HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2015

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

 

2:59 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Patricia Arab

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd like to ask everyone to take their seats. I'd like to welcome everybody to today's proceedings. This is the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply. My name is Patricia Arab. I am the MLA for Fairview-Clayton Park.

 

            Today we have before us the Department of Natural Resources to consider the following resolution:

 

            Resolution E17 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $82,983,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have Minister Zach Churchill along with members of his staff today. I'd like to ask Minister Churchill to begin by introducing himself and his staff members and begin any opening remarks.

 

            HON. ZACH CHURCHILL: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'm happy to be here with our Deputy Minister Frank Dunn, our Associate Deputy Minister Allan Eddy and our Director of Finance, Weldon Myers, who have all been extremely instrumental in developing our budget for this year. We're also blessed with the presence of some of our executive directors from the various branches of the department who all do a wonderful job for the people of this province. It has been a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to work with these folks. They are leaders in the Public Service. They are innovative thinkers and they do an incredible job not just for our government but for the people of the province.

 

I would like to begin by emphasizing that the department is committed to striking the right balance between the economic, social and environmental values of Nova Scotia's natural resources. Over the past year Nova Scotia has experienced challenges and opportunities in our resource-based industries, particularly in mining and forestry. We believe our long-term success will be achieved through balance and innovation. Like other government departments, this year Natural Resources has been engaged in a review of our current operations to ensure that our funding is spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible for Nova Scotians. As a result of measures relating to this review, our departmental 2015-16 budget has been reduced by over $6.3 million to a total of $83 million.

 

            As I mentioned earlier, at DNR we work hard to find the right balance between the environmental, economic and social aspects of forests and to do so in a clear and transparent manner to Nova Scotians and the communities that we serve. The fact is that the forestry industry has been a staple of the Nova Scotia economy for close to a century, particularly in rural Nova Scotia. In 2012 it contributed about $283 million to Nova Scotia's gross domestic product. It employed 5,200 people and exported more than $384 million worth of products internationally.

 

            Broken down even further, Madam Chairman, every ton of wood produces $143 benefit to help our economy and $14 per ton is tax revenue to help the province. Twenty-one large, family-owned softwood sawmills are the backbone of the industry in our province and only five of these are large mills. The forestry sector has undergone some significant challenges due to the market in recent years. Over the past 10 years that industry has faced a significant contraction in the Province of Nova Scotia and we've lost about half of our mills.

 

            We believe that by staying forward-focused, focusing our attention on innovation, and ensuring that the industry has the tools necessary to compete and to adapt to a changing marketplace, that industry will be here for some time to come, Madam Chairman.

 

            Sometimes I receive inquiries around management of Crown land in Nova Scotia. First, I think it's important to establish that Nova Scotia has the smallest percentage of Crown lands in the country; only 35 per cent of our land is owned by the province, the rest is owned by private citizens. This, combined with the Parks and Protected Areas plan, means there is less provincially-owned wood managed by the Crown than most people perceive. It is important to note that the Department of Natural Resources does not have control over how a private landowner may choose to manage or sell his or her wood.

 

            Clear-cutting is a subject that does create a lot of discussion amongst Nova Scotians. Here in Nova Scotia, Madam Chairman, forest practices have evolved significantly and clear-cutting is only one of several harvesting options available to woodcutters. The fact is that over the past five years DNR has reduced the amount of clear-cutting on Crown land from 75 per cent in 2010 to 64 per cent in 2013. It is our ultimate intention to reduce clear-cutting to 50 per cent of Crown-owned forest harvests by the year 2016, and I believe we are well on track to meet that goal.

 

            I would like to emphasize that our Crown land wood suppliers have completed training related to implementing alternative treatments to clear-cutting. This includes identification of trees to leave to grow for improved economic value and for wildlife habitat. The training is also currently being provided to harvesting contractors who focus their businesses on private lands.

 

            It is important to note that DNR is more open and transparent around our harvesting options. To that end, last September the department began posting maps on our website that show harvest allocations on the western Crown lands. People want to know that government is managing these areas in a responsible, balanced way. Sharing these maps is our first step towards keeping communities and stakeholders more aware of where harvesting is taking place and what form of harvesting is taking place.

