomass, making wood pellets.

So I'm someone who believes that there really shouldn't be a different standard. If there's going to be a standard imposed on these large electrical projects, then there should be a similar standard - if you're cutting trees to burn, you know, whether you're producing steam to create electricity or you're putting it in a bag and you're heating your home with it, I don't see how one is much different than the other when it comes to harvesting practices and some way to try to set some allowable cut for that. So as much as I can accept the argument that there is potential for reducing emissions and impacts on the environment, that cannot be done without consideration that you're taking trees which are part of a forest, and the impacts on habitat and water and, you know, all the other values that we place on what forests do.

I guess the reason I'm going there is I expect that the Department of Natural Resources will set codes of practices, and whatever, associated with those other biomass projects, even though they're not necessarily the big electrical ones, although we did kind of set the standards for NewPage and we could do that only because they needed permission to use the wood for another purpose, so that's what brought us to the table. I'm not willing just to say that's one thing, that we'll allow that to go that way, that we're not going to allow other wood-fibre projects that are energy projects to be different.

MR. MORTON: Thank you for that. There have been some questions about specific parks and one of the ones that interests me particularly, because of my location in Kings North, is Cape Split. The park is a beautiful wilderness and several years ago the province acquired it. It's situated close to the community of Scots Bay, which is a vibrant community that has been renewing itself in lots of ways. There are many strengths in that community; in fact, if you look across the bay, one of the places you can see is Baxters Harbour. The people in that community have an idea about creating a view plane from which you could see that park from Cape Split, which might attract people to their community. I think it has lots of potential.

People in the community are quite interested in what might happen with the park. Some people are concerned about the management of visitors, the influence that might have on their community. There are people who are concerned about roadwork and how the quality of some of the roads in that area affects the ability to get to the park, and there are issues around parking when people get there. I certainly think there are people who have an interest in economic opportunities that might come out of park development.

Is there anything you can say about what may be happening with Cape Split? I guess I'll leave it at that for now.

[8:30 p.m.]

MR. MACDONELL: I'll find out what the specifics are around Cape Split. It seems to me there was a conversation I had some months ago with my staff around trails and trying to think about enhancements for Cape Split. I'll see if we have something specific, because I know in the natural resources strategy process that parks was one of the panels of expertise that we had. I don't know to the degree that the recommendations would come, like there's going to be X number of recommendations for every park or in kind of a general way, but I'll see if we have something specific for Cape Split. (Interruptions)

Yes, there has been some discussion with local residents around a plan for Cape Split, but my impression is - with McNabs Island there's the Friends of McNabs, kind of an organized group. I'm of the impression that's not what we have here, so I'm kind of curious myself as to how you engage some of the residents on a plan but don't have a defined body to do that with. I don't have any specifics for you around what might happen with Cape Split. If I can, I'll get them for you.

MR. MORTON: I'd appreciate that. If I could just add one more comment, or perhaps a question. I've had the impression, at least, that there might be some partnerships available, financial partnerships, around park development. Some people have suggested to me they might have some monies that could be made available for some aspects of projects. I don't know if that would be of interest to the minister.

MR. MACDONELL: Darn right.

MR. MORTON: It might be something we could look into.

MR. MACDONELL: We're in Budget Estimates - you got money, we want it.

MR. MORTON: Thank you very much. I think I will yield the remainder of my time to my colleague.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: At this time there is approximately nine minutes remaining in the time allotted for the NDP.

The honourable member for Lunenburg.

MS. PAM BIRDSALL: Thank you. It's very interesting to sit and listen to all this tonight - we've talked about land purchases, and coyotes and deer and their encroachment on land - because I do live in the most populated deer paradise in the province. I was told the other day that one of the reasons is not just because of climate but because of our intricate little coves, and deer love seaweed. I had no idea, it was one more of those enlightenment "aha" moments.

What I wanted to know was more about mining in the province. What can you say about the mining industry, where we are generally, and then if there are some specifics you might like to talk about?

MR. MACDONELL: I'll try to do as much of that just from memory, if I can. I think people probably wouldn't recognize how much mining occurs in the province. I think we tend not to think about that only because we don't consider the aggregates - gravel, stone - as part of mining so there's a fair number of significant operations that do that. We drive by them but don't ever necessarily think of them as mining operations.

Probably most members would be aware of the downturn in the coal mining industry and the revitalization or the coming back to life of the Donkin mine - although that's not really there yet, but presently all indications would say that it has a fair likelihood it would happen. This is for smelting coal, it's not going to be for burning coal for heating or electricity.

I live in an area that a fair number of my constituents - the mine itself is not in my constituency, but I think one of the largest open-pit mines in eastern North America is National Gypsum. I would say it's in Milford, but actually where the mine is it's probably Carrolls Corner, that area - Dutch Settlement. It has been there for 50 years and probably has another 25 years of gypsum available, but the downturn in the American housing market has significantly impacted how much business they do.

