HALIFAX, FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2012

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

9:15 A.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Minister, members, staff of the Department of Environment and guests, we welcome you all here this morning. I will call the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply to order to deal with the estimates of the Department of Environment.

 

Resolution E6 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $26,385,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment.

 

HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, it is really a pleasure to be here today. It is certainly an honour to be present to present the details of this year's budget for the Department of Environment. I would also like to provide a summary of some of our accomplishments over the past year. Before I get started, I want to introduce my staff who are joining me today. To my right, Deputy Minister Sara Jane Snook, and Barry Burke is also accompanying me here today. Although there are certainly a number of other people joining us here today in the background, I can tell you that there are hundreds more working behind the scenes to advance the department's work.

 

Our staff have made great efforts to protect the environment in the work they are doing in their personal actions, they truly are stewards of our environment. Our progress is due to the dedication of these hard-working employees who deliver the many programs and services of the department. I will talk about some of these programs with services shortly, but first I'd like to share with you the department's mandate and vision.

 

The Department of Environment's mandate is to support and promote the protection, enhancement and careful use of the environment; to create, manage and protect wilderness areas; preserve, protect and study ecological sites; promote understanding among Nova Scotians; conserve and allocate water resources; and promote the connections between a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

 

Our vision is to ensure that Nova Scotia continues to have a healthy and well-managed environment and support strong communities. This government is moving towards that vision. When I think of this journey, I am reminded of the road trips that we took when my children were little. It took a lot of planning before we reached our destination. Not long after pulling away, the kids would ask me, "Daddy, are we there yet?" I'm sure that all of you who have kids can relate to this in your own way. The bottom line here is that we always made it to our destination. Sometimes we had to make unplanned stopped or detours, but we always got to where we were going. This department's work is much the same. We have a plan and we will get there.

 

What's important is that at the end we have reached our goal and achieved our vision. Our department's estimate for this year is $26,385,000. The budget will support the work carried out under the department's core business areas: Policy and Corporate Services, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance, Environmental Science and Program Management, and Climate Change.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to the hard work of staff in these areas, this government has had some great successes with the environment over the past year. I hope to get into some of them later on in our discussions. For instance, we've announced over 8,500 hectares of new protected areas and the purchase of another 8,000 hectares of land to be considered for protection.

 

Last month this government released the first contaminated site regulations for Nova Scotia. These new rules will make the progress for cleaning up these sites clearer, easier and faster for property owners. This will encourage more sites to be reclaimed for use.

 

The first progress report on the province's water strategy was released in March. It shows that this government is making progress in protecting and conserving our water resources in Nova Scotia. Initiatives by this government reduced greenhouse gases from electricity by more than 300,000 tons last year. Our efforts at reducing GHGs is one of the reasons the federal government agreed to enter into an Equivalency Agreement over our coal-fired electricity regulations. When finalized, this agreement will allow a made-in-Nova Scotia approach to reduce GHGs, while saving ratepayers from the impact of the federal regulations. We will be signing this agreement in the near future.

 

Mr. Chairman, I'd now like to discuss some of the activities of each of our core business areas of Nova Scotia's environment. The Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division is the service delivery arm of our department. Staff in this division deliver field operations related to environmental promotion and protection. Their work includes inspections, enforcement, outreach and education. They also process applications for industrial and operational approvals.

 

This work is delivered by approximately 140 staff across Nova Scotia. It is the largest division in the department and the public's direct link to many of our services. These folks are the public face of our department. They are the front-line workers who are speaking and meeting with Nova Scotians every day. Their budget for 2012-13 is $12,243,000. Staff in this division review and process about 5,000 applications each year - that's right, about 5,000 applications each year. These applications are for more than 100 different activities affecting the environment and they also inspect more than 3,700 facilities under approval from the department. As you can see, this division is extremely busy.

 

I am truly impressed by the work delivered in these key services to help protect our lands, air and water resources. Mr. Chairman, the role of our inspectors is crucial but it isn't always easy. Their work is complex and challenging and I have a lot of respect for the work that they do. Recent changes to the Environment Act, which will come into effect this October, will help our field staff focus their efforts on those activities with the highest potential risk to the environment. New processes are being developed for lower-risk activities. These changes will help our programs to be effective and efficient, while continuing to protect the environment and human health.

 

We also protect our environment and manage our natural areas through the Environment Science and Program Management division. This work is carried out by the following branches: Protected Areas and Wetlands, Water and Waste Water; and Air Quality and Resource Management. The divisions' budget estimated for this fiscal year is $7,183,000.

 

Mr. Chairman, like most Nova Scotians I understand the importance of protecting our land for today and for future generations. Staff in our Protected Areas branch have had a busy year. The province is committed to legally protecting 12 per cent of our lands by 2015. This is a commitment under EGSPA. Last June I announced the beginning of a public consultation on potential lands for protection. The announcement took place near Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area which we were proud to designate in 2009. The province continues to work with HRM to address access and to protect key lands in this area. It was very meaningful that Chief Leroy Denny of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs, was able to attend this event. He spoke about the importance of Nova Scotia's natural spaces to himself, his people and to all Nova Scotians. I also appreciated many organizations that were there to support this government's 12 per cent goal.

 

Mr. Chairman, the first round of public consultation ended in February. Public participation has been certainly an important part of this process as we work towards our goal. Nova Scotia Environment will issue a report later this year recommending which lands should be protected. Once again we will invite all Nova Scotians to participate and to provide their feedback.

 

The department invested $1 million in land purchases in 2011-12 and these purchases include areas that are rich with old growth forests, wetlands and rare plants and lakes and ocean frontage. I am pleased to note that last November this government announced another $6.5 million investment in land purchases in the coming budget.

 

Mr. Chairman, this January the province also announced the purchase of more than 10,000 hectares of lands from Bowater Mersey. By purchasing these lands, we have helped the company through difficult financial times while investing in natural spaces that have great value to Nova Scotians' preservation and protection. I anticipate that about 70 per cent of these lands will be legally protected as part of the 12 per cent process. At the end of 2011, about 8.8 per cent of the province will legally be protected and several large projects are on the horizon. One area we legally protected in 2011, the Five Bridge Lakes Wilderness Area, is home to the endangered mainland moose. This area is over 8,000 hectares within the Halifax Regional Municipality. It is already popular for hiking and canoeing and will provide great opportunities for recreation and education.

 

Mr. Chairman, I was also pleased to announce the creation of a Mary Harper Nature Reserve near Baddeck. This land, owned by the Bras d'Or Preservation Nature Trust, now enjoys the highest form of protection the province can offer. The trust asked the province to protect these lands to provide a safe haven for plants and wildlife. The nature reserve pays tribute to a truly remarkable woman. Mary Harper demonstrated a great love for her environment, especially the Bras d'Or Lakes.

 

We also made great progress evaluating options for a land or large wilderness area near Chignecto Game Sanctuary. The staff consulted many groups and individuals and they are working on finalizing the boundaries of the Kelly River and Raven Head Wilderness Area.

 

Mr. Chairman, through the continuous hard work of staff in the Protected Areas branch, this government is on track to meet the 12 per cent goal. In December 2011, Nova Scotia Environment released their wetland policy, which meets another EGSPA goal. This policy will help conserve our most valuable wetlands while providing opportunities for sustainable development. Environment staff will continue to work with key stakeholders as we move forward with implementing this policy.

 

Mr. Chairman, a lot of work has been done in our Water and Waste Water branch. In December 2010 the department released Water for Life, our 10-year Water Resource Management Strategy for the province. In March, the first progress report for the water strategy was released. It shows that this government is making progress in protecting and conserving our water resources for all Nova Scotians. This government knows that water is essential for our health, our environment and our economy. That is why we released this strategy which also meets an EGSPA target. This strategy outlines steps to understand and protect the quality and quantity of our water.

 

Mr. Chairman, in this beautiful province we are blessed with more than 13,000 kilometres of coastline and many lakes, rivers and wetlands. We are very lucky when it comes to water but it doesn't mean that we can take this for granted. Water is also valued by business and industry. It is a vital part of our economy. Understanding our water resources allows us to make good decisions about how to protect and manage them. Protecting our drinking water supply is an important focus of our water strategy. To ensure that Nova Scotians have safe, high-quality drinking water, we recently updated our drinking water treatment standards to come in line with our new national standards. Updating our drinking water standards helps us protect the health of Nova Scotians.

 

Mr. Chairman, to increase water protection Nova Scotia endorsed in 2009 Canada-wide municipal water and waste water treatment standards. These new standards, although important for the environment, also come at a cost. We recognize that these standards have financial implications for municipalities. This is why we continue to encourage the federal government to expand financial support for facility upgrades to help our municipalities achieve these standards.

 

Mr. Chairman, in 2011 more study was carried out on the water quality of several lakes in the Carleton River Watershed. We released the latest independent water quality reports last month. The reports tracked changes and trends in water quality and looked at sources of excess nutrients impacting the lakes. The report clearly shows that there is a direct link between issues with the water quality in these areas and mink waste from some farms. This government appreciates that the residents are concerned about the safety of their water. That is why we have taken steps to address a problem that has gone on for far too long. The department inspectors will conduct further inspections under the Environment Act to identify specific sources of pollutions. We will also educate the public, carry out enforcement when the mink wastes are released into the environment, explore new technologies and other options to help improve water quality in the impacted lakes, establish a long-term monitoring program in the communities, and provide input on the creation of fur industry regulations to help prevent releases of mink waste into the environment. This is a longstanding issue that will take time and the co-operation of everyone to see results.

 

Mr. Chairman, our Air Quality and Resource Management branch took further steps this year to improve our air quality. In October 2011 we introduced our anti-idling policy for government-owned vehicles and any vehicles on government business. This follows anti-idling legislation passed by this government in 2010. This policy will help reduce the impact of transportation on our air and it sets an example for all Nova Scotians to reduce unnecessary idling. It is estimated that this anti-idling policy could result in thousands of dollars in savings for taxpayers for fuel costs and maintenance. It also helps us achieve our legislated targets to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. Bus companies, transit authorities and those who operate school bus fleets were also required to have anti-idling policies or plans in place by October 1^st of last year.

 

Mr. Chairman, transportation is one of the top contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in our province so we will continue to work towards reducing idling. Under EGSPA we set a goal to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent by 2010 - this has been achieved.

 

Mr. Chairman, the Pollution Prevention branch has continued to work to educate retailers, professionals and homeowners about the Non-essential Pesticides Control Act. On April 1^st phase two of the Act came into effect. The use of pesticides is now also restricted for trees, shrubs and flowers. Last summer staff met with retail operators to answer their questions and help them understand the new rules. Retail outlets and lawn-care industries are key partners in helping to educate Nova Scotians about these new rules. This Act came about because of concerns raised by Nova Scotians, medical experts and environment groups over the impact of pesticides to their health and the environment. This government was asked to take action and we listened.

 

Mr. Chairman, I encourage Nova Scotians to visit our Web site to find out more about pesticide-free lawns and gardens and to find a list of less harmful products that are allowed to be used. Also under this branch is the management of the province's Environmental Home Assessment Program. This program continues to fill a vital role in educating rural homeowners on protecting their water resources by checking their well water, inspecting their domestic oil tanks, and ensuring their septic system is working properly. This program assists low-income homeowners with repairs or replacements of failed septic systems, allowing them to remain in their homes. Last year over 600 home visits and over 100 septic repair grants were conducted through this program.

 

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to announce that after extensive public and industry consultation, Nova Scotia recently introduced the first regulations for contaminated sites. This government recognizes that Nova Scotians want clarity around the process of cleaning up contaminated sites. Redevelopment of these sites supports economic development in the province and provides cleaner spaces for Nova Scotians to enjoy. These regulations were announced following extensive public consultation and I want to thank the Environment staff who are with me today, and outside across our province, who work on this project. These regulations come into effect in July 2013. Staff will use the coming months to work with industry and property owners to answer their questions and help them better understand these new rules, develop and implementation of these programs to support the regulations, and produce guiding documents and materials.

 

Mr. Chairman, now I would like to turn your attention to the Policy and Corporate Services grants. This division is made up of Policy and Planning, Information and Business Services and Environmental Assessment. Staff in this branch coordinate policy development and planning, including legislative review. They also conduct research and provide strategic evaluation and advice. The branch is the department's link to the national and international issues. They work with other levels of government and academics and industry groups on key issues. Our Policy branch also supports our department's involvement in the Round Table on Environment and Sustainable Prosperity. Members of the round table represent industry, agriculture, the Confederation of Mainland Mi'kmaq and the environmental interest groups. This advises the government on broad issues of environment and sustainable prosperity and gives feedback on our progress towards meeting our goals in EGSPA. This year the round table conducted the five-year review of EGSPA and I'll be bringing any changes to the Act forward this Fall.

 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the members for their work on the EGSPA review and look forward to their continuing guidance as this government moves towards achieving our environmental goals. The Policy division also helps to coordinate our work on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the Council of the Atlantic Ministers of the Environment. Last June I met with my fellow Ministers of Environment in Yellowknife. We discussed cleaner air, less waste, and safer drinking water. A lot of work has already been done to achieve provincial targets in these areas. Our next meeting is scheduled to take place later this year and I certainly look forward to representing Nova Scotia interests at these meetings.

 

Last summer, Mr. Chairman, I also had the opportunity to meet with my Atlantic colleagues in Prince Edward Island to discuss investment in environmental projects. We agreed that further regional co-operation is needed to create good jobs and help grow our green economy. Nova Scotia will be hosting the Atlantic Council when it meets this year and I'm looking forward to discussing important regional issues with my colleagues. Meeting with our federal and provincial partners certainly helps us achieve more for Nova Scotians as we work together on shared issues.

 

Mr. Chairman, under our Policy and Corporate Services division, we also have the Information and Business Service branch. This branch focuses on development and use and access to information and services, including operational records, published materials and Web site content. Staff in this branch continue their work on a Web-based system that will improve the department's information sharing with Nova Scotians and within the department. Changing the way we manage our data will provide greater support for environmental decision-making and better service to the public.

 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, under the division we have the Environmental Assessment branch. Nova Scotians take a high value on the environment and want to ensure that it is not negatively impacted by development. Through Environmental Assessment citizens can participate in the review of large-scale projects. This past year this branch worked with industry, various interest groups, First Nations, government departments and the general public to ensure that environmental assessments were open, transparent, accountable and effective. The Environmental Assessment branch continues to work with the federal government to coordinate joint assessments whenever appropriate. To conclude this section, this year's budget for the division is $4,462,000.

 

Mr. Chairman, the Climate Change directorate has a budget of $1,350,000. The Climate Change directorate is responsible for development of policies that will help us to lessen the effect of climate change. It leads our work to meet greenhouse gas emission targets and prepare the province for climate change through our climate change action plan. The directorate also sets priorities and develops strategies, programs and other actions to reduce emissions and to help us meet our legislated targets.

 

Mr. Chairman, they work with our provincial departments, municipalities, communities, industry and not-for-profit organizations to help them achieve their climate change goals. They're also responsible for the regulations that place a hard cap on GHG emissions from the electricity sector.

 

Mr. Chairman, the electricity sector is responsible for almost half of our greenhouse gas emissions in the province. One of the first measures this government took was to set hard caps on greenhouse gases coming from electricity generation. These regulations will lower emissions from Nova Scotia Power and suppliers by 25 per cent by 2020. This is a very important step in meeting our climate change goal. We were the first, I'll repeat, the first jurisdiction in North America to place hard caps on emissions from the electricity sector. This action has been recognized nationally and internationally. The federal government also wants to reduce greenhouse gases and they are in the process of putting regulations in place regarding coal-fired power generation. The federal government regulations would have had a major impact on Nova Scotia electricity ratepayers.

 

Mr. Chairman, this government was able to demonstrate to the federal government that we have a made-in-Nova Scotia plan to reduce greenhouse gases and achieve the same reductions but at a much lower cost. As a result, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada announced it will enter into an Equivalency Agreement on coal-fired regulations. This agreement recognizes our achievement in reducing greenhouse gases and it will be formalized in the coming months. It offers protection to Nova Scotia's ratepayers while recognizing that this government is moving forward in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Mr. Chairman, this government is not alone in the belief that our approach to reduce greenhouse gases or GHGs is the best path forward for Nova Scotia. Earlier this year, Tim Weis, Director of Renewable Energy with the Pembina Institute stated that, "Nova Scotia has taken important steps to reduce GHG emissions." Mr. Weis added that if we follow our plan, the province will reduce greenhouse or GHGs in a more cost-effective manner than the proposed federal regulations.