 

            In addition, in order for our stakeholders to know when the new maps are posted, the Department of Natural Resources will send an email alert to any person who requests this information. So we are being proactive in our communications with Nova Scotians. Those Nova Scotians who have identified that they want to know when any changes to our harvest prescription has happened, we will actually be alerting them of that change, proactively and directly.

 

            I would also like to highlight that our department took quick action last summer, when it was suggested that clear-cutting was not the proper harvest method to use at Panuke Lake near Halifax. We immediately ordered an independent audit of the harvest. This review was conducted by the Mersey Woodlands Advisory Committee and I'm pleased that this committee and another independent forest auditor concluded that clear-cutting was the correct technical and scientific approach to the Panuke harvest.

 

            In addition to validating government's Panuke Lake harvest, the report suggested some improvements for the department to consider. We are taking action on all of these recommendations, including establishing a working group to develop criteria to define and describe sustained-level conservation measures for the sustainable management of biodiversity and wildlife habitat, to the extent that current knowledge, data and information permit.

 

            In addition, we are giving priority to applied research on landscape level planning and management in order to address cumulative impacts, particularly related to biodiversity wildlife habitat and species at risk.

 

            A key to the success of our forestry industry entails good planning and management of the resource. To that end, this past October our department announced its forestry plan for the western Crown lands and released a 10-year fibre allocation for these lands. The model we used will give us the flexibility we need to be balanced in our approach, so we're balancing our economic and conservation goals.

 

            For the first time, allocations will actually be based on a percentage of available harvests rather than a fixed volume. This will make it easier to adjust to changing forest conditions or threats such as large forest fire or infestation. This will ensure a more sustainable forest industry in our province.

 

            Just to be clear, previous to these changes, sawmills would be given volume allocations. So that means no matter what the sustainable harvest would be, they would receive that volume. By changing to a percentage model, if there is a change in the harvest because of an infestation, because of a weather event or anything else, the percentage stays the same, but the volume would obviously be adjusted. That's a more sustainable model.

 

            Private landowners remain the primary source of fibre in the province and no mill will receive more than 21 per cent of its spruce and fir fibre from Crown allocations. The harvest in the western Crown lands is expected to be 698,000 green metric tons.

 

            Stumpage rates associated with these allocations will be market based. In addition, while the allocations address the business needs of the mills, the government has also taken steps over the past year to protect land. Land trust agreements with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Nova Scotia Nature Trust protect more than 3,000 acres of land. Land purchases by Nova Scotia Department of Environment are protecting mature hardwood, endangered species and wildlife corridors. No fibre will be harvested on lands identified in the Parks and Protected Areas plan.

 

            Sixty mills making both hardwood and softwood products will jointly hold one western Crown harvesting licence and will establish a consortium to manage the harvest. Work on establishing this consortium is underway. The 16 potential members of the consortium are engaged in work to formalize both a governance system and an operations model. We are projecting things will be in place and initial operations underway by this Fall.

 

            We also recently announced the community forest pilot project in Annapolis County. Last January, government signed an agreement with the Medway Community Forest Co-operative to begin managing eastern Canada's first community forest - something that we're very excited about.

 

            Community forest is a forest that is managed by local people to benefit the local economy. As I mentioned earlier, our department wants our forests managed in ways that bring us economic, environmental and social benefits. This community forest project is a key part of that mix. The three-year pilot project will be on 15,000 hectares of provincial Crown land, and government will contribute $274,000.

 

            As I've stated, Madam Chairman, for the forest industry to continue to move forward, it needs to continually adapt and innovate. Doing so will enable the industry to meet the evolving measures of responsible forestry and the changes in our marketplace. The improvements with ecosystem-based management, technology, and forest certifications are all indicators that we are heading in the right direction.

 

            I also want to emphasize that while forestry remains a key focus for our department, we are also working to diversify the economic uses of our Crown lands. Natural Resources has started to look at other industries and products, including maple products, blueberries, soy, corn and other agriculture products, in an attempt to use our land to its fullest potential.