Then there is Fundy - I think I have it right - in Windsor. They were planning an expansion which they've backed off on. They got the environmental assessment to do that, the approval, but presently the market is affecting how soon they'll go ahead with that. The other one, I think, is Georgia Pacific in Melford, Cape Breton. I'm not sure what state that project is at. Acadian Mining was base metals - zinc and lead - but it's just on maintenance right now. Base metal prices are quite low.

Moose River - there is an Australian mining company, Atlantic Gold. Gold is presently about $1,100 U.S. The way it was explained to me is, if it cost you $500 an ounce you could make money mining gold. This is kind of an interesting gold deposit in the sense that most of the mining in Nova Scotia was on gold veins and quartz, and I think this is in shale. It's quite different, but I think this company has developed a process that they've used in Australia that seems to work well. I'm trying to think what else I have bouncing around in my head. Those seem to be the ones that come to mind first.

Kind of the good thing about mines is that they pay a fairly good wage and don't have - I guess if we were to think about forestry and other resource-extraction-type processes that mines generally are a very small footprint for the dollar value. Anyway, there still are always those kind of environmental concerns, so that doesn't come to me as the minister. As a citizen I'm not concerned about it actually. I've met with some of these individuals from these companies and my refrain was, come here, make $1 million or $1 billion, I think that's fine, but you're not going to make my kids sick. I think I rely on the Department of Environment to do their due diligence and permitting and whatever. Those are the ones that come to mind first.

I think for the size of us, we have kind of significant mineral and mining extraction and there are some projects that are kind of on the cusp of happening. I think of all, I kind of expected - I don't know necessarily about Acadian Mining but it's going to take a little more movement in the economy, I think, for that to reopen. I'm thinking on the gold mine, the Moose River thing, that's a project that has a very good likelihood that all the parts will soon come together for that one.

MS. BIRDSALL: So where is that right now, the gold mining part? Are they up and running and . . .

MR. MACDONELL: No.

MS. BIRDSALL: They're about to?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think there's still an issue around acquisition of a couple of properties and I think that maybe they're just about there but not there. I think they'll have everything in place in the very near future but it's not there yet.

MS. BIRDSALL: Okay, thank you.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have almost two minutes remaining - one minute, actually.

MS. BIRDSALL: Can you very quickly, when you're talking about Donkin and that and because the coal is for a coking coal and not coal to burn for energy, what's the difference in those two types of coal?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, there's probably more differences than I know but I'm thinking that the emission standards here for burning it for electrical production, around our sulphur emissions and mercury, the emissions would not qualify to meet our standards so, therefore, certainly couldn't be burned here for that. The potential for what value it might have to haul it down the coast to the eastern U.S. or somewhere else would depend on what their emission standards are like.

I know there's more to this story because I think there was the thought of the potential, actually. I don't think it was initially intended to be a coking-coal kind of operation, I think it was intended to be burned for thermal. Anyway, all the parts didn't come together, I think, for that project to happen that way but there was a market for this to qualify well enough for coking coal and there's a market for it, so they believe they can do that and make money.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. At this point I have to turn the floor to the Liberal caucus as the time for the NDP caucus has elapsed. We will be continuing until 8:58 p.m.

The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. What would a session with Natural Resources be without some questions on OHVs? Since I've been at it for six years, we need to continue I guess.

First of all, just a couple of general questions around how much will be invested in trails from the fees taken from registration because if this is going to be, especially with the ATVs - I think snowmobiling is pretty well defined by groomed trails in the province - if we're going to grow ATV-ing as a business, as an opportunity to export the wilderness of Nova Scotia and provide recreation, we still have a lot of work around trail development. So I'm just wondering, what will our investment be this year specifically from the registration?

MR. MACDONELL: Thanks. I'll get that number for the member. I'd like to say all of it but I think in part this is usually done in conjunction with an organized body that kind of takes over development of a section of trail and so they apply to the fund. I'm not sure if in every year all the funds are ever used up so I'll just see what I can find out.

MR. GLAVINE: I believe the minister still has a comment to further enlighten on the question there so I'll give him an opportunity.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, we take in about $1 million on the fee and we spend about $1 million. I wasn't thinking we spent that much.

MR. GLAVINE: We'll do a little bit of a cross-examination, quick little questions here. In terms of the Paradise dilemma, which was a real obstacle to having continuous trails for the western part of the province, has that reached a final resolve or are there still some legal developments to take place there?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, there are legal developments to take place there.

[8:45 p.m.]

MR. GLAVINE: The wardens, who look after the OHV Act to make sure there's compliance with ATV drivers across the province, is the number up to the number that was established with the OHV Act?