 

Mr. Chairman, we also need to prepare for increased impacts on climate change. As the reality of climate change continues, Nova Scotians can expect warmer average temperatures, higher sea levels, more extreme rainfalls and flooding, and more frequent and extreme storms. We can't wait for a disaster to hit before we begin to act. These events result in risk to life and property and could cost tens of millions of dollars to repair. Planning for climate change today is less expensive than rebuilding after severe weather events. Climate Change Dictorate staff continue to represent Nova Scotia at the Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Project which will conclude with a final report due later this year.

 

Mr. Chairman, this partnership between all the Atlantic Provinces and the federal government was intended to strengthen climate change planning and decision-making. It was providing communities with information they need so they can prepare for climate impact. In March, Nova Scotia hosted a climate change conference. The Premier and I both were pleased to speak at this conference. We told delegates that challenges of climate change will also bring opportunities. Nova Scotia could become a centre of research and development on climate change adaptation. This government, in partnership with the federal government, has supported programs totalling $2.3 million that will help Nova Scotians become a leader in climate change adaptation.

 

Mr. Chairman, the directorate is also working with other departments and agencies to make sure the impacts of climate change are worked into the decision-making process. We also launched a Climate Change Adaptation Fund in 2010 to encourage research and development in Nova Scotia. Three community-based projects were funded again last year and they will be an opportunity for communities again this year.

 

In the year ahead, climate change certainly will continue to be a key focus of our work. The directorate will help the province reduce harmful emissions and prepare for climate change impacts benefiting Nova Scotians for years to come.

 

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the department has accomplished a great deal in the past year. Our staff continue to advance the protections and promotion of our environment. To this end, I once again would like to acknowledge their tremendous work. I would also like to thank the Nova Scotian industries and organizations that help us protect our environment. The steps that this government has taken and continues to take will help to build a better life certainly for Nova Scotians today and for future generations.

 

I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you of the great work we are doing. I'm fighting just a touch of a sore throat here, Mr. Chairman, so I really appreciate the time that we have here today. I want to move away from notes here but I can assure you that the time we spend in Environment and the dedicated staff that we have across Nova Scotia is something - I really want to pause and move away from my notes and try to, I guess, offer a timely thank you because a lot of these jobs are very well appreciated but yet don't get the attention to give the praise where it needs to be set. I am glad to have a public opportunity to thank the staff that work with me on a daily basis in our departments across Nova Scotia. I know at times there are a lot of different events out there that may not get the front page news but these jobs are very important to Nova Scotians.

 

Mr. Chairman, I remember going to Copenhagen when I was first taking the job on and the Premier giving me the opportunity to represent the environment. I have to confess publicly that I was a bit intimidated by the job and by going to a world event like the conference in Copenhagen a couple of years ago. I was a bit intimidated, I must say that publicly, because I was a fisherman's son, with my background in fishing, and I was very pleased that the Premier gave me the opportunity to represent Nova Scotia.

 

I will kind of set the stage for this event. I know that there was a world event talking about the environment, climate change and our federal representative was there and I also know that sometimes there are awards given out at the world stage representing our federal colleagues, and I'm not there to - I just want to paint the scene, to say that sometimes we get the short end of the stick when it comes to a national scene, as Canada, in the eyes of the world.

 

But here I am, this bit naïve, innocent fisherman going and representing Nova Scotia. I kind of set the stage that I was probably not prepared for that. So here we go off to Copenhagen and I go there and I learn about all the things we are doing in Nova Scotia, our renewable energy, our tidal work and all the things that we do in our waste reduction. I remember reviewing that I spent nine years at the municipal level, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very familiar with waste reduction and household waste. So this was kind of built up in my mind the closer I got to Copenhagen, the more confident that I became and, lo and behold, when we got there, we received two awards. We deserved to be on that stage. So I became, from getting the invitation and going, are we qualified to be there, do I qualify to represent Nova Scotia, and before the duration of that trip I can tell you, with receiving those two awards for what we were doing in renewable energy and our caps on greenhouse gases, that I came away from there saying that we not only deserved to be there but we deserved those awards and we are world leaders when it comes to the environment.

 

So I just wanted to paint you that little picture, Mr. Chairman. I hope I didn't bore you with that little personal story but I came away from Copenhagen knowing that there were countries from all over the world, and that we can be proud of our accomplishments. I don't want to sound as if I'm trying to absorb all those accomplishments under this leadership, it's the leadership of our government and all the staff who work in Environment. We've got some good stories to tell about our waste reduction. So I came away from Copenhagen very proud. So I can tell you that I took a 180 degree turn saying that we deserve to be on that world stage. I look forward to our Opposition here today. We're very privileged to be in a free society where we can have an open discussion and debate about issues in government and to be able to represent certain departments and I'm here representing Environment.

 

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, knowing that I turned that around from being somewhat timid on the world stage to saying that we deserve to be there, at this time I'm going to leave it open for some questions and I look forward to it. So thank you for your time.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, minister, for your opening statement. Your statement was 43 minutes and that leaves three hours and 17 minutes for us for the estimates for today. I will now turn an hour of questioning over to the Liberal caucus.

 

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

 

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister. I want to start by, all right, why don't we start with the Nova Scotia coal ash residue landfill in the Trenton area. There are requirements through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment that mercury levels and other information about that be posted on the national Web site and the governance for that is your department. It has not been posted in 2008-09 and there's very limited data posted for 2010. Can you explain why?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The question was you wanted some information regarding the Trenton site, could I just get clarification?

 

MR. YOUNGER: Yes, sorry. Nova Scotia Power operates - I don't know if they're actually the operator, but there's a coal ash residue landfill, it's actually in Abercrombie, is actually where it is. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment maintains a Web site where all the reporting is done for things like mercury levels, ash levels and so forth in the landfill and that, obviously, for one site in Nova Scotia that jurisdiction falls to your department. There are no entries for 2008 or 2009 and incomplete data for 2010 on that Web site. A request to the Department of Environment in that Abercrombie area - I'm not sure which city the office is out of, it's probably out of Pictou or something - indicated that the information should be FOIPOP when, in fact, that information is supposed to be readily available on that Web site.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: You're asking a detailed question and I want to assure you that our department has submitted all our data to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on time. We'll take your questions and if we can accommodate you by adding anything to that, we'll certainly try to comply with your requests.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Do you know why your - I realize this would be at a local office so if you don't know the answer, maybe you can just undertake to get back to me with this. When requests were made recently to that office, and you may have actually seen the media stories that came out of it in the end, that information which obviously should be on the Web site and there's just empty data or empty entries for that site whereas other sites in the country actually the information is there, I understand you're saying that you have submitted that information so you'll find out why but they were told by the representative in that office it would have to be a FOIPOP request and I'm not sure why there would have to be a FOIPOP request for something that's supposed to be publicly disclosed on an ongoing basis.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member opposite, you're asking a very detailed question. I appreciate your concerns and certainly it's a respectable question but for detail as fine as that, I'm going to ask my staff to review your request to see what we can do but the FOIPOP - as you know, the FOIPOP request, there is a certain process in place and I don't want to get into much detail on that but we have to be respectful of that and mindful but I appreciate your questions and we'll do our best to accommodate you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, minister, and that's fine if people want to get back to me on that. I'm certainly fine with, as I go through my questions, if there are issues that you don't feel you're able to answer, if you just want to undertake to have somebody get back to me, that's certainly fine.

 

Obviously the big issue with that is mercury. So staying on the mercury issue, as we are moving more rapidly to CFL light bulbs, and also for that matter the change-out of high-pressure sodium lights in street lights to LED, which is a good thing, it's something I've advocated for a long time and I'm happy to see that moving forward. I was happy to support that legislation in fact. There is obviously a disposal issue. You know, I've asked you this question in the Legislature before about the plans for this. There are some strange rules for landfills in Nova Scotia. Most of them have similar rules. If you go up to the landfill in Otter Lake, they'll allow you to turn up with - I don't even remember what the number is - but 20 fluorescent light bulbs for disposal at a time, I'll just use the number 20, I can't remember the exact number, and then you can turn up in a truck after that with another 20 and another 20 and another 20. So the limit actually seems a bit funny.

 

As you probably know, the amount of mercury in a single bulb is fairly small, you know, it's very tiny but as we increase the use of these and we have Efficiency Nova Scotia doing energy retrofits on old mercury-containing bulbs and there are high-pressure sodium bulbs being taken out of street lights, we are building quite an inventory of mercury-containing items that require disposal. Now, some of those are voluntarily being disposed of through a company in Burnside that then ships them to Quebec and I think also Ontario but certainly Quebec where the mercury is taken out and recycled and the glass, et cetera. However, the vast majority of bulbs, in all honesty, unless the retrofit is done by Efficiency Nova Scotia, the odds are those bulbs go to a landfill or are stockpiled. Interestingly enough, some of the municipalities have contacted us to point out the fact that they are ending up with stockpiles of lights. They don't really want to dispose of them in the landfill and, in all honesty, I appreciate the fact that they're not going and depositing them in the landfill but they don't really know what to do with them.

 

So I would like to know what your government's plan is, or your department's plan, with respect to the recycling of these bulbs? There's obviously an opportunity for jobs and at the moment we're shipping those jobs to Quebec and elsewhere and I would like to know whether you intend to introduce any legislation mandating the recycling of light bulbs - mercury-containing light bulbs in particular?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, to the member opposite, it's certainly a very interesting question. I want to follow up with my nine years with the municipal government. I don't realize how valuable that opportunity was.

 

I really want to first of all talk about the mercury content in these fluorescent light bulbs. Certainly we want to keep them out of the landfills and we want to protect the environment. To me, we are working with our federal counterparts and it doesn't, Mr. Chairman, make sense to create our own regulations when our federal regulations are being developed. It is something that we are working with our federal government and other provinces to develop extended producer responsibility on regulations. Certainly I think that there may be something on the horizon in 2013.

 

I think that where we're going with this, Mr. Chairman, if you look back over the last two decades, the evolution of how we are leaders when it comes to waste reduction and issues like fluorescent light bulbs and the mercury that is contained in them, to me it's not acceptable for them to be in these landfills. If you look back, in my experience over two decades ago, and I actually incorporated that into a speech -I'm looking at my deputy here, but she knows, Mr. Chairman, that two decades ago I entered municipal politics around about that time and basically there was open fire burning in dumps. They weren't called landfills at that time, so we have evolved, as a province, a considerable amount and stuff that we've kept at landfills.

 

I guess what I tried to incorporate in that speech when I went to Ontario is that when I was a child, we actually played a childhood game of going past the landfill. At that time it was just open burning and the smoke would be billowing out. The childhood game was that before we approached the dump - not a very charming name but it was not called a C & D landfill - the childhood game was that we would take a very deep breath when we were almost in close proximity to the dump, so we didn't have to inhale and get that smell. You had to get the timing right because if you did not get the timing right, you naturally got the most unpleasant smell.

 

I actually incorporated that into our speech, saying how far we had come in the 20 years in Nova Scotia and if you look at our environment really our goals and stuff and achievements, I really believe that we have made some tremendous accomplishments because now, when I go to the community landfill, particularly in my community where I was actually working at the municipal level, you could actually see landfills that were taken from open burning, which was banned a number of years ago, to sorting the waste. Some of this is being recycled and, for instance, in the constituency where I go, one of the issues was not only fluorescent lights, which the Opposition is bringing up here, that we need to get out of landfills, that we came from a fishing community where we had thousands of traps that were put into a backyard illegal dump and we considered that we need to clean up these illegal dumps and suggest that we bring those traps to our landfill. Okay, a great idea, but it was thousands of traps later, and I'm saying thousands, I'm talking 20,000, 30,000 traps. These are all lobster traps with something that we had to find a home for. We found home for our wood, we found home for our metals and we found a home for our wire traps. There was an industrial large truck there that came and actually pulverized or squashed these together and we sold them for metal.

 

So anyway, the long story was we would take in a childhood game where we basically had an open pit burning dump and we have evolved over the last 20 years or so that we have made improvements in recycling some of this waste. I believe this is the light bulb, fluorescent light is no different that any one of the other topics, that eventually we are going to get there.

 

The point I am trying to make to the honourable member is that we need to work with our federal counterparts, we want to be in harmony with the regulations that are at a national level, so we're doing the same thing as our neighbouring jurisdictions. We need to get this right and we need to pay attention to what our federal neighbours are saying and work with our other jurisdictions. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, if we had waited for the federal government to harmonize regulations on greenhouse gases, on landfill diversion and everything else, we would still be in the dark ages for the environment in Nova Scotia. It strikes me that you have significantly more confidence in the Harper Conservative Government on their environmental policy than I do. It surprises me to hear you say that you would wait for the Harper Conservatives to define environmental policy for Nova Scotia. In fact, even Alberta has moved ahead and created policy and legislation around the recycling of mercury-containing bulbs, as have Quebec and Ontario and other jurisdictions that don't have the same faith you did.

 

Two years ago we sat here in this room and you told me that the federal government regulations would come in a year. Last year you told me they would come in a year. Today you're telling me they're going to come in 2013. I don't frankly believe they are going to come because when you listen to Minister Kent, Minister Kent has said quite openly in numerous media reports - one of which we tabled in last year's estimates - that it is not a priority for him and that he is waiting on the provinces. So you are sitting here saying you're waiting on the federal government and he's saying he's waiting on the provinces; some provinces have already moved.

 

Frankly, while I don't disagree with you that - in fact, I completely agree with you - the municipal experience is very useful. I absolutely agree with you on that. We both have that in common. It does give us a sense of what happens on the ground a bit better coming into this, but to talk about fishing traps and the disposable fishing traps, that's important, but this is different. This is mercury and this may not have mattered as much - it always mattered, but it may not have mattered as much five years ago when it was pretty rare to see someone having a CFL in their light or we weren't pulling out high-pressure sodium street lights, but that's not the case today. Every single street light in this province either has been changed recently or is in the process of being changed and that is an enormous quantity. Now some of them are being shipped to Quebec. We know that incandescents are slowly being phased out. I mean, you can just walk into Home Depot or Walmart or Kent and see how few of the incandescent bulbs there are.

 

The problem is now - I'm sure that you are well aware - you're certainly smart enough to know that mercury accumulates in the environment. It doesn't dissipate. It's classed as a bio-accumulative substance that builds up in the environment over time; builds up in water tables; builds up in landfills and everywhere else. It doesn't break down. Even if I put a plastic bag in the landfill, which obviously we don't want people to do, but even if I do that, it will break down over time. Mercury will not and so that's why this matters.

 

I need to understand why you have more confidence. For three years now, you sat here and gave me the same answer that we're going to wait for the federal government and it's going to come next year. You just said 2013, which again is next year. Next year has never happened on the federal government. That's not your fault. It's not your fault, and it doesn't surprise me from the federal government, but it does surprise me that your government has introduced legislation, which I think makes a lot of sense, in fairness, to change street lights, but didn't have a companion piece of legislation to say, this is how we're going to deal with the light bulbs. Why is it that you have more faith every year in the federal Harper Conservative Government's environment policy than I do? Every year you say it's going to be next year.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I guess with my background, I'm going to take the bait here. I do have more faith probably than the honourable member has because I want to talk about a few areas you raised. This is something that's very important to me and I know that certainly you're interested in this topic and you raised this in the House. I think you asked me once or twice in the House and I do appreciate it. Also, your question about my faith in the federal government - I can talk about that at a later date, but I do have faith in our Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, our CCME partners, and this is an issue that we have dealt with and we are looking forward to moving this forward and harmonizing our regulations with our other provinces.

 

I understand you're concerned about this and do I want these kept out of the landfill? I most certainly do but I guess I was giving you that little background of information over the two decades of how much we have moved forward about keeping different objects out of our landfill. We've made great improvements and I've made reference to my hometown where lobster traps and rope like that is an issue and certainly fluorescent lights are an issue and there are a number of them that we need to keep out of our landfill. We want to accomplish that but I am going to take the bait here and say that we have faith in this government because I do have faith in our accomplishments, Mr. Chairman, that we have accomplished in a very short period of time and maybe it's time that we highlight them.