 

            As we all know, Madam Chairman, mining has a long history in Nova Scotia as well. This sector continues to contribute significantly to our province's economy. Nova Scotia is currently home to 11 active mines. Statistics from 2012 indicate that this industry provides employment for approximately 5,400 Nova Scotians, both from mining directly as well as spinoff jobs. It is estimated that the industry has a total payroll of about $88 million, including wages and benefits and it is important to remember that many of these jobs are in the rural parts of our province.

 

            Indeed, statistics from 2012 indicate that mining directly contributes approximately $234 million to our provincial GDP. That number rises to $420 million when indirect contributions are factored in. This year the Department of Natural Resources has launched a review of the Mineral Resources Act with a goal of introducing a new Act in the Fall of 2015. This is the first time the legislative framework around our mining and minerals has been looked at in 25 years so this is something that is very exciting for us, very exciting for industry, and I think will be very exciting for the communities that are home to our mining operations.

 

            The review addresses several key areas including land access, royalties, reclamation and bonding, and community engagement, although the complete Act and regulations are open for comment and review. A modern and effective Mineral Resources Act will improve Nova Scotia's competitive position and further support an "open for business" environment for mineral exploration and mining in the Province of Nova Scotia. The revised Act will adopt principles of sustainability and strike the right balance between protecting the interests of communities and the rights of landowners and mineral rights holders.

 

            In addition, Madam Chairman, our government continues to foster the environment of growth in this sector. Over the past year we have issued special exploration licences to companies like Avalon Rare Metals, Pioneer Coal, Maritime Potash and Globex, among others. It is important to remember that special licences are not mining leases but these companies will now be able to explore to see if the potential exists for development of minerals in various parts of the province.

 

            One of the most notable developments in this industry over the past year has been the sale of the Donkin coal mine in Cape Breton to Kameron Collieries. As we all know, Kameron Collieries is a subsidiary of the Cline Group international mining company. I would like to note, Madam Chairman, that the province has taken steps to ensure that Kameron Collieries and the Cline Group have the experience, knowledge and financial capacity to operate this mine and to do so in a manner that is safe for workers and for the environment.

 

            We engaged in an extensive due diligence process and engaged an independent third party to help us with that process, and all indications were that this is the right company to get this mine going and to do it safely. It is good news for Cape Breton and for all Nova Scotia. Work is already happening at the mine site and the potential now exists for coal mining to again become a strong and prominent industry on Cape Breton Island.

 

            In addition, Madam Chairman, Nova Scotia has the privilege of hosting the federal and provincial Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference this coming July. This conference will provide an excellent opportunity for me and my colleague, the Minister of Energy, to discuss opportunities for this industry with our counterparts from across the country.

 

            Madam Chairman, I am proud of the work our department has undertaken around mining in Nova Scotia. I am optimistic about the future of mining our province. With our new Act and changes recommended by the Auditor General, I hope to see even more growth and development in this sector in the years to come.

 

            Madam Chairman, the honourable members probably remember that the Red Chamber had a beautiful Christmas tree last year, a reminder that we are the world's Christmas tree capital. Growers donated trees that went to four charities in the province and I was honoured to participate in that event, along with the Premier and my Cabinet colleagues. I would be remiss if I did not reference the annual Boston tree, Nova Scotia's way of saying thank you to the people of Boston for their support after the Halifax Explosion in 1917. Already the hunt is on for this year's tree and we look forward to continuing this time-honoured tradition and reminding politicians and business leaders in the Boston area of the economic opportunities that exist a little to their northeast. We're particularly looking at new ways to promote our new Nova Scotia ferry, which connects our province - one of the biggest tourism markets in the world.

 

            Land management takes on many forms. At the Department of Natural Resources we are also stewards of our heritage and conservation lands and owners/operators of the provincial park system. Across the province Nova Scotians and tourists continue to enjoy our provincial parks. However, as you know, our department is changing how some of our park services are being delivered. These changes will cut costs and duplications and protect services most important for our government to fund.

 

            Seven of Nova Scotia's 20 provincial parks are changing to self-registration. These parks include: Laurie and Porter's Lake Provincial Parks in the Halifax Regional Municipality; Islands Provincial Park in Shelburne County; Smileys Provincial Park in Windsor; Boylston Provincial Park, Guysborough County; Salsman Provincial Park in Country Harbour; and Whycocomagh Provincial Park in Whycocomagh.