MR. MACDONELL: The Ministerial Advisory Committee - the MAC - they had a number of - well, I guess probably four priorities. The trail development was, I think, number one; the wardens; and I think I was more concerned around the safety issues on trails. I'll have to get additional information.

So we made the wardens, trail development, and injury prevention to be the top three priorities and to work at those over the next couple of years. Actually, I guess kind of the bigger component of that trail development was trail identification, actually a map of what the trail system was supposed to be. So as far as the numbers on the wardens, I can probably get you what they are. I don't think we have (Interruption) No, but we can get it.

MR. GLAVINE: Speaking of the MAC, the Ministerial Advisory Committee, one of the areas that I've - I'm not sure, I think I may have asked you a question in the Fall as to the medical position on that committee. Has it been filled at this point?

MR. MACDONELL: The interdepartmental committee is working - well, I guess we've had one person apply. Actually we're wanting three people to apply and then the interdepartmental committee would pick that person for that position on the MAC, but I guess my curiosity is I'm not sure what the time frame is to wait for two more. Yes, so we're soliciting in the hopes that we would have more choice but, anyway, that's where we are with that.

MR. GLAVINE: I would have brought this topic up even if my colleagues were here to my right, but the purchase of the kiddie ATVs and the repayment to the province, I was wondering how that was going, whether or not the payments were coming in - will that reach a final resolve for the taxpayers?

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, the payments are coming in. We've had two out of three and the final one coming this summer.

MR. GLAVINE: The other question which, of course, I've addressed in the House on many occasions is safety. Here we mean safety, you know, from late teenagers, who now 16 and up can ride the larger, more powerful machines, to adults. Interestingly, you know, I really do have to do my Irish thing and knock on wood because, you know, our fatalities and serious injuries with young people have certainly changed course dramatically, Mr. Minister, as you and I know, since I entered the House and your time here as well. In fact, the deaths now seem to be pretty well with adults and I'm wondering, where is safety and training going in terms of your tenure, your mandate, as minister?

MR. MACDONELL: When I mentioned the wardens, the trail mapping and injury prevention, well, the injury prevention was kind of the thing that was uppermost in my mind. So we've had discussions with the Department of Health, and Health Promotion and Protection, on the idea that we would form a committee from them and DNR staff to work with the MAC to identify those things that we could maybe act on the quickest for injury prevention. That will probably be another month or two, I think, before that's kind of up and running.

MR. GLAVINE: Since becoming minister you've had to deal with at least one or two very contentious issues of ATVs on trails in close proximity to homes, to dwellings and, in fact, at least one or two cases where taxes were lowered as a result of the noise, et cetera. I'm wondering, again, how you're looking upon multi-use trails which, in fact, by its very nature means that the chances of this escalating are very real. I'm wondering if you've taken a position in that regard yet. Is it still something you're hoping to hear from your advisory committee in terms of where we go? I think there's still a lot of unanswered questions around that. We also know there were people who tried to get on the bandwagon and it didn't quite work out. Still, it is an issue that I think will be ongoing for the department.

MR. MACDONELL: I think you're right, I think it will be ongoing. I met last week with a group that had people from the Timberlea area as well as from the Digby area. I think they raised quite a good point in that they said - I haven't had a chance to verify this because I met with them, I think, Thursday evening - there's about 7,000 kilometres of trail and about 200 kilometres of this is contentious, where you get trails too close to residential areas. It kind of makes you believe there should be some way to accommodate - you know, if you have access to 7,000 kilometres and you don't need to have access to 200 kilometres of it, then we should be able to come up with a way to kind of mitigate against the issues that the people in more residential areas deal with. But I haven't gone there yet. Actually, the person beside me who I would probably go to first was away at that time, so this is the first chance we even had a chance to chat.

I just want to see what the potential is for resolution in any of these areas. I'm thinking there are more than two, so what we might be able to do around trails, my first thought is you try to find alternate routes that would kind of take people away from more residential areas. But that still has yet to be explored. I really don't think that people necessarily have to pay for the recreational enjoyment of others. We'll see where we can go, but it's something I'd like to see dealt with more quickly rather than slowly.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Member, we have one minute remaining.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. Just in closing for tonight, there are three or four other areas that I wanted to have some questions answered tomorrow. I was wondering if you could also provide the number of charges that have been laid by the wardens during the past year and if you could provide the last couple of years so that I can get some kind of a comparative figure.

MR. MACDONELL: Sure.

MR. GLAVINE: If that could be provided it would be much appreciated.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, minister. At this point the time has elapsed for the Subcommittee on Supply for this evening. It's my understanding we will continue tomorrow on Resolution E15 for the Department of Natural Resources. If you could hold onto that thought, perhaps the member could reiterate tomorrow and we'll proceed again. Thank you.

We are adjourned.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:56 p.m.]