 

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we have only been in office for less than 36 months and some of the highlights of the same interest of fluorescent lights and something that we want to achieve is that I look at our government and one of the very first things that we've done was to put protections about a ban on uranium. We also put protection on environment - I think it is environment - the protection on Georges Bank. We are world leaders when it comes to waste reduction. We have, again, I pointed out earlier in my remarks that we received two awards, not one award but two awards in Copenhagen dealing with tidal power work, our work on the greenhouse gases, GHG regulations.

 

We've been recognized, Mr. Chairman, by the David Suzuki Foundation. This is not one of your not-for-profit organizations. When I mention David Suzuki, it's a very respectable name. We've been recognized by that foundation. We have been recognized by the Ecotrust. Our national drinking water report card gave an A-minus to all Nova Scotians and my limited time in school, if I got an A, I would be doing cartwheels across the community playground and, again, the work that we have done on tidal power, wind energy, I get positive comments almost on a weekly basis on our work on 12 per cent protection and most recently our work on the equalization of coal-fired regulations saving Nova Scotians millions of dollars.

 

Now, to me, that is a significant difference and the member opposite may not believe that he has probably entered paradise, but I can tell you that it's closer to paradise since we have taken government in the last 36 months and I can go into great detail on some of these projects but I want to get the mercury out of those landfills regarding fluorescent lights and I agree with the member opposite that we do need to work on this and we will be working with our partners, and I thank you for bringing up this question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: You know, I find it - well, first of all, I'm just going to say when, I'm sure you're doing better on the environment but comparing yourself to the previous Tory Government on the environment is a pretty low standard to compare yourself against. So, you know, you might even agree with me on that.

I will also say that you brought up the David Suzuki Foundation and so let's talk about that because in their April 11^th report you didn't make the grade. You made the grade a few years ago but you don't make the grade anymore. In fact, no provinces in Canada made the best grade. Three of the provinces made very good - Quebec, Ontario and B.C. You didn't make the top two grades this year. Yet you keep talking about, and that was on April 12^th, that was just a couple of weeks ago when they came out with the rankings for the last year on achievements in the environment and greenhouse gases. Nova Scotia didn't make the grade anymore with the David Suzuki Foundation. In fact, they were pointed out as having dropped and slipped in the past year. So that achievement that you had in year one, which you know I agree, it was a big jump from previously. Just while you were speaking I looked it up from the foundation and you were at the top for that one year with the move towards those hard caps but now you fall behind B.C., Ontario, Quebec, and nobody is even at the top of the list anymore. So how do you explain the drop in the ranking then?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I find of interest some of these questions but I'm hesitating here because I'm not a boastful person and I don't want to go down that path but I think sometimes you have to stand up on the podium and beat your chest and talk about the accomplishments that your government has done and, to me, we have been recognized by David Suzuki on a number of accomplishments. My understanding is that Nova Scotia is fourth in the David Suzuki report. Do we want to get into those details but I'm starting to take the bait that you're offering here. You're talking about past governments and maybe I don't want to compare myself to the previous governments.

 

Sometimes that can be an interesting road to go down but I look at some of the opportunities here that previous governments had, the ban on uranium, I know that many governments may have had that opportunity and I know, Mr. Chairman, that you can probably give me some credit on this one but previous governments on protecting Georges Bank, not once in Norigs 2, not twice in Norigs 3, one, two and three, over 30 years of trying to get some environmental protection around that bank and I can assure the member opposite he may not have been involved in the Party at the time but they had opportunities. They had opportunities to address some of these issues I just talked about there, their work on tidal power, wind energy. The list goes on and, you know, I think we can spend a lot of time on our accomplishments but I want to stand on that podium and say that we have done more in this 36 months - or less than 36 months - protecting the environment than the previous governments and I stand by some of these comments that I said about the other Parties have had these opportunities and it's unfortunate that they didn't achieve it but we have. So I'll leave it at that.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Well, you know, if we want to debate that, the ban on uranium that you passed is no different than the moratorium that was in place that has no additional force of law. Pretty well every legal expert has said that and that's fine, you know, we supported it but there is actually no difference between what is in place and what was there before. Georges Bank came up and, in fact, it was, geez, I'll even give credit to the Tories, the date came up during your mandate and it was the Liberals and Tories who pushed for it right off the bat and, in fact, the original comments that came out from your government was, well, maybe we would just extend it. It was actually after Tory and Liberal pushing that it became a full bill. You, yourself, as Fisheries Minister, wouldn't even agree that it should be a ban until after over a month of Liberals and Tories demanding that and it's not too often that I'll give Tories credit for things.

 

So on tidal power, well, in fact the first tidal power generating station in Nova Scotia was in 1984 - the Annapolis tidal station - as you're well aware and there has been, frankly we still don't have another tidal outfit in the water. So I'm not sure that I would take credit for that just yet because I agree, it's important, but there has been incremental progress for 20 years on that file. In terms of things such as LED lights, you're absolutely right and we supported that but, you know, if you want to compare when a Liberal Government was in power 20 years ago or 15 years ago, LED lights didn't even exist at the time. If you actually looked, there actually was a change during that time to different and more energy-efficient technologies but, again, I think we all know that in the early 1990s the environment was an issue but it wasn't an issue in the way that it is today. It was an issue in terms of safe drinking water which obviously the government of that day did move on. It was an issue of how mine tailings were dealt with.

 

Environment was an issue, it was just a different issue and that's when we started to see changes. In fact, I'm sure you'll remember the debates on acid rain and the accords on acid rain which it's a shame that nobody talks about much anymore because acid rain is still an issue, it has been usurped by other issues such as greenhouse gases. A lot of the things that you would choose to blame previous governments for, in fact, nobody knew, and maybe they should have but nobody world-wide was dealing with it. I think that is probably a little bit of an unfair statement in that respect. What I'm asking is that you have been in power for three years. I have credited you for many of the things that you have accomplished, in fairness, you know, such as changing the LED lights. When the Georges Bank decision finally came around, we credited that. Actually interestingly enough, on the renewable energy strategy which I understand is, it's sort of an Environment/Energy thing, it was the Liberals that actually made the amendment to that legislation to put the hard cap in the legislation as opposed to it being in the regulations.

 

Mr. Epstein was here at the Law Amendments Committee at the time and your caucus agreed to that. I mean not that you weren't going to do it but we were concerned that some future government, because it was in regulations, might tweak it in Cabinet and we moved the amendment to put that in legislation. So we have supported you on those things. What I'm just saying is it's great that you're number four on the Suzuki list. You still talk about it as that you're ranked very highly and the fact is that that doesn't even get you in the top two categories. Rank four just gives you a "good".

 

I remember going home in elementary school back in the day, I don't know what the report cards are now because my son is too young, but it used to be: Fail, Good, Very Good, Excellent and, my goodness, you know, good was okay but that's only one step above fail. So I don't know, maybe the rankings are different now but nobody made the top rank. Three provinces made the second rank of very good and you made the third one, down in fourth place, and maybe that means that you're at the top of that and that's great. Do you know what? You are moving forward, I'm just, your answers to some of the things are to take credit for things that were three years ago and you still need to continue to make improvements because by your own words there's a lot of movement that should have been made.

 

So continuing on with this sort of recycling issue, and one of the other issues that you may have seen today, I'm sure they claim they've discussed it with your department, I have no way of knowing whether they have or have not, there is a request to require the recycling of Styrofoam. Apparently there are a number of companies and this is a little bit like the mercury thing, that there are opportunities, if you legislate it or regulate it, the recycling of mercury-containing light bulbs and phosphorus, high-pressure sodium bulbs, there's an economic opportunity here to create green jobs, jobs that can be in rural areas in many cases, there's no reason why they couldn't be, jobs that could take manufacturing plants that are idle and have them doing something.

 

Well, my understanding is there is at least one, maybe a few businesses that are now saying, listen, we can recycle Styrofoam and since you wanted to tell a story about municipal, let me tell you a story about municipal stuff. Recently HRM, and this is since I was on council and I'm glad they went this way, decided to go like some of the other municipalities, maybe Shelburne was one of them, I'm not sure, but recycle all plastics. So there was a big fight, as you probably know, for a long time because they were concerned the price would go down. Well, we have garbage collection in my neighbourhood every two weeks. If I have more than one bag every two weeks, in a house with three people now, it's very rare. Sometimes I have two but it's very rare for me to have more than one and that's because of all the plastics they have taken out.

 

The interesting thing to me is that when I have more than one, it's often because I've bought something that has Styrofoam packaging or those ridiculous peanuts which absolutely drive me up the wall. So now there's a company in Dartmouth that is willing to create jobs, that has found a way I guess to economically recycle Styrofoam. I'm not sure what the technology is exactly but you are going to wait for the feds on the mercury light bulbs, to recycle those, and I think that we should just move ahead because there are people willing to create jobs and do that here and other provinces have moved ahead fine. You gave me your answer there.

 

I realize this is a new one but have you looked at the Styrofoam issue and whether you are prepared to begin - we already regulate the plastics, obviously, are you willing to look at the Styrofoam issue?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member, I'm trying to go back, there were a number of questions in there. You talked about some of the earlier comments regarding our position about, first of all, the increased protection we put around Georges Bank. I just want to add a comment on that before we move on; Denny Morrow, executive director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers, called that the story of the year, so I just want to add that I think it was recognized by Nova Scotians that there was some improvement there.

 

I know you talked about some of the tidal power in that project. To me, that is a demonstration project and I was really proud of that announcement. I know there was some sensitivity around fishermen in the area and the conditions of that demonstration project - we set out conditions that we wanted to make sure that the habitat and the environment were protected. The fishermen felt confident that these conditions were paying attention to their concerns, so I was delighted with that and I really know there's a great potential there in our tidal power and the benefits that we can have for Nova Scotians.

 

As you went on with your comments, you talked about Styrofoam and I agree with you, this is also - and other issues like fluorescent lights - something that we need to look at. We are working with our colleagues across our nation to address this issue. To me, when we get the packaging and we've all got it, we've all got our entertainment sets or some kind of a handy gadget that we want to buy off the shelf. We get back and we start dismantling the container that it's in and then we realize, or my observation is, how did all that packaging get in that little box. I've got this little gizmo over here that I'm doing my renovations with but the content or the packaging almost seemed like 90 per cent of the container. I understand that and that's something that we are working with our colleagues to address and I share your concerns around that.

 

I guess the point I was trying to make, maybe we got off a bit, is that there are a number of issues regarding the environment that we want to address and do better at. I guess the point I'm trying to say is that as a government, we have taken this job seriously and we have seen some accomplishments. Is there more work to be done? Yes, there is and as you highlighted early on, the fluorescent light bulb and again, we need to - I guess my point is that we need to work together on some of these and we can move forward.

 

If I can go back to our Equivalency Agreement with our federal government, I think that is a major accomplishment to set out our own made-in-Nova Scotia approach and to save people, taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars. So at times we need to work together and there's a lot of issues, and you may not accept this but previous governments have had opportunities to work on that and we're rolling up our sleeves and we're meeting the challenges head on. I appreciate your question and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, minister, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to give you - I don't disagree with you on the Georges Bank thing, just to clarify that. The issue was that Denny Morrow also criticized you before it started, for not being willing to take a firm stand on it when the other Parties were and that was more my point. So the same person who ultimately - I think we were all happy with the final result. I think probably everybody in the House remembers the member for Digby-Annapolis' story of fishing tales, and your own, and somehow he's somewhat dramatic when he tells fishing tales and that's great. It made a very interesting debate and I'm glad we all came to the same page on that, I think that makes sense.

 

I think we largely came to the same page on things like the LED change. I mean there was some concern over how it would be financed and so forth but on the policy issue I think we agreed - certainly while the Tories didn't, the Liberals and the NDP agreed on the expansion of the renewable energy target. So there are things that we have agreed with on this that we thought were progressive moves to move things ahead.

 

So in moving along with that, let's talk about the water strategy because you talked about that in your opening remarks. When that was announced, my biggest concern with that water strategy was that it's not backed up by legislation. When you did the renewable energy targets it was backed up by legislation and some of that was in regulation and obviously, you know, we made some changes but in the end it's backed up in legislation with some regulations behind it.

 

At the time, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember the interview that you did at the Nova Scotia Museum, you suggested that there could be - I don't think you said there would be but there could be - legislation coming to ensure that that water strategy is in law and that it makes it more difficult to change as opposed to just being something on the shelf that somebody might ignore at times. Are you planning on moving with legislation to make the water strategy more than just a document that we hope people will follow but is really based on the whims of whoever the minister is at the time?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the question from the member. My understanding is that under our present regulations with the Environment Act, this is something that is covered. There's a lot of strategy and something that's already there that we can do under the Environment Act. I just want to give you little highlights here. The Nova Scotia Water Advisory Group consists of seven members representing academics, consulting industry and non-government organizations and municipalities. It was established in 2011 and it continues to provide advice and expertise on the water strategy.

 

The central theme of our Nova Scotia Water Resources Management Strategy is that integrated water management, or IWM, is a comprehensive approach on managing water resources, including human activities and other efforts or effects on our watersheds and our ecosystem. This includes integration of our management and water activities across the province's government departments. Mr. Chairman, there are 29 actions that are outlined within three key areas of this action and they are: understanding the quality and quantity of our water; protecting the quality and quantity of our water; and engaging in the caring of our water.

 

Anyway, those are some of just the highlights of this particular water strategy and, again, I know that all Nova Scotians, I think that's one of the things that I look at my background and I know that many of us across Nova Scotia take water for granted, whether it's drinking water or we look around our 13,000 kilometres of coastline - I made a living up until I got into this job on the water, and we have an ocean that replenishes and has renewable resources that Nova Scotians, particularly our rural coastal communities, survive on.

 

So is water important to Nova Scotians? I think we all appreciate that but sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we take it for granted and it's opportunities like this that we get to appreciate it. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: So just to clarify, are you saying that you feel that the elements of the water strategy that should be supported by legislation, you feel the legislation is already in place to support that?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Could he repeat the question? I was trying to follow two trains of thought and I apologize.

 

MR. YOUNGER: No, no, I understand it's tricky. The same thing happens to me when you get notes and you're trying to do two things at once, that's fine. I just want to clarify, are you saying that you feel that the legislation that we now have, legislation and regulations, are sufficient to enforce the water strategy?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, yes, my understanding is that the Environment Act does have that quality or the regulations are there to do that but our staff is always working to, if there's anything that we can do to improve on certain areas, like the water strategy, it's something that we work towards.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you for that clarification. One of the other issues that has come up over and over again in different years and certainly came up when you were in Opposition and has continued to come up is runoff from construction sites. I can remember, I believe Mark Parent was the Minister of Environment - I think it was Environment and Labour then maybe even - and I remember the former member for Dartmouth East and I, as a councillor, sat in a meeting because of runoff from, at the time it was Dartmouth Crossing, they were building Dartmouth Crossing and picked up and ended up in the lake.

 

There have been promises by successive governments to try to deal with this issue. In Vermont, as one example, the way they deal with this is they have state regulations or state legislation which prohibit the opening of a construction site, clearing the trees and everything from a construction site more than a certain percentage of the site at a time. We don't have that here at the moment and maybe we don't need that here, I'm not sure, but we certainly don't have it.

 

There seems to be - and I think the public certainly feels this way and I feel this way - that there is a disconnect between whatever the minimum regulations are and the results and so what appears to be happening and, in fairness it does differ by site, it depends on how close you are to major watercourses, but it appears that people will go out and put the silt fences up - and I'm not an engineer but it baffles me how those silt fences do anything but maybe they do - and it's not until after there's a siltation event, a major siltation event, that then the Department of Environment inspector goes out and, in fairness to your department, they go out very quickly. They'll go out on weekends, you know, whatever, if you call them up and then they'll order them to put hay on the site. Then it can work its way down and ultimately can end up where the minister will order - which is what happened at the Dartmouth Crossing site where they were actually given, if I remember the order correctly, in that case they were given an order to achieve certain results, so to prevent the silt from actually hitting the lake. But the regulations as they stand now, and there's a construction manual you can download from your department's Web site that I've downloaded a few times, I think it's called the Control of Sedimentation and Siltation from Construction Sites or something like that, it's a couple of hundred pages or something.

 

It talks about, you know, build this silt fence and do this but it talks about what to build, it doesn't actually talk about what we are trying to achieve whereas it strikes me that the regulations, and I don't know if this is climate change or what's going on but it strikes me that every May and June we have a heck of a lot of rain and we have rain in volumes and in an intensity that I don't remember ever having before and that seems to be when most of these siltation events happen. The big ones seem to happen around that time of year.

 

I'm wondering why we're not moving to regulations that instead of saying go out and put up a silt fence, whatever they are, like 48 inches high on the stakes and hope that works, why don't we say, fine, if you're going to build the site, we don't really care how you achieve this but your job is to make sure that the silt doesn't end up in the river or the lake. Wouldn't it make sense to sort of shift how we deal with that?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the member opposite, you really ask very detailed questions and I appreciate your questions because there are questions within questions is what I'm saying. It's actually a compliment.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: So please bear with me but you're talking about siltation or silts, as I refer to it, and again I appreciate my municipal background and I know that a lot of these regulations fall under the municipal jurisdiction. It's not to say that we do not have a part to play in that, but we certainly have inspectors that go out and inspect this siltation or silt when there's runoff. I can assure you from personal experience, I visited somewhere near your riding or your hometown - the Sackville Rivers Association asked me when I very first came on this job, I was asked to visit the community and the river system and the silt that was flowing at the river - not on that particular day, but the Sackville Rivers Association had some great concerns about that, but I also observed there's a number of industry construction in that.

 

Also, I'm aware that we have to have - or we need - road construction. I guess to me, this kind of ties into a much broader question that you're raising a very important point here - I think this is all related. It's a long-winded story here, but I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have severe weather patterns or weather events at certain times that can have effect on some of the sediment that can be in our streams because of different events and this is happening on a more regular basis. It's something that we are paying attention to and I think all Nova Scotians have to be serious about that.

 

The other part that I want to add in there that the honourable member may want to consider is that in our coastal strategy, if I can just talk about my other partnership or other department that I represent, that we're coming out with our coastal strategy. In that is one of the points that we want to talk about how we manage our coastal shorelines and the erosion. To me, they're all connected, is what I'm saying. Your point about sedimentation or silt in some of these developing areas is something that we're certainly paying attention to. We have inspectors to do that and I welcome anytime that you have an issue or complaint or your constituencies want to bring that to our attention, we look forward to that. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I always, as you know, give a 10-minute warning when your time is getting down. You have 10 minutes remaining.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Just to continue on that - so the inspector is very good. I've never had a problem that I can think of - I don't think I've ever had a problem calling the department. There's the 1-800 number in the phone book for environmental emergencies on the weekend. An inspector goes out to check it - it's all great. The problem is that's after the fact. What I'm trying to do is - and Sackville River, as you pointed out, is probably a good example. I know from Walter Regan these things happen over and over again. It's a long river. They happen in other rivers too.

 

I guess what I'm asking is, I haven't seen too many problems with the response of the department under the existing regulations, so it's not that they're not following. The question is whether the regulations that we have now remain adequate. We've seen other jurisdictions change to more of a - I don't know how many, but some jurisdictions have changed to a system where construction sites and landowners - and highways is a very good example - that they are responsible to achieve certain results. The interesting thing to me, as I was mentioning earlier, is that by the time it gets so bad that you have to do a ministerial order, your ministerial order has usually achieved these results, but by that point we've already had a certain amount of damage because you wouldn't issue a ministerial order unless there was something happening.

 

The question I have is around whether you think that needs to be changed so that instead of demanding somebody do certain technical things - you're actually demanding results instead. So you're saying, listen, it's your responsibility to make sure that the level of silt doesn't achieve a certain parts per million in the watercourse. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have that in the regulations as opposed to saying you must have this fence and that fence and put hay here and maintain this slope?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The member is bringing up a very interesting, timely topic. Our water strategy has actions dealing with the siltation and erosion guidelines. I think I made a comment in my earlier presentation about how busy our department is. I think you can appreciate the thousands of construction jobs across Nova Scotia and how possibly these are potential issues that may cause sedimentation or silt to be basically going to our water system is something of great concern.

 

If you multiply that by the many thousands of times that there's construction sites or different road events, I think that in my earlier remarks just talking about the seriousness of some of these weather events, and I point to the South Shore, I believe it was two years ago that we had - I call it a weather bomb - we had severe weather that was very concentrated in my hometown, the Clyde River area. It was basically less than 30 or 50 kilometres and outside the perimeter of that weather system, it was normal, there was no flooding, but within the eye of that weather bomb there was severe flooding and loss of property. So to me, we're dealing with some of these systems that can move through our climate, our climate is changing, and it's unfortunate that we have to deal with these situations.

 

I guess the point you are raising here is something that we take seriously. We have in our regulations a strategy dealing with siltation and erosion guidelines, it's something that we've also considered in our coastal strategy. So these are broad things, it's happening as we move and we get moving along in our time here but it's an important issue and something that we want to address and again, we have inspectors who go out and visit these sites but again, we also rely on the public, their eyes and ears on the road and I encourage you, any time you have an issue like this, to bring it to our office's attention. Thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I agree with the weather issues and they seem to be happening more frequently. I'm not sure if they really are or not or it's just my perception. I think something you just said there kind of proves what I'm getting at, which is there are tons of these construction sites all over the province. There are strip mines, road construction projects that TIR is doing. Wouldn't it save you money and resources - because you can't go out to all these sites, you don't have enough staff, you'll never have enough staff to do that. It's like the people who want a police officer on every corner, it's just never going to happen. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to say, here's what you're required to achieve? Then you can respond to the complaints about sites that aren't achieving the runoff guidelines because at the moment you have to respond, or somebody - not you, personally, obviously - somebody in your department has to respond to every single complaint that there is siltation runoff. Then they've got to come back and see if it has been fixed. Then they have to come back again and again. Sometimes these guys are out there like four and five and six times, which is fine if you're in the city because they can drive around in circles all day and go to 10 sites. It's a lot harder, the further you get out of the city, right? Some of these, you know they can only drive so far in a day.

 

It strikes me that listening to what you said, it might even save your department money and be a better use of resources if an inspector - an inspector would still have to go out the first time but if they determine that yes, you know what, it's being achieved, whatever the guideline you said is, that that would be a better use of resources.

 

The example I would give you, and I think this might be under your department - it might be under Natural Resources but I think it's under your department - if I own a quarry, I have to monitor the siltation leaving that site. So Conrad's quarry, which is around the corner from my place, Kim Conrad, there's remote monitoring and somebody in the province, I don't know if it's Natural Resources or Environment, can go on a computer and look that up at any time and see what siltation levels are coming out of that site. They can go out and visit in person too, obviously. They can monitor that in Conrad Brothers office as well.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to - and I'm not suggesting you need remote monitoring at all these sites because some of them aren't there long enough - but wouldn't it be better to have something like that? We're already requiring it for quarries and mines, and saying you can only have a certain amount of runoff. Wouldn't it be better just to do it that way? You look at Dartmouth Crossing, you've got a grade that was like - I don't know if it was a one to five grade or more and it was a natural grade and the requirement was for this tiny little silt fence until we eventually got to the point of your department, in the previous government, issuing a ministerial order when everybody knew the silt fence wasn't going to do anything in the first place because the grade was too steep, but that's what the regulations said he had to have. I just think it might be a better use of your resources as well as achieving better things for citizens.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I appreciate your comments, but I just want to ensure that the member opposite understands that sediment guidelines, which we do have for any construction, need to be observed and followed. The other part there, you didn't talk about regional offices. I want to emphasize that we have 10 regional offices so we have people out in the field who do their work on a daily basis and we appreciate them - good economic engine in rural Nova Scotia to have these 10 regional offices across our province.

 

You're pointing out that we have so many different construction sites and scenarios across our province, literally hundreds of thousands on a yearly basis. Our staff can't be everywhere at one time, but again, we work and we've set guidelines for this and it's something that we are paying attention to. Again, we can't control Mother Nature or these so-called weather bombs that we are getting more frequently, unfortunately. I think these things can be dealt with and we can have opportunities to improve, but it's something that we want to manage. I appreciate the question and bringing this to the House of Assembly.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Liberal caucus first round of questioning. There has been a request for a break and we're going to call that break only for five minutes because we want to be in synchronization with the main House and conclude our Committee of the Whole House on Supply at the very same time, so a five-minute break is in order and I request everyone to be back in five minutes. Thank you.

 

[11:03 a.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[11:08 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll resume our session with the Department of Environment. The Progressive Conservative caucus will begin with an hour of questioning. I think we have a quorum if we round everybody up that is outside the door at least. I know there are a couple sitting out there. There isn't a Page in the room, but Mr. MacMaster, if you don't mind beginning without a quorum, I will round up some people very quickly.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, minister, for the opportunity to ask some questions. My first question is, do we have data that you could share with us comparing our emission targets with other provinces and states in North America and even other countries around the world? Is that something that could be made available?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We do have data available. My understanding is that we can only speak to the data that we have in our own province as of today.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Can you clarify what you mean by that? I guess my interest was just comparing our own targets with the targets of other jurisdictions. I know that we often make the claim that we have the most aggressive emissions targets in North America and I'm just curious to see how that comparison is made.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We certainly will be happy, our staff will be happy to try to collect that data. I'm actually trying to get clarity on what you're actually asking for. Are you asking for Nova Scotia data or are you asking for data across the world or across North America?

 

MR. MACMASTER: I guess I would be asking for Nova Scotia data in comparison to data from other jurisdictions - across North America and if there's some from other countries around the world that we have that would be interesting to see.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We'll take your question under consideration and we'll do our best to try to accommodate the member's request.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. I know for good reason we're trying to reduce mercury emissions and I know that the government changed targets about - I think it maybe was a year and a half ago, maybe it was a little bit longer. The targets were changed because if we followed that target at that time, there was a significant cost to the province and we rolled back our aggressive targets in that case. Has your office determined a cost per kilogram of mercury emitted? What I mean by that is - say there are x-number of kilograms of mercury that we don't want emitted and we're moving away from things like burning of coal, what is the cost in terms of removing that mercury from the environment?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The province certainly has taken steps to reduce the impact of rising electricity costs for Nova Scotians and set even more ambitious targets to reduce mercury emissions over the long term. The Department of Environment has amended air quality regulations that affect Nova Scotia Power, which contributes to the majority of Nova Scotia's mercury emissions. The regulations give the companies more time to implement technologies that will meet mercury targets in a more affordable way. Nova Scotians have told us that they couldn't afford the rate increases that Nova Scotia Power needed to meet the 2010 mercury emission caps. We have listened to Nova Scotians. We are keeping our power bills affordable while ensuring there is a solid plan to better protect the environment over the long term. We have taken action to transform our energy mix into one that's cleaner, greener and more affordable. It's something that we take very seriously in Nova Scotia.

 

Our target of having 40 per cent of electricity generated through renewable sources such as wind and hydro by 2020 makes us certainly vulnerable for rising costs and burning imported coal. That's something that we want to move away from - our addiction to coal-fired or coal energy.

 

The question that you are raising is something that we are paying attention to and naturally want to do something that is right for Nova Scotians and we want to make sure that we keep the environment clean, but we also want to protect and make it affordable for Nova Scotians.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Certainly I can appreciate that and the importance of the balance. I guess that's what I was trying to get a handle on and in the response you just gave, you mentioned that it was recognized that it was going to be costly for Nova Scotians in terms of their power bills. I know that the allowable mercury emissions were allowed to increase beyond the targets. I guess if I could phrase my question more specifically, was there a number that the department had in mind that they might be saving Nova Scotians in terms of their power bills with the allowable increase in mercury emissions?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Certainly the decision to defer mercury was at the right time. The estimated savings for Nova Scotia is between $40 million and $60 million. This cost would have been applied certainly to our power rates. To me this is something that we really take into consideration and I believe that we have accomplished that by setting out these goals and going much beyond our federal requirements. We are saving Nova Scotian taxpayers - ratepayers - millions of dollars. It's something that I'm certainly proud of and I think all Nova Scotians should take credit and appreciate that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: This is true - I often think of energy because of the paper mill in Point Tupper and they use a significant amount. I'm always keeping in touch with them with respect to their costs for power. I also know a lot of the people who work at the power generation plant in Point Tupper - there are about 60 people employed there. I know recently the federal government relaxed its requirements on our province so that we wouldn't have to close that coal-fired generation plant. I think it was slated for closure by 2019 under regulations, but they recognized that we're doing other things to make our environment cleaner in the province. They're going to allow those plants to continue past that time frame. Of course we're not stranding those assets so we're not having to pay for those assets before their lifespan has been completed.

 

I'm glad to have the figure of $40 million to $60 million savings. Was there a firm number - I think it's measured in kilograms of emissions - of mercury that was allowed to be emitted over and above the previously defined target to achieve those $40 million to $60 million savings?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The capped emissions will continue on a downward trend leading to a new 35-kilogram per year target by 2020. The cap for 2011 is 100 kilograms; 2012 the cap is 100 kilograms; and 2013 the cap is 85 kilograms; 2014 the cap is 65 kilograms; and 2020 the cap is 35 kilograms. You can see the targets are being reduced. To me, some of this agreement and how we can make a made-in-Nova Scotia agreement is something that I think needs to be recognized and we all need to take benefit for it. It's something that - if we did not have that, the burden, we all know where that's going to end up - there is only one taxpayer. To me, it was working through that exercise and knowing that we had to get the federal attention. I think earlier my colleague pointed out my support for federal colleagues - this is where I wanted to recognize that.

 

To me, when we do good work, it's time to recognize our federal partners and I want to compliment our federal government on achieving this Equivalency Agreement because this is something that was made in Nova Scotia and it's going to benefit Nova Scotians. The previous speaker - you may not have heard his comments, but I was paying attention to that - may have misunderstood me saying that it was in total support of our federal government. I just want to clarify that point, that when it comes to the Equivalency Agreement, I think we really worked together and there are times when you accomplish these, yes, you need to pay attention and to make that public announcement. The former speaker may misinterpret that as full support so I think you understand the point I'm trying to make there. Thank you.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I do - I've heard him misinterpret many things in the past, but it's not fair of me to say that, he's not here. Just to clarify it for me, in 2011, it's 110 kilograms. What was the previous target? I'm trying to determine - to generate the $40 million to $60 million savings, did we emit maybe 20 kilograms more of mercury?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Hopefully this number will clarify it. Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is asking for some detailed information. I'm going to ask my staff to follow up to make sure we get the numbers right, but the information I have in front of me - the 2010 cap for the utility is set at 110 kilograms. There's 10 kilograms difference between 2011 - at 2011 the cap is 100 kilograms. I know that the math, the numbers here - I don't want to get confused or anything, but I know our staff are paying attention to your questions and we'll get you a detailed print-out of that to make sure that I have offered the correct information.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Sure, thank you. I will move away from these questions, but maybe just for a point of clarification, I guess I'm just trying to project out if we move from, say, 110 kilograms down to 85 to 65 to 35, if we're dropping it by, say, 20 kilograms per year, we may, in fact, be increasing the cost by, say, $40 million to $60 million per year in power bills. I guess I'm recognizing what happened in the past and I'm recognizing what the federal government has done as well, which you've referenced, that there is certainly an interest to reduce mercury emissions, but we're also trying to remember that there are people out there who are paying power bills who don't really have a choice but to pay their power bill. I guess we can't just blindly say no more mercury emissions. I guess we could, but - and it would be nice to be able to do that - but it may not be practical unless we want people, especially people on fixed incomes having to pay a higher and higher percentage of their monthly income on power utilities. Maybe I'll just leave that comment and if your staff are preparing information, that's kind of my line of thinking and I guess what I'm trying to determine there.

 

I know there are penalties, I often hear about penalties for emissions. Can you give some comment on what the penalties are and who levies them when we emit pollution in Nova Scotia? Are we penalized by some other kind of world body? I often hear about trading of carbon credits and things like that. In a practical way, how does it impact our province?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: You're asking a number of detailed questions, but first of all I want to revisit the question you asked about the mercury emissions. Certainly our province is committed to the environment and the energy affordability remains as strong as ever. Our mercury caps - it certainly was a difficult decision, but energy affordability and the environment must be addressed together. The environment is better off in the long run and mercury caps help keep energy or electricity rates in line. We need to get the same mercury reductions over the long term. In Nova Scotia, we have met or are on track to meet our targets to reduce our air pollution.

 

The question you asked - I just want to get clarity on - about what the penalties were in case some of these businesses or industries didn't meet this?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Mr. Chairman, I've often heard that one of the reasons we're trying to move away from fossil fuels is because we face a future of penalties if we keep using them, in terms of - I've heard carbon cap requirements and I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of when people say those things, what does it mean for our province, like are there penalties being levied on us for emissions and, if so, who would we be paying those penalties to?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite, there are financial penalties, particularly if Nova Scotia Power does not comply, if they don't meet the energy GHG targets in our regulations so hopefully that satisfies your request. I do not have the exact numbers but there are financial penalties for not meeting those targets.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Minister, would those penalties be levied by our province, then, upon Nova Scotia Power?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman, when we have the Equivalency Agreement in place then certainly those guidelines will be included in that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: This does kind of make sense because I know in speaking with Nova Scotia Power in the past they've said they keep a very close watch on their emissions and there's a certain time when they shut off the coal-fired generation because they can't burn any more for the rest of the year because they don't want to go over that target because the penalty is quite high and they don't want to pass that cost on to their customers, I'm sure. I was curious about clarifying that and that does clarify it for me.

 

My next question has to do with harvesting energy from water or hydro projects. I feel like I may have asked this question last year but I'll ask it. I understand there's an annual fee of about $600 that individuals must pay if they're trying to harvest energy from micro-hydro projects. This would be, I would assume, say rivers, that kind of thing on a very small scale, but there are some people who have been able to harness an amount of energy that makes it worth their while but the $600 fee starts to become prohibitive. I've heard about this and I guess I just wanted to ask if that is the fee and if it would make sense to look at reducing that fee, if only to encourage more people to use that form of energy, so that it makes economic sense for them.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask for clarification because I want to understand the question. Are you asking for a cost for water withdrawal, or you are talking about a certain hydro project? Will you clarify it, please?

 

MR. MACMASTER: These kinds of projects, they would be pretty rare in the province, they would be very small and it's probably ones you've never even heard of. As I understand it, if you are harnessing energy by way of a micro-hydro project, you have to pay a water fee every year and it's in the amount of about $600.

 

This is a very specific question so I'd be satisfied if your office maybe sent me an e-mail about it at a later point in time.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the member opposite, you actually asked a very detailed question here and not to complicate things, but our staff are making note of this. Your question is important and we want to have clarity on it so we'll ask for your patience for us and our staff to get back to you. Thank you.

 

MR. MACMASTER: My next question is with respect to surface mining. The Minister of Natural Resources had told reporters that it would be coming to both the Department of Environment and the Department of Natural Resources by the end of March. We have not heard anything. This would be about the report on surface mining. When can we expect that report to be released?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Again, that report is something that is in the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. My understanding is that it is coming soon, but it is something that we need to direct to the appropriate department and we'll ask staff to do that. My understanding is the report is scheduled to be out soon.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know there has been a very hot issue - probably one of the biggest issues I've seen since I've been elected - and that is hydraulic fracturing. In my area - in West Lake Ainslie - I'm sure we all know about it and I'm sure you're aware of it. One of my questions is, how many staff would you have working on that project right now? I expect they would be working perhaps on the review. I know I've received an enormous amount of communication on the issue. I've encouraged people to input that communication directly into the review so that they have a chance to hear the government and the expert opinion of the staff in the office. Just to put a fine point on this question - how many staff would we have working on that?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I appreciate your earlier comments that you feel that this is an important issue to Nova Scotians and I agree with you. I think it's something that we are taking seriously and I probably can get into much more here in talking about our review in a few minutes. Just getting to your initial questions, my understanding is from our dedicated staff and staff from the Department of Energy, there are roughly 15 staff members who have worked on this particular issue.

 

I really appreciate and look forward to this particular question being raised by Opposition members. I'm really encouraged by understanding that first of all, we want to ensure that we are not going to harm drinking water and are actually protecting communities. In some of the earlier comments you talked about Lake Ainslie. I can tell you as a minister, I think you can appreciate I live at the other end of our province and since I've taken on this job, I've been approached by a number of people in that particular area and I can tell you I also do a lot of reading and understanding through correspondence from people in that community, their appreciation of their community. It was obvious in all the different statements that were coming my way on the sensitivity of hydraulic fracking in their particular area. I wanted to visit their community and I can assure you on the public record here that I visited their area several times - I think twice - and I understand how they can fall in love with such a beautiful community.

 

First of all I want to take some time here to express what we have done as a government and to initiate a further extension of this review dealing with hydraulic fracking. First of all we want to make it publicly known - as we have a number of times over the past few days - that no hydraulic fracking is happening in our province and this government will not - I repeat and I will say it loud; I'll say it from Citadel Hill - will not approve any hydraulic fracking during this review, which is extended into mid-2014.

 

I know that as the member opposite, your job is to ask difficult questions and to bring topics of importance to Nova Scotians and I appreciate that. I really believe that after taking consideration of all the information and knowing that there are other jurisdictions across North America - I look at our United States partners and I know there is a review going on there and that was not scheduled to be out until 2013 or near 2014 or in that area. That is why we picked those dates. There is also an extensive review going on in Canada and there are other jurisdictions - New York and Quebec. All that information and our staff review panel has evaluated that and this is the position that we've taken. I really believe that is appropriate and is the right time to make sure that we do not - the other point is that we have, to me, the perfect window of opportunity because there is no activity dealing with hydraulic fracking; we have no applications before us so I think we can take a step here in the right direction and get the correct information and make an informed decision. That's my view. This is what my view is.

 

I'd just like to read into the record - this was an issue of a Halifax paper just a day or so ago and I want to read into the record, if I could, on this topic. April 19, 2012, it was an editorial by the ChronicleHerald called:

 

"Proceeding cautiously on fracking decision.

 

ALL considerations of political timing aside, and the provincial NDP government's decision to extend by two years its review of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is not surprising.

 

Yes, we're sure that Premier Darrell Dexter would rather not have to face angry protests from anti-fracking groups, or criticism that he's anti-development - depending which way the government had decided - during an election campaign in the next year or so.

 

But the NDP reasonably argues a number of ongoing major studies of the controversial method for extracting shale gas from deep underground are well worth waiting for, given questions about the environmental safety of current fracking operations.

 

Ottawa has tasked an independent expert panel, chosen by the well-respected Council of Canadian Academies, to do a thorough scientific review of fracking in the next 18 to 24 months. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying fracking's impact on groundwater, with a preliminary report out later this year but a final report not expected until 2014.

 

If the resource is going to be exploited in Nova Scotia, then regulations must ensure that best operating practices are used so that all known environmental risks are minimized. The CCA and EPA studies will contribute to that knowledge.

 

Right now, there are issues with groundwater contamination from fracking due to well-casing construction, wastewater storage and disposal.

 

It's worth noting, however, as one former senior New York state environmental official did this month, that public and regulatory debates about fracking tend to be different.

 

The question is not philosophically whether to frack, Stu Gruskin, former executive deputy commissioner at the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, told a public meeting, but how to properly regulate that industry to protect the environment.

 

Unfortunately, misinformation on fracking muddies the debate. For example, many media wrongly reported the U.S. Geological Survey released a study this week saying fracking causes earthquakes. The Survey study's author publicly denied that was its conclusion."

 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I end my quote there. The point I am trying to make is that the decision to understand this issue is certainly we want to get it right. I think the point I'm trying to make, and I welcome the member opposite's question on this, because I think if Nova Scotians look at our decision, our government's decision, we made the right decision. I thank you for the question.

 

MR. MACMASTER: The review, I know, is going to be extended. One of the things I think about, there have been a lot of people who have come forward with concerns. Is there any plan to give like interim feedback to the public, based on the concerns that were raised? For instance, I suppose it's like doing a marketing survey, you could code the responses and put them into a number of categories. Some people would be raising sort of the same type of issues. Is there a plan to provide an interim report?

 

I guess when people communicate with the government sometimes they don't feel like they are being listened to. I know these people have put their concerns forth and I fear that in two years time or more, at that point it may be three years from the time which they've raised their concern, and recognizing that there's not going to be any fracking in the meantime, to me there still seems to be a need to get back to the public in some shape or form. I'm curious to know if there's going to be an interim report to provide that kind of feedback.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite. You are asking some really timely questions, I really appreciate that. We will not be issuing an interim report but, however, we'll be updating our Web site on a regular basis and we will not be answering individual questions but we'll be grouping them in the different categories. The updates will be evolving on our Web site and all the concerns of constituents, or Nova Scotians or the members of the public, this government and this department is listening to the concerns and we'll be doing our best to address those. I thank you for your question.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. What kind of resources do we have working on it at the Department of Environment right now, in terms of, say, people and dollars attached to that? There are staff that are probably working at other things and this is part of their regular duties, but just to get a handle of the resources that are being deployed.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, we have a number of engineers and hydrogeologists and we have regular staff that are addressing this issue as something that we take seriously. There is again, I want to point back to the studies - and I think the editorial that I made reference to captures that - that is ongoing, valuable, important information as we speak about these particular studies that are going on in other jurisdictions as more experienced, that has more activity. So I think it's valuable that we understand that and our staff and our engineers will be looking at all the different studies that are taking place and as they complete their completion date. So it will be a fact-finding mission and I'm sure that that information will be valuable as we continue to move forward on this particular topic. Thank you.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So just to confirm this, there's no firm number of staff or budget attached to the review?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We don't have exact numbers but we'll take your question under consideration but we have some of the best staff available and they'll be in consultation with the appropriate people, engineers and scientists as we view this particular information. Thank you.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. I just want to focus on one last area. One of my colleagues will be joining me in a minute to carry on with further questions. There was talk in the Throne Speech about plans for decentralization. I know your department is somewhat decentralized as it is, because we have offices all over the province. I've certainly visited the one in Port Hawkesbury and interacted with the staff there and have had good experiences when issues have come up in Inverness County. Are there plans to further decentralize the department?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much. I guess to me that's a very good lead question. First of all, I thank you for the opportunity to actually talk a bit on it. I'm actually surprised by the question, I've got to publicly recognize that because I feel that our department, we already have 10 regional offices, we have 160 of our staff already out in the field there, contributing to our 10 regional staff. So I think as one of kind of the flagship that we can point to is that in Environment we are decentralized as we speak.

 

On the subject of decentralizing departments is something I support. Our Premier has suggested that in the Throne Speech and some of the decisions on that have not been made as of yet. I look forward to that because I believe, like the Department of Environment, there are other departments with all the technology that we have today that we can actually accomplish a lot of that work. So I look forward to participating in that decision-making process.

 

Again, I think the example of Environment is a good example we have a lot of people are out there working in the field and I really do appreciate them and the work they do on a daily basis. So I don't know if I answered your question or not but I think it was more of a general question. You may want to clarify where you asked me to have more Environment people out there, so you may want to clarify that for me.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Minister, I was just curious, recognizing the department is already kind of decentralized, are there plans for further decentralization?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well I can tell you that the plans are that no decision has been made. That is something that will be done in the future, so I guess it's open for interpretation.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay. The numbers of staff in the department, I know last year in the budget there were expected to be 276 FTEs and it ended up being 238. Now we see it bump back up in the estimate this year of 268. What accounts for the fluctuations there?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to the member opposite. Certainly the reductions are due to a combination of factors, normal staff turnover such as sick leave and retirement, maternity leave accounts for some of our reductions. Certainly this is the normal ebb and flow of our staff. As well, the department is undergoing extensive workforce planning initiatives that will assist us with identifying more efficient ways to provide programs and services to Nova Scotians. This is so we can focus our resources on activities that posed a greater risk to the environment. This planning will support the work that we are doing under the review of the Environment Act.

 

I guess your question is just to get - hopefully I'm on the right track - your focus or concern was on the forecast of a certain amount number, is that correct?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, minister, I guess, and I've seen this with, it seems to be all departments in government, there's a budgeted figure from last year, there's an actual figure that's below that. Then this year we see that the estimate is back up again. I guess it kind of surprises me because - I've asked the question in other departments - if we were able to do it in this case with 238 full-time equivalents last year, why can't we do it with 238 again this year? I've heard the response that it's due to the ebb and flow and the turnover and things like that. I fully appreciate that there are fluctuations in bodies, but there shouldn't necessarily be fluctuations in the full-time equivalent numbers. My question is, can you provide some clarification why we're seeing the fluctuations?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I actually reviewed this question and this kind of jumped out at me, comparing estimate positions to a forecast. I repeat that forecast positions is like comparing apples to oranges. We only get the true picture by comparing estimates to estimates. I may go a bit off the subject here, but I think I'm going to make a valuable point here because to me the word "forecast" - and I looked at that and I'm not an accountant and I don't want to offend people here but when I see the word "forecast" I want to understand that because if you know my background, which was in the fishing industry, if I asked some fishermen or myself or anybody in this room to give me a forecast for the weather today, I could come quite accurate. If I asked you to return by Monday when I come back to this Chamber and give me a forecast for the upcoming week - and you can have all the technology you want and you can go on the weather channels and get the climatologists to give you a report and you can give me a forecast for a week. Now I would be confident and say you would come fairly accurate, but if I challenged each and every one in this room to give me forecasts for the weather for the upcoming year, I think you could struggle with that.

 

Using my background, I know the older fishermen told me how to pay attention, to even look at which way the moon was and when I look at the forecaster giving me the weather update and saying when it's going to rain, I can look out the window and know when the high water is going to be and the old guys told me that it's going to rain when the tide turns ebb. I pay attention to that.

 

Not to be long-winded here, but the point - and I do not want to offend the economists out there or the people who put these numbers together, but you raised a point on a projection about the word forecast and the numbers may not match up to an estimate. As a fisherman, when I come in with my catch, I can estimate within two or three pounds of what I caught that day. Can I forecast what I catch in a year's time? I think I struggle with that. My point is - and I give you the challenge - you come back next Monday and tell me what the forecast for next year's weather is and I think you'll appreciate the point I'm trying to make here.

 

MR. MACMASTER: In just sticking with the fishing analogy - I appreciate it because we've got a lot of fishermen around home and my brother-in-law is a fisherman - I guess if you expected to catch 276 tons of fish last year but you only caught 238 tons and I know that the department's activities and resources are more predictable than the weather, but assuming we're keeping with the fishing analogy and all conditions being equal to the year previous, I would be more apt to revise my estimates to catch 238 tons of fish.

 

I don't think there's any point in belabouring, but I know you mentioned about forecast to budget and I know those figures can certainly be off. To me, if we've got evidence last year that the department was run with 238 people, all things being equal in the coming year, I would think that it could be run on 238 people again. I guess the reason, minister, why I ask these questions is because I'm cognizant of the cost of government and certainly appreciate everything people are doing in government.

 

I work with people who work in government every day, obviously we all do, they are in our constituencies and they're very important. But I'm also trying to balance that with the value to our society, to ensure that we're keeping government affordable for people, too. That's one thing we have control over, where we don't have control over things like the price of gasoline at the pump, for instance, so those are things that I'm thinking about.

 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague for further questions. Thank you, minister, and thank you to the staff. I look forward to the other responses that I may receive by e-mail at some time soon. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call on Mr. Porter. Mr. MacMaster saved about 11 or 12 minutes for you, so I won't give you a 10-minute warning that your time is expiring.

 

The honourable member for Hants West.

 

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister, as well for the opportunity to ask a few questions. I'll start off by saying if there are issues with regard to your files, it's good to know even on the other side, outside of Question Period, we have the opportunity, you have been very good at responding to issues and questions that I've had so I appreciate that very much as well. I wanted to get that on the record.

 

I want to just take a few minutes to ask about a project you may be familiar with, as a matter of fact I'm certain that you probably are familiar with, that is in the Truro area, the municipality there is - I met with them recently, the mayor and the CAO out there, with regard to the biosolids project. They had an interest in spreading the biosolids, very much refined from the process that I saw, they had quite an overview of the project that they had planned stages, how it would work, and then be spread on the landfill site. There were some issues there, minister, about they were trying to get a meeting, I guess, with you, your department, someone, to talk about this in more detail, couldn't get that or have got that recently, maybe, I'm not sure, but I know it was an issue but couldn't get approval.

 

I just wonder if you could talk a bit about that and your thoughts on it and maybe, is it going to go anywhere? It was quite an interesting project, by way of being a closed loop. We've had a lot of discussion about biosolids in the last couple of years and we've seen people who have been on both sides of the fence, so to speak. Even those people who have been on the other side of the fence have sort of come onside and said yes, you know what, this might be a good place to put this on the landfill.

 

I'm not sure what other real scientific work has been done on it by your department, if any, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it today, just to maybe see where that is going. Maybe it's going nowhere but I'd like your comments on it.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, I thank the member opposite, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank him for his opening comments. I appreciate them and usually it's rare in these settings so I'm pleased with that.

 

You are concerned about the municipal dealing with biosolids in that area. Certainly our government understands that some people certainly have concerns about biosolids and the Colchester application to use biosolids as a daily cover at its waste facility was rejected because the biosolids are not compostable material and are banned from landfills.

 

As a province, Nova Scotia has the strictest biosolids guidelines in Canada. They are based on the best possible science available and the experience of other jurisdictions that have been using biosolids for decades. Nova Scotia Environment is willing to review alternative uses for biosolids, not only if they comply with their legislation but this government will continue to monitor and research the use of biosolids.

 

I want to kind of move away from my notes here and say that we are always willing - and again, my background as a municipal leader at one time and I know how the leaders at the municipal level toil and they work on behalf of their constituents. There are no political affiliations so they have, to me, a pure sense of democracy working at the municipal level. I just want to assure the member opposite, Mr. Chairman, that we are willing to work with this particular municipal unit and I offer the member opposite, any suggestions you may have at this time, or any suggestions by working with this municipal unit and I thank you for your question.

 

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister, for those comments. I was glad to get away from your briefing note there - just reading that out, I thought okay, well that's the policy currently. I think that the municipal unit, Mayor Taylor and his CAO there in Truro, I think clearly understood that these rules are currently in place. I think that's why they went through the rigorous steps in the development of what it is they are proposing.

 

I don't know the end result, I hate to call it clean sludge because it isn't clean by any means. I guess it's refined, it has gone through quite a significant process, the water coming off it would actually flow back out and this closed loop would just continue. It seemed to be considerably different than what we saw in previous years by way of biosolids just being spread on farmers' fields, which, of course, there was great opposition to as well and certainly your department had no position or had a position that it wasn't going to happen, for some time at least, and more scientific work would be done on it, which was certainly reasonable and I think we probably talked about that previously, in estimates and out.

 

I guess as a former municipal councillor myself, I understand some of the problems that go along at that level, too, and I know that you've already spoken to it, your experience as well at that level, being warden, and knowing something has to be done with regard to this issue and when it comes to the landfill as well, there's a huge cost factor. I don't know the numbers, I forget them right off the top of my head but it was a significant amount of money that that municipal unit would save and I know that you can appreciate both in your role now and certainly as a municipal official, what $100,000 or $200,000 a year would mean to any unit, especially right now.

 

I guess I just wanted to see if, even after hearing you read the briefing note and knowing where we're at currently, would you ever see a time, or do you see a time in the near future where you will be sitting down with these folks to say all right, let's take what you have, let's examine that fully, or has that been done and I'm just not aware of that, and say you know what, yes, this is a pretty tight loop, it's a closed loop system? It does seem like there's an opportunity. Is your department, yourself as minister, or the government interested even in a trial where I think they would even be content with a trial for a period of time where it could be tested and knowing full well there would have to be some measurable outcomes, scientifically, to go along with that, there'd have to be something to prove one way or the other that it had an impact or didn't have an impact or what kind of impact it actually had really would be what the measurable outcome would be.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the member opposite, I can tell you that it is something that I have really paid attention to. I have requested our deputy to appear there and work with the municipal unit, that is something our staff is doing, I can tell you on a regular basis, we are meeting with the municipal units there to address this issue and we understand - I guess, you're speaking to one of the people that comes from municipal units in another life at that time and I know the importance of how we can try to save the taxpayers dollars is something that we will continue to work with our municipal partners and we look forward to seeing how we can make any improvements in that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for one more relatively short question and a similar answer, perhaps.

 

MR. PORTER: Okay, I'll make it as quick as I can. It's always down to the wire here.

 

You made a recent decision, minister, on hydraulic fracturing here in the province, there would be a two-year window for further review. Just based on the time that we have left, I'll just quickly ask, how do you come up with a period where you say we'll have a review of two more years, or whatever time frame? How do you determine that? How is that different than it is now, I guess?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the previous speaker I talked about an editorial. I'll ask you to go back and revisit Hansard and see how I laid out that the importance of looking at other jurisdictions. I talked about an editorial in the Halifax paper where it was a wise decision to look at the time frame of other jurisdictions and these reports are coming out in a time frame that is scheduled somewhere around mid-2014 and to have that opportunity to understand and gather that information so the time was based on what other jurisdictions were doing and I'm confident that we have made the right decisions and I ask you to return to Hansard and see how I responded to that question earlier to the member.

 

MR. PORTER: I would certainly do that and I thank you for that answer. At the same time, I would say that I'm not unhappy about that - just to be very clear for the record - I think we need to take all the time that's necessary to make sure that we get this right one way or the other, whatever it is. There's great controversy on both sides, as you well know as a minister. It's vitally important that this - regardless of which way it goes - it is done and takes the time that it needs and get it done right.

I know my time has probably ended, Mr. Chairman. With that, I'll say thank you to the minister.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been requested that we take a two-minute break to stretch and perhaps get a tea or coffee, but it would be appreciated if we don't leave the room.

 

[12:06 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[12:10 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, any time you're ready, away we go. The Liberal caucus will have one hour.

 

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

 

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to split my time with the member for Halifax Clayton Park. We'll probably pick up where we left off in a few minutes but since the member before me raised the issue of fracking, let me just ask a few questions on that. Do you support the mandatory disclosure of chemicals used in fracking and onshore drilling operations?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I welcome the member opposite back to questioning on this important topic. What I do support is that we are taking the leadership in this role and as I mentioned earlier in my comments, we're taking an opportunity to evaluate all that information out there. To me, it's an opportunity to reflect on all the possible concerns.

 

MR. YOUNGER: On a point of order, I think we've actually lost quorum. They have to be actually in their chair at the time of the quorum call.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The understanding that I have is as long as they are in the room. It's the same in the House. We have the quorum. Often you see three people standing around. For a vote, you are right, they have to be seated in the chair for a vote, but as long as one is in the room, it's my understanding that you do have quorum. Ms. Zann is here and can be back in her seat very quickly. Thanks for putting us on the spot though.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Anything I can do for you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Look how the chairs filled up. We now have seven in the room, so that's how quick we are. You're out-numbered seven to one here, so maybe we'd better not question quorum.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I guess I won't call a vote on it.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that you are earning your money today so I just want to pay tribute to that. Back to the member's question and something you talked about - whether I support certain chemicals or this use - I can tell you that what I do support is taking the opportunity and the time to make the right decision. I think that as a minister, as somebody who appreciates the environment and appreciates the hard work that our staff does, is that we want to gather information. As I pointed out earlier - this question was asked by a number of other Opposition members - is that we want to take the time to evaluate other jurisdictions that are doing reviews as we speak. Some of them are going to conclude in 2014 so all those concerns that the member opposite is raising are things that our staff will be reviewing in the time allotted as we move forward.

 

MR. YOUNGER: That doesn't really answer my question. My question is, do you personally believe that companies should be required to disclose all chemicals used in fracking and onshore drilling operations, just as has now been required in New Brunswick and some other jurisdictions?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member opposite is asking what my personal beliefs are. I don't think Nova Scotians are deeply interested in what my personal beliefs are. I think the exercise is to gather information that is important to all Nova Scotians and to this government making the right decisions. That's something that we look forward to and again I want to point out that there is a lot of work being done in other studies in other jurisdictions across North America or the United States or Canada in places like New York, Quebec. It's not about Sterling Belliveau, it's about making the right decision by government that wants to take leadership on environmental issues and as I spoke earlier on some of our accomplishments, it's something that our government is doing in a wise manner. It's not about a personal preference one individual may have, it's about making the right decision for Nova Scotians. Thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Well I think this is important because your companion minister in this file, the fracking file, was asked this question the other day and was asked whether he felt that your government's policies aligned with the federal NDP position on this. Do you feel they do?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I just want clarification because there's a bit of an echo in here, I just wanted to get clarification what the last part of his question was asking.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the question was whether or not your position worked with the Energy Minister's position as it related to the position of the NDP.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Yes, just sort of - I'm wondering whether you feel that the Government of Nova Scotia's position on that particular issue of fracking aligns with the federal NDP's position.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: So again I don't want to drag this issue out but the member opposite is asking some personal questions, where your position is on this particular topic. I keep going back to my earlier comments, that first of all, on this particular topic of fracking review, the extension of that, regardless of where your position is, whether it's the member from Shelburne County or the federal member from Quebec or wherever you are in Canada, all opinions will be evaluated. This is something that the extension of this review will be considering. They will take all opinions across Canada, especially Nova Scotia and that will be evaluated, Mr. Chairman.

 

It's something, again, I want to point out that some reviews are going on in other jurisdictions that have a lot more experience on this topic. To me it's not about what I may feel at this time, it's about getting that information and making an informed decision at the appropriate time. This is what this exercise is about and this exercise is also about ensuring that we, as politicians, as elected officials, make the right decisions, make the right decision in protecting our environment, in the health and the well-being of Nova Scotians. That's exactly what I intend to do. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you. I'm going to tell you that the Minister of Energy gave a different answer and I think it might bother some Nova Scotians that the Cabinet can't even decide what they think, when we have the two ministers responsible giving two different answers.

 

We tried to get the Hansard here in time but it's not ready yet. The Minister of Energy was quite adamant that he felt that the Cabinet's position on fracking met with the federal NDP's position, which is, as you probably know from the petition they now have on-line as well as a number of other sources that we brought to the attention of the Energy Minister the other day, that there should be a mandatory disclosure of all chemicals.

 

What you've just said is that you are going to take into account all positions on that issue and on that narrow issue of chemical disclosure. The Energy Minister has told us that he feels that the positions align and you are telling me that that's just one of the positions that will be considered. So I guess there are a lot of Nova Scotians who would like to know what the position of Cabinet is because we now have two Cabinet Ministers telling us two different things.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To the member opposite, I am really encouraged by your question because I want to be very clear, I think this issue has something of interest to Nova Scotians and I think any time when you make a decision that has impact on our population that you need to get it right.

 

I pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, there was an editorial in the Halifax ChronicleHerald and for the member opposite, he may not have been here at the time, I want to point out that I asked the member opposite to refer back to Hansard and the editorial regarding the fracking decision proceeding cautiously, on April 19, 2012. I can read that for the member opposite and I really think that endorses our approach to getting the right information.

 

There are other jurisdictions out there that have a lot more experience on this topic than what Nova Scotians do and we have no applications before us regarding fracking. We will not approve any applications regarding fracking during the extension of this review. We are there to gather information. We have a very competent staff who are working with other jurisdictions. I repeat to the member opposite for clarity, this is valuable information and any time that you are making a decision that is going to impact on the health and well-being of Nova Scotians - in particular drinking water - we want to have all that information before us to make an informed decision.

 

In my earlier comments, I really believe that the next generation will look back on our accomplishments - and I pointed them out very clearly - of what we have accomplished in less than 36 months. Of course, the fracking decision is still ahead of us, but I'm confident with our track record of less than 36 months that we'll be making the right decisions for Nova Scotians.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I know that you know that when you're quoting from something that you are expected to table it and I expect you will table the editorial that you cited from the ChronicleHerald.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I have read that editorial and that really wasn't what the question was about. In fact, the irony in this is that I tabled the bill a year ago and the Minister of Energy in Question Period and in debate on it said we were wrong and now you've taken our position so obviously I'm not going to be opposed to the fact that you've finally decided to do exactly what the Liberal caucus told you to do last year that you said was wrong at the time. Why would I be opposed to that? That would be crazy. You've adopted the position I said you should adopt a year ago that you said was wrong a year ago, so I'm obviously happy about that. I don't disagree with the editorial in the ChronicleHerald. In fact, I'm thrilled that you came around to our position on it.

 

The fact of the matter is that really wasn't the question. I'm not going to belabour it because I don't think you're going to answer it. The question was, the Minister of Energy gave a completely different answer to that than you did - a completely different answer on the issue of disclosure of chemicals. He said the Cabinet's position matches that of the federal NDP position. The federal NDP's position is for mandatory disclosure of chemicals and you're saying the decision has not been made. All I'm trying to do is point out the fact that we have two ministers saying two different things and obviously that's of some concern.

 

I have no qualms about telling you what my personal position is. My position is that the chemicals should be disclosed. It really, from my perspective, just comes down to that. I want to ask you something further about that. The Premier, when he was interviewed on this matter, was quoted by, I think, CBC - one of the media networks - as saying that one of the reasons for the delay in the report was because they're waiting for the studies from the EPA and a few other sources - EPA wasn't the only one. As you may be aware - or if you aren't aware, I'm sure your departmental officials are aware - the EPA announced, the day after your announcement on fracking, that they were delaying the release of their study by a year - to 2015 from 2014. The Premier said to the media that one of the reasons for the delay was to have the results of that study and there is probably some merit in that, but now that study, which was expected in 2014, is now not expected until 2015. I'm wondering whether the results of your fracking decisions are now going to be delayed a further year to 2015 to match up with the EPA study result.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, there are a number of questions there within his questions, but I want to just emphasize a couple of points here. There are no applications for fracking before Nova Scotia. This government has never approved any and will not approve any application until this review has been completed. I don't know how I can be much clearer than that. I really applaud the member opposite when he says he's in agreement with our position here. I really pick up on that comment.

 

I talked earlier about some of the accomplishments that we have done; we've been recognized for our earlier ban on uranium, our protection of Georges Bank and all the leadership on waste reduction, our two awards in Copenhagen on tidal power and GHGs and our recognition by the David Suzuki Foundation on some of that work, our work on wind energy, our positive comments on our protection of 12 per cent of wilderness lands and our accomplishment of the Equivalency Agreement with coal-fired plants in saving Nova Scotians hundreds, if not millions, of dollars on that.

 

I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the member opposite is in agreement with all those accomplishments.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Well it's not for me to answer questions here and if you want to submit them to me I'd be perfectly happy to send you a response and give you a proper response, unlike the answers we get in Question Period.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: As chairman, I concur that the questions should be going that way.

 

MR. YOUNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only say that because I don't want to use up all my time answering questions, although it might help sometimes, I think, if I helped answer them.

 

It's not about being clear, you're not really answering the question. It was a real simple question, it's really a yes or no question. The Premier, when he was interviewed about it, said one of the major reasons was they were waiting for the EPA study that was going to be done in 2014. The day after he said that - and listen, it's not his fault, he didn't know that the Obama Administration was going to change their mind the next day, he wouldn't have known that. I assume President Obama didn't call the Premier the day before and say, by the way, I'm going to make an announcement tomorrow saying we're delaying the study by a year. But they did, they made an announcement the next day and said the study is delayed to 2015.

 

So it's really a simple question, I'm just wondering, since a major reason for delaying the study was to get those results, is this now going to be delayed to 2015 or is 2014 a firm date for the results of the decision on fracking?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, I understand the question. The member opposite asked for a simplistic answer to his question. I want to assure the member that we understand this issue very clearly and we've asked for an extension for a review on hydraulic fracking and that is something we set out to do. I want to emphasize again that there's no hydraulic fracking happening in Nova Scotia and our government will not approve any applications during this review period. Its expectation date is somewhere in mid-2014, as my earlier comments, we know that there are other jurisdictions out there that are a lot more experienced in this particular activity in this industry, something that we want to understand. I can point to a number of reviews that are going on. I think it's wise that we get all that information and make an informed decision in the appropriate time.

 

To me I point out that there's no activity or application before us so why not appreciate that time and do the right thing and make sure we get this right, unlike previous governments that may have rushed to conclusion, we're not here to make a quick decision, we're here to make a right decision. Thank you.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I don't think anybody worries that you'll rush to conclusion there. There really hasn't been a single study done in three years that arrived on time, so I don't think anybody is too worried that any studies will come in on time, so don't have any fear about that.

 

A year ago, roughly a year ago at this time, I stood in the House and I said when this initial review was announced - and there was no moratorium, fracking had just been completed in Hants County by Triangle Petroleum a few months earlier. If you really want to get into semantics, you're right that no fracking has been approved by an NDP Government but an NDP Government is also the only government in Nova Scotia under which fracking has occurred. You had a choice to put a moratorium on it. We can always go both ways, if you want, but that's fine.

The Minister of Energy knows full well - it's in the annual reports of Triangle Petroleum available on-line with the SCC, it's very easy to find, the fracking report, and it shows the type of hydraulic fracturing that has only come about in the past three or four years so obviously it couldn't have happened under anybody else. It was approved under the Tory Government, you're right, and I noticed the parsing of words in the Legislature the other day where he said no NDP Government has approved it. That's true, but I'm sure that they'd come back and say, well, it has only actually occurred when you guys have been around.

 

Last year in estimates, the Minister of Energy sat in the other room actually and admitted that fracking was being done at the time for coal-bed methane in Pictou County, not all that far from his home. He's in Hansard saying it and, in fact, in estimates the other day, it was asked and apparently it's not going on now, so let's be honest about it. I mean, those were his words that we're using. We just asked him a simple question. All I really want to know is, you're going to do the study - and the study is a good idea - something has changed and I'm trying to get at what has changed.

 

A year ago, we suggested - as a Liberal caucus we introduced a bill on this - that the government put a moratorium on fracking until the study is done and now you've decided to do that. At the time we said, listen, there are things going on in Quebec - I think there was one in South Africa, I think there's a study in New York State or Pennsylvania, maybe both. We knew the EPA one was going on; we knew the U.K. one was going on. The answer at that time was no, that wasn't needed.

 

All I really want to know - and honestly, this isn't catching you up in anything - I just want to know what has changed. Something changed in a year, that a year ago you and the Minister of Energy said that was not required and now you feel it is. I just want to know what has changed between last year and this year to have it required.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member opposite talks about the question about what has changed. My first instinct is to say what has changed is in 2009, the people of Nova Scotia had an election. What has changed is that we have an NDP Government that is making the right decisions for Nova Scotians. I go back to gathering the information; there are a number of studies in other jurisdictions that are not available for our review committee and I can assure the member opposite that we are going to take the time. The member opposite may be in haste to get a decision. We do not just go out and make decisions just simply to say that there is a decision. We're going to take the time and do what's right for Nova Scotians.

 

I want to emphasize again that there is no hydraulic fracking happening in Nova Scotia and this government will not approve of fracking during the duration of this review. To me, that is quite clear. What has changed? The change is that we have people in place in this government - our Premier - and we're going to make the right decisions for Nova Scotians.

 

MR. YOUNGER: I'm going to try again, minister, because you're not answering the question. You just said, well, the government changed. Well, no, the NDP was the government in 2011 and in 2011 your government stood in the House and said that a moratorium was not needed and that you didn't need to wait for the studies. This is a really benign question. The NDP was in power and you were the Minister of Environment a year ago when the government stood up and said a ban was not required and taking time to look at the studies from the EPA, and Quebec and all these other jurisdictions wasn't required. I applaud you for changing your mind in that intervening year, I really do - I'm just trying to understand what changed. Something changed from a year ago and it wasn't the NDP coming to power in 2009 because the NDP was already in power for two years at that point. All I really want to know is what changed. I'm not trying to catch you up - I'm just trying to understand what has changed in the department. What have you learned that is different from what you knew a year ago that has made this a requirement? I've already told you that I think it's a good thing. I just want to know why?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I'm really encouraged by the member's question. It's something that's really important to us as a province, as a minister, and I want to assure the people who may be listening at this time, or reading Hansard sometime in the future, but again this particular government and this minister, our staff has requested an extension for this review. Again, we will not do anything quickly just to create some satisfaction that Opposition may want a decision yesterday. We're going to make the right decisions for Nova Scotians. We've asked for an extension of this review and we want to assure all Nova Scotians that we want assurances around oil and gas activity that it will not harm our drinking water in our communities.

 

Certainly there are a number of studies that are going on in other jurisdictions and our staff does not have the availability, the committee does not have this information at this time. So again I point out to, and again anybody listening to my voice, I encourage them to go to Hansard and read the editorial by the local paper dated April 19, 2012, it clearly shows support of this government decision, that it is making the right decision.

 

The member opposite, you know, is continuing to ask this question and, again, I think that the more we pay attention to this, is that we know that these jurisdictions are doing the review as we speak. They have more experience than us and it's good at times when there's no activity going on in Nova Scotia, that we have the opportunity that we can reflect and make the right decisions for Nova Scotians.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there going to be another instant replay?

 

MR. YOUNGER: I'll just say I'm not going to get an answer to the question. Your answer isn't terribly relevant to the question. In fact, I think you should be careful confusing the Liberal caucus with the Tory caucus because it's only the Tory caucus that has advocated for it being done quickly, and I'm sure he was doing that before, and maybe that's why you're confused of the positions.

 

As I pointed out at the beginning, you have taken the position that we advocated a year ago, that you were opposed to a year ago. We told you those studies were going on. I tabled them in the House, the notice of when they were going to be done, and we said why wouldn't you go through that information, why wouldn't you have a moratorium? You've done all those things now so, obviously, we're happy you've done those things.

 

I'm not going to get a different answer because he keeps giving me the same answer but, just to be very clear, it was a very simple question about understanding what has changed in the department because he knew the studies were going on back then because we tabled the notices of those studies as to the reason why we thought there should be a moratorium and take more time. In any case, at this point I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to the member for Halifax Clayton Park - it's a beautiful riding I'm told - and who has some other questions for the department.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.

 

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to be here. I would like to say hello to the minister and to the deputy minister because we haven't met for some time, it's nice to see you. The questions that I have are, I think I'll probably stay to the subject of the wilderness areas, so it's the protected wilderness areas that the province is responsible for. I don't know if that means you have to change people or anything, but you probably have the answers there. I just thought I would signal that.

 

I know that the staff have been really helpful at the department. In the summer, I think it might have been September, it was something like that, I came in and had a meeting with the people in charge of the protected areas. I think it was Peter Labor and Oliver Maass were there and there were others as well. My question goes back quite some time. Perhaps the minister knows my interest in the area, I'm not sure if you do, but the riding of Halifax Clayton Park is the biggest population of any of our ridings in the province. So one can say we've got the densest population and it takes in Bayers Lake as well. Directly adjacent to the lands owned by the city in Bayers Lake we have had I think a tremendous success and a good step for the province to have taken to protect the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area.

 

It was a parcel of about 4,000 acres that were Crown lands owned by the Crown and I realized that when I was first elected and did a lot of talking to community groups and pushing for public awareness of what was back there and asking the government if they would protect it in some fashion. I put a bill in asking for it to be a wilderness area. So my bill never passed but luckily the action was taken and it's something I'm very pleased for for our community because, as I said, we have a lot of people that are living in walking distance from that wilderness area.

 

The difficulty right now is the province went forward and protected 3,300 acres of that parcel, they left room for a highway perhaps way in the future and a couple of other things that were tweaked, but 3,300 acres are saved. The difficulty, as I say, is that there is no access point to that land. So right now the people that use it are just those hikers and people that really know the area and can go in because there are no signs and no proper trails, there are just trails that hikers over the years have created.

 

Now that the first step has been done, we've protected the area, the next step is how do we get it so that there's a proper opening and we'd be able to do something with that land. Make it more accessible to those hundreds of thousands of people that could come in and use it.

 

It actually, Mr. Minister, is the largest urban wilderness park in Canada, so I think that's really something to say because it all rests within the urban core. So I'll let you get started.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and to the member opposite, I really appreciate your question because it's one of those topics I enjoy speaking to and actually, when you talk about the preserved and protected areas you see people's faces light up and I have many successful stories.

 

First of all I want to tell you that I visited that particular area and we had an announcement that was out there in the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove protected area. I was impressed with the - please don't be offended by this - but the close proximity to the city and how we can be sometimes just a few minutes away from the busy hub of that urban area and within a few minutes ride we can be in a wilderness area. I was taken by that and had a beautiful canoe ride.

 

But I want to assure you on that particular topic that we are working with HRM on this and it's one of our beautiful protected areas and we're certainly committed to enhancing public access to this area. Our staff have visited there, and I can go into great lengths that this is a legacy that your work and your commitment to all Nova Scotians that this is something that we can pass on to our future generations.

 

This is a story that kind of hits dear to me and I have many examples and I can ensure that the close proximity to your constituency has that same value as it does to myself so I welcome your question.

 

MS. WHALEN: First of all I'm very pleased to know that you have been there because it is a special area and the fact that you can just take few steps away from a big box area that's all concrete like Bayers Lake and be in an area that is good for the soul, to go for a walk in the wilderness and be away.

 

I do know people who live in the apartments that are very close by who go over there for a walk every day but I know there are so many other Nova Scotians who could take advantage of it. It's an area that they could reach by bus, so people from all over the city could go there. As you know, it's a canoe loop where you can go through the lakes in a day and come back out but there's no easy way to get your canoe down to the water either. If we had that proper trailhead then that would be a big plus.

 

Right now I guess what I would like to know is if there is any money in the budget this year for work that you might be doing with HRM. I understand the land in Bayers Lake is under an agreement of purchase and sale. I'm sure the members will be very excited to know we are going to double the size of Bayers Lake, or almost. I'm not sure that's a wonderful environmental statement but it is a busy hub and there is a buyer for another 160 or 170 acres in that area.

 

With the sale of that land, as the minister may know, that will open up more development but also open up access to a trailhead. Although I'm not thrilled that we're doubling all that commercial activity, I hope it will be a more sensitive development than we've had before. But it does have a silver lining and the silver lining is that roads will be opened so we can get to a trailhead for the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes access. So I just wondered, again, is there any money in the budget that might be preparing to build that trailhead?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you to the member opposite. Certainly we're looking at all options regarding this topic. It's something our staff are working with HRM on that. I just want to emphasize again that these protected wilderness areas, there's a lot of work being done as I speak. Again, to me, this is kind of a Christmas gift, for lack of better words, but when you talk about all the other issues that we're dealing with on a regular basis, when you go out to a community and make these announcements, whether it's a candidate or actually doing more protection in these wilderness areas, it's something that the whole community, different interest groups that sometimes would be struggling to actually endorse each other are actually there applauding you in support of this concept. It's really a pleasure to even talk about this and I encourage you to continue bringing these topics forward. I know that Blue Mountain-Birch Cove is something important to you and we'll continue to work with our partners, HRM, we definitely want to improve on that particular area. Again, I was impressed by the proximity to such an urban area.

 

MS. WHALEN: Again, it is very good that you've seen it because it's hard to describe what it's like with literally thousands of people living along Parkland Drive, just that one street where they can walk over because it's all apartment buildings in that area. It's really an amenity that's going to be very important in the future, I think, to the people.

 

They were worried that there would be development on the other side of the highway, that we'd see a lot of homes built. In that regard, HRM originally in their regional plan, which is undergoing a five-year review right now, their original regional plan actually took the lead on protecting this area. It designated a regional park, a Blue Mountain regional park that would encompass the lakes and come up to the edge of Bayers Lake. There are lands there owned by the city but there's also privately owned land and in the regional plan they said they would acquire it - it's a 25-year regional plan - so they said we'll make efforts to acquire the private lands that fall within this circle, basically, that they had designated.

 

That lead they took in 2006, I think, that the plan was brought in. When they took that lead, that helped to encourage the province to see the area as a wilderness, to actually take some official steps to protect it. But HRM has stopped their action, they haven't put any additional lands in. My question there is really whether there has been any effort to ask HRM to come to the table and start to move on their stated goal of acquiring those lands? Right now all the lands are just woodlands, as natural as the wilderness area.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I can tell the member opposite that the option to looking to acquire land is something that we look at all the time. To me, we're looking at this particular site with great interest and I know that everything is on the table and we want to work with HRM because we know the importance of the close proximity to this urban area. It's a jewel that we want to preserve and we're committed to this. We're really committed to working with our partners in this and it's a very interesting topic and I think the work we do today will benefit generations down the road that will actually enjoy it more than we are today.

 

MS. WHALEN: I think you're right. In our original ask of the government to look at preserving it, we really think it will be like the preservation of Point Pleasant Park, for example, which is extremely expensive land but long ago when it was sort of on the outskirts, they decided to save it. I think the same thing will be said here because it's not just the Clayton Park area, it also borders on all of the Timberlea development and in the back on Hammonds Plains. You really have all around it will be more and more urbanization. It's going to show some real foresight to have a big area like that.

 

I did want to clarify a little bit more around HRM's role. I did have a chance to meet with Richard Butts recently, the CEO of the city, who said that he was aware of this issue. He has only been with the city a year, it's a big area, HRM is as big as Prince Edward Island. So he's trying to get on top of all the issues but he did say that he wanted to go and walk in that area and that he had made some overtures to the department to go and have a look at that, to our provincial department. So, you know, I think that together, by talking about this issue and the importance of it, we can help to get HRM as well to put their attention and maybe some resources towards adding to the wilderness area in the surrounding areas that they own or have said that they intended to acquire, and maybe collectively and as a partnership we could see something go forward in the acquisition or greater preservation of that land, extending the amount of land we've got. So I'm wondering about HRM and whether you've done any specific steps in that regard?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding, my deputy has informed me that there's some work ongoing with Mr. Richard Butts and there's actually a scheduled meeting or a visit to this particular Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area. So you're timing with your questions, I think you may have done your homework, and apparently there are ongoing discussions and our deputy will be reporting back to me naturally on this particular exercise, but I can certainly see your interest in this topic. So there's ongoing work with our partners and we'll be looking forward to the outcome of those visits to this particular area.

 

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that, I think you might find it amusing that I did offer to go with the CEO and he said no, he had it all in hand. So he didn't want any politicization I think of his visit to the area but I'm that keen that I thought I would like to take the walk as well but I appreciated that. So you'll know my interest extended to wanting to go on the walk but it's fine, I'm quite happy to know that it will take place. That is really what I wanted and I wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page in terms of, you know, expressing to the city how important it is that there be some movement on their protection of land within the regional park because although they put it in a map and drew the circle where they wanted to have a regional park, it is partly private land, it's a little bit of the city, it encompassed I think a little bit even of the Crown land.

 

So what would be ideal is if they could actually make it a reality but they haven't taken any steps either on the land they own in Bayers Lake or on the land that was privately held. So any encouragement that the province can give in a supportive way, you know, perhaps in a practical way, if they need help, that would be very useful because I think sometimes the city gets overwhelmed with the demands, just as the provincial people do sometimes, and they may not be looking at this. It is an area where you can have the greatest impact for our population I think, simply because of the number of people who live there.

 

So can I just ask one more time around the resources and the question would be, within the budget - and I know we have a pretty high-level budget in front of us - we don't have all the breakdowns, are there any monies that are at all related to the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes and if not directly, maybe you could ask, is there anything for Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes and, secondly, what would the amount be for your efforts to protect 12 per cent of the land because you must have a directorate or an area that focuses on that, the wilderness protected area, staff and initiatives?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the member opposite, again my understanding of the money that we've set aside to acquire land for protected wilderness areas this year was $6.5 million in our budget and, again, your question about, is there any money actually set out for Blue Mountain-Birch Cove, there's no specific money actually set out there but, again, we have money that's possibly available. We're always looking at all options and, again, a designated area, our staff has gone out and looked and researched. We've got more lands than actually what we need but there's an evaluation process that we go through. We have a lot of consultations with the communities and different interest groups and, again, this is something that's really important to Nova Scotians. I've observed this and my observation is that when you see different groups, and not to get into details there, but sometimes different groups can have strong or different opinions.

 

But when you talk about a topic of protected areas and achieving this 12 per cent, which is our goal, is that when you see those groups come together - I call it the collective hug. It's accomplished when this exercise is completed. I think the collective hug is knowing we're going to pass on this legacy to future generations, there's a lot of satisfaction in that. So your topic is timely, about Blue Mountain and I can appreciate your appreciation of that.

 

Again, I had the opportunity to visit there and I was taken aback with the close proximity to our areas and we will continue to work with our partner, HRM, and our staff is committed to dealing with that.

 

MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much. I think it would be important to mention as well that within near proximity to that you also have the Five Bridges area - I think that's the official name for the other wilderness area. They had actually been trying for an even longer period of time to get that designated and they saw the success of doing it under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act, I guess is the Act it goes under, when they saw how quickly or how well it worked in Blue Mountain, they then changed their approach to try and do the same thing. I think that's an even larger piece of wilderness that has been saved, still in close proximity to the city.

 

I want to applaud the department for your enthusiasm for doing that and for the 12 per cent goal which I think was set some years ago, I believe that predates your government but you've continued with a lot more activity than we had seen previously. I'm pleased with that.

 

I wanted to ask, on the 12 per cent, if you could say where we're at today. The original stated goal was to get there by 2015, I think, so we're three years away from that date.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: First of all, I just want to backtrack on your comments regarding some of lands around the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove. First of all, we need willing sellers, some of the land you talked about are in private hands. First we have to recognize that we need willing sellers to accommodate some of these requests. I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

Your request about how much land is actually where we're at now, the protection is at 8.8 per cent of Nova Scotia's landmass is currently protected. Hopefully that will address your concerns.

 

MS. WHALEN: It does suggest though that there's just three years to go and still that would be a lot of land required. I don't know the hectares that would be or the number of acres that would be, but it's got to be a pretty big amount.

 

Could you tell me if the acquisition of lands that were bought from Bowater would be included in the 12 per cent?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, the Bowater land will be in the possible purchase. First of all, 60,000 hectares have been purchased and most will likely be protected. This includes lands owned by Bowater, Irving, NewPage and Northern Pulp.

 

What I wanted to point out was that we were at 8.8 per cent of Nova Scotia land, which is over 650,000 hectares currently protected. Nearly 30,000 hectares is already committed for protection, such as the Kelley River and Raven Head Wilderness Area. As I mentioned earlier, 60,000 hectares have been purchased and most likely to be protected - this includes lands from Bowater, Irving, NewPage and Northern Pulp.

 

Another $6.5 million is in this budget to purchase private lands and about 2,500 hectares is anticipated. That leaves about 100,000 hectares to be protected in order to reach our 12 per cent goal by 2015. I know that's a lot of numbers very fast, but we are on target to meet this goal and with the courage and interest that we have from Nova Scotians, I can assure you that this is something we're all looking forward to be completed in 2015. I want to emphasize again, we're on track to do that. I know there are some candidate sites still out there that need to have some more work done on them. It's interesting to go and meet with all the different interest groups that at times use it either for recreational use, and there are many of them, but again, to go for that exercise and what I pointed to is getting this collective hug and I really kind of stopped to reflect on that because I wanted to try to understand that, to be a politician and not to get too deep here. But when you have people of different opinions sometimes and you ask yourself how can this be accomplished when sometimes we have different viewpoints.

 

I think the key ingredients here, Mr. Chairman, is knowing that the work we're doing today is something that's going to be of benefit for future generations and this legacy that we're going to pass on is something that's really encouraging and is part of that legacy and part of that recipe that we get this collective hug when we go for this exercise.

 

So I'm very encouraged that the member opposite has brought this question for us to discuss today and I continue looking forward to your questions. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN; Mr. Minister and member, there are approximately - a little less, actually - than 10 minutes remaining. That would give us - this is sort of procedural; we had 60 minutes from the Liberal caucus, 60 minutes from the Progressive Conservative caucus, that will make another 60 minutes but the minister's opening remarks were 43 minutes, so we have to continue for a full four hours. The Progressive Conservatives have indicated that they are not coming back, so the Liberal caucus is prepared to ask some questions. However, we are also prepared to give you extra time, if you want to go over your 10 minutes.

 

I have to ask the minister, how much time do you want for a closing statement? You will have to read your resolution and reading your resolution we have to allow two minutes for it because in the main Chamber in the House the other night, last week, I think there was some concern that a minister read a statement just a shade after the four hours were up and someone actually questioned that, I believe - I wasn't there at the time. So how much time, minister, do you want for a closing statement?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that's the most difficult question I've ever been asked in my life because I'm estimating that we have an approximately 10-minute closing statement. So I'm guessing at the proximity of that statement, roughly 10 minutes.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So, minister, we can give you an extra seven minutes, if you would like it.

 

MS. WHALEN: I suppose I could use another seven, I haven't spoken to any of my other colleagues, I don't know that they're planning to come in, so we could continue to talk about the efforts to protect these lands, I think, so shall we play it by ear?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the NDP caucus happy to give that time up? Thank you.

 

MS. WHALEN: Okay, thank you very much. There are certainly other questions. This is more of a detailed question, I wanted to go back to Blue Mountain for a minute. Your requirements, I think, in the Act are that there be no bicycles in your wilderness areas - certainly anything motorized is not allowed and I understand that. I don't support the idea of motorized vehicles of any sort, but bicycles, I wonder if that is true, that bicycles are not allowed?

 

I mention it because there is a very active mountain biking group that like to go in behind Bayers Lake. They've built some big trails and jumps and, in fact, if you go the Burger King in Bayers Lake, just behind that there's a trail called The Whopper Dropper, which apparently is pretty exciting - and I'm sure I won't be doing it. They've built some pretty intricate trails and people are bringing their bikes there from all over HRM. It's in the maps that the mountain bikers have. You can pick it up at the Trail Shop, it shows that there are trails there. A lot of those trails are on the private land that is going to be expanded into more retail or business uses. I know that they have an interest in continuing to go to that part of the city and continuing to ride their bikes. I didn't know if there was a provision where we could ask that that be allowed as long as it's done, you know, in conjunction with the walkers, hikers, canoers and other uses. I think it's a little bit different because it's such an urban park, it's so close to the city whereas, you know, I don't think that the mountain bikers are going into your more distant wilderness areas.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite brings a very important question. I like this question because it's something that's really important. I want to say clearly that there are no motorized vehicles allowed in wilderness areas but, to me, the bicycle, we would be allowing managed bicycle trails. It's something that we're working with the different groups. Our staff are working with the bicycle groups as we speak. So it's an interesting issue, a side question that you're bringing up here, and it's something of importance and you're raising it at a timely time because of, again, the number of usages and the different groups in the urban area would naturally be of importance to that. So it's something that our staff are working on and I appreciate your question.

 

MS. WHALEN: So if I understand you correctly, that's something that is being entertained and that as long as we could work out the rules around it, that probably will be allowed as long as there can be, you know, some parameters set out about what's allowed and what isn't, but the mountain bikers would have a space to use, that they would be given some trails?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, there's something that I want to be very clear, that's something we're working on, the managed trail. I want to be very clear that this is where we're identifying managed trails but, again, we're working with those particular bicycle groups and our staff are very capable of addressing these issues to ensure that we are doing it in the best interests of future generations and the public.

 

MS. WHALEN: I do appreciate that and I think it's important that we ask, there was a meeting held in the library in Clayton Park, I guess again it would have been about September, and what was interesting at that meeting was that there were a lot of younger men particularly who, you know, you don't normally see at public meetings. You don't normally get a lot of men in their twenties and thirties who are out participating in those kind of discussions and their concern was, you know, I realized very quickly what they were, were the mountain bikers, the people who have been going there for a number of years, and I don't think they're terribly well-organized but they have a network with e-mails to get in touch with a big group of them and they really, I thought, spoke very well about their interest in the area and how they want to be considered.

 

So I think your comments today would offer a lot of encouragement and, as you say, your staff are working with some of them but they're kind of an independent group. I think a lot of them may not know what's going on so it's good for us to hear it today and to be able to communicate that back if I'm asked by any of those people just what's going on. I know that is a major concern so I'm happy with that.

 

I wanted to say as well in my remarks, since I have the chance to share with you my interest in this, that I also went to visit the company that has the purchase and sale agreement with HRM for the Bayers Lake expansion and that company is BANC Developments. They actually appreciate that the development they're looking at is on the border of a wilderness area. I expressed my concern and asked them if they had heard about moving their development back a little bit so that it didn't come right up to the boundary of the wilderness area because some of the people, including people from the Ecology Action Centre, have said that if you have that type of big-box development right up to the edge, you will have runoff and you're going to have some pollution going into the lakes or into the land adjacent, so having a little bit more buffer would be good.

 

The owner of that company, Besim Halef, had said at the time that he was quite happy to have - the economics of his development were okay if he moved back and purchased less land. He said he just wasn't going to purchase more and leave it but he would purchase less and the city could still own that land and use it as a buffer. So I'm hoping that HRM and this land developer have worked together to move that boundary back because we don't know in the community whether it has or has not been moved but I think that they've moved back from some of the sensitive areas and even the Department of Environment would have been able to point out that there was some - there was definitely one wetland area that would have been included in that border really between HRM-owned industrial parkland and our wilderness.

 

So we were hoping that we would not have it developed up to that point and perhaps not have to come in as the Department of Environment and say you can't build because it's a wetland. It would be better if it wasn't even sold.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: First of all, your question about buffers, certainly we encourage that use of buffers in these areas and something that we'll continue to work with through our staff with HRM.

 

I want to go back to your previous question, you raised an important question about the bicycles and managing bicycle trails is something I think I didn't want to miss the opportunity. It's something that our government is encouraging about making life better for Nova Scotians so we are really, deeply interested in that, in bicycles, in creating active lifestyles and I know that we have members on all sides of the House who are involved in bicycling, that's something that is important to us.

 

We also want to encourage more activity, especially with our youth, that there is an opportunity to create a better, healthier lifestyle is something that we take seriously and if we can incorporate that into some of these ongoing discussions in having managed bicycle trails, is something that - I guess you get a flavour of knowing that we're interested in this topic so I wanted not to miss the opportunity of getting some of those comments in. I really appreciate your interest in this issue.

 

MS. WHALEN: Absolutely, one of the big reasons why it's so exciting to have an area like that close to a lot of people is it's going to have a big impact on their health and well-being. If they can get in and have access to it and be able to get out for walks and canoeing and biking, because that again is exercise.

 

I think one thing very positive in this wilderness area is there hasn't been pressure from any of the ATV groups, it's not an area that has been opened up - yes, don't even mention them. But really there hasn't been any negativity around that and I know that there are other parts of the province where there is a push and pull with motorized recreation but this area I really felt the community would be welcoming of bikes, I don't think anybody using it recreationally now would object so I just wanted to, you know, put it out there that there is loads of accommodation for that from the community side as long as the department would accept it as well.

 

I still have a few more minutes so I wanted to go to your 12 per cent again and look at a few of those numbers. You said that there are 60,000 hectares and you mentioned mostly they've come from pulp mill areas. You mentioned Bowater, Irving, Northern Pulp, so I'm just wondering if they are already all in this 8.8 per cent or are they some that are coming up?

 

As well, the Bowater lands were only announced recently in the Fall so I'm wondering are they now in your 8.8 per cent or are they ones that are candidates and moving through the system.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just to be clear, the Bowater lands are not included in the 8.8 per cent. They'll be coming up as we approach the other percentages as we are trying to complete our goal.

 

MS. WHALEN: I appreciate that. I understood that there have been quite a few questions around the Bowater lands when Natural Resources was here before estimates and I didn't know it had come up yet and I apologize if it has but I thought it would be good to check with you.

 

I wanted to mention something on that side. I had a chance to speak to the director, I guess the Executive Director of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, CPAWS, and they had said to me not to be concerned about the quality of the land that was designed because they felt that the province has acquired very good, very valuable wilderness land. It may have been because in some political question or speech we might have suggested we don't know if you've gotten the best lands or not but I think it's important to know that CPAWS, being one of the environmental groups that's very interested, had actually said to me, as a member of the Opposition, that they wanted to reassure me they had had participated along with others, I guess in identifying lands and felt that they will be very valuable, very special places, which is really what you want. You want to make sure you're not getting lands that have been ravaged or don't have much recreational use. I was told to rest assured that the lands will, when you take them over, the environment will be good additions to this 8.8 per cent of protected ecosystems.

 

I know you try to get different areas protected so that you can have wonderful examples of different kinds of ecosystems that we've got in the province. But I was reassured because I really wasn't sure in the first instance if that had been done too hastily, perhaps, to have made good choices. But it sounds like we don't need to worry about that. I wanted to just share that with you.

 

On the 8.8 per cent, have you made any distinction around coastal properties? We're a province where an awful lot of our coastal lands are privately owned and we're lucky to have so much water frontage but it's almost all privately owned. I wonder if you have a percentage that you could give me that might be coastal properties?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, I wonder if you could make this a fairly quick answer because we started at 9:20 a.m. this morning, we've had two breaks - five minutes and two minutes - we have to finish at 9:27, just adding the seven minutes to that and it's now 16 after by my watch. You only have 11 minutes and the main Chamber is finishing at 1:30 p.m. and we have to finish within our 10 minutes and I have to call business for Monday in the other room. The chairman is going to leave in a heck of a hurry here, so I'm going to stop talking and you have your 10 minutes.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Okay, just to be clear, you want me to go into my closing remarks?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but a quick answer on the percentage if you have it.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The quick answer was, regarding looking at some coastal properties or protection, I can tell you that we are, but as you can appreciate with all our 13,000 kilometres of coastline, most of that is owned as a development in private hands. There are a number of applications that we have some real good candidate sites. I can ask our staff to get some maps and to identify that for you if you wish.

 

Again, I just want to point out that most of that land in coastal areas is actually in private hands, but we're always looking at that. The quick response is, this exercise of protecting our lands is something that we're going to pass on as a legacy and I can assure you that future generations are going to applaud us. There's some good work and the site you made reference to, I think, is going to be an excellent example of how we can work together and accomplish this for the betterment of all Nova Scotians.

 

I would like to conclude by thanking everyone for their time here today. I hope this information you've received will help you to better understand and appreciate the work that we are doing in our department. Through the leadership of this government and the staff of our department, we have accomplished a lot.

 

We continue to support and promote protection, the enhancement and the careful use of the environment. The Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division certainly has an important role to play. Field staff inspect thousands of facilities every year to ensure they comply with our legislation and regulations. They make sure that businesses, industries and citizens are accountable to our environment.

 

Recent changes in the Environment Act will allow our department to focus on activities with the highest risk to the environment. In the year ahead, we will continue to deliver this important service to ensure our environment is protected. We will continue to work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions generated by electricity sectors. Initiatives by this government reduced greenhouse gases from electricity by more than 300,000 tons last year.

 

As a world leader in this area, we will continue to work towards lowering these emissions by 25 per cent by 2020. The Climate Change directorate will continue to work with other provincial departments, municipalities, communities, industries and not-for-profit organizations to help them achieve their climate change goals. We will take further actions this year to create, manage and protect wilderness areas.

 

As you know, the province is committed to legally protecting 12 per cent of our lands by 2015. Last year we invested over $1 million in land purchases and the province bought over 10,000 hectares of Bowater Mersey lands.

 

This year, this government is investing another $6,500,000 in purchasing lands - many of which will be protected. We have met 8.8 per cent of our 12 per cent goal. As the work of our dedicated staff and many partners continues, we will reach our target by 2015.

 

Nova Scotia launched our new Water Resource Management Strategy in 2010 and we released our first progress report in March. This strategy will help us understand the quality and quantity of our water. It will ensure our water is available for today and into the future. We also recently updated our drinking water treatment standards to come in line with the new national standards. This will further protect the health of Nova Scotians.

 

This year, staff will continue to work on creating programs and policy to support our province's first contaminated sites regulations. These rules will make the process for cleaning up these sites clearer, easier and faster for property owners. This will encourage more sites to be reclaimed for use. This will benefit communities across the province.

 

The department's dedicated staff and I are committed to building on our many accomplishments in the coming year. Our mission is to be a leader in ensuring that our environment is valued, protected and enhanced in partnership with all Nova Scotians. The ingredient here is partnership. We value the assistance of stakeholder groups and individual Nova Scotians in helping us to meet our goals and vision. Working together, we will make great progress towards the protection and enhancement of our environment.

 

The coming year will include further opportunities for public consultation and we look forward to engaging with Nova Scotians to enhance the protection of the environment and create a healthier place to live, work and play. My staff and I look forward to hearing the creative and thoughtful ideas of Nova Scotians on ways to improve the work that we do.

 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share with this committee some of the department's programs and accomplishments of the past year. I certainly appreciate your time.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E7 stand?

 

The resolution stands.

 

Thank you very much, minister, members; thank you all. That concludes the Department of Environment in Supply. Have a good weekend.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 1:24 p.m.]