 

            We took these changes very seriously, but when you take into account that our parks lose $3 for every dollar that's brought in in revenue, and when you take into account that our occupancy rates have been down, in some cases at 12 per cent, on average around 30 per cent, when you take into account the fact that 80 per cent of our park users are actually self-registering right now, then I know that these changes will make sense to Nova Scotians and the communities. We fully believe that these changes are necessary if we are going to have a parks model in the Province of Nova Scotia that is sustainable, which is a priority for us. I would like to add that DNR will continue its ongoing work to both promote and improve our provincial park system.

 

            I realize the risk in making prognostications - another DNR forecaster did not fare too well this year himself, that is of course Shubenacadie Sam who told us that winter would only last six more weeks. He was wrong again, and in speaking with our folks at the Shubie Park we know how terrible he feels about these mistakes and he wanted me to extend his apologies to the people of this House and of course the province.

 

            As I came to appreciate, during my first year and a half as Minister of Natural Resources, the department has broad responsibilities. It manages, develops, conserves and protects the province's biodiversity as well as its forests, minerals and parks. Last October, Nova Scotia was happy to host delegates of the North American Forest Commission's Fire Management Working Group, who met in Halifax to share best practice in fighting forest fires. This working group was established in 1962. Its annual meetings are an opportunity for members to learn about new firefighting techniques and technology and to build co-operation with international agencies around fighting forest fires. Those partners are varied. They include many folks from across the country. The 14 attendees were from Canada, United States, Mexico, Australia and Costa Rica and an Italian member of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

 

            In addition, DNR launched a consultation around the prospect of Sunday hunting in Nova Scotia, which has elicited a lot of passionate feedback. No decisions have been made yet, but this consultation gave us an opportunity to learn about how people of our province feel with regard to this issue. We have received close to 21,000 responses and I would like to thank all Nova Scotians who took the time to contribute their thoughts and ideas.

 

            I want to be clear, this was not a plebiscite or referendum on Sunday hunting. This was a consultation. So in moving forward, we are going to be evaluating the content of the submissions and the information that Nova Scotians provided us in relation to Sunday hunting and see if there are ways to accommodate Sunday hunting while avoiding conflict, or not. Those are conversations that we will be continuing with our colleagues as we move forward.

            In the years ahead, DNR will continue to manage the risks and opportunities with regard to our forest and minerals. As well, we administer the province's Crown land holdings. We do all of this with help from our many business and conservation partners. Those partners include, but are not limited to: the Mi'kmaq, the forestry sector, the Ecology Action Centre, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Mining Association of Nova Scotia, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Mahone Islands Conservation Association and other departments of the provincial government and the Government of Canada.

 

            Through these relationships we can identify land to be preserved and protected, as well as making Crown lands available for economic development and recreational and social activity as well.

 

            I'd like to add, Madam Chairman, our department's collaboration with the Mi'kmaq has led to the development of a Mi'kmaq forestry initiative. The department's success greatly lies with the roughly 708 men and women who work for DNR. They are managers, administration supports, technicians, scientists, policy experts, librarians, conservation officers and pilots. Regardless of the role they play, they are integral to how we accomplish all our goals.

 

            Again I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the good folks who work at DNR for their continued support during my tenure as minister and for their services, which have been ongoing, no matter which government is in place, it has been to the great benefit of all Nova Scotians. With that, Madam Chairman, I am happy to answer questions from my colleagues.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, minister. First of all we'll turn the questioning over to the Progressive Conservative caucus and Mr. Dunn, if you could start by introducing yourself and begin your one hour of questioning.

 

            HON. PAT DUNN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Pat Dunn, MLA for Pictou Centre and PC Critic for DNR. I'm happy to be here also. The minister mentioned as he started off and I caught wind of that first phrase, "I'm happy to be here with . . ." and I thought he was going to be talking about me but anyway, we'll move on from there.

 

            Again, welcome to all his staff. The great job you do day in and day out in the province in that particular department is greatly appreciated by everyone, not only in the House here but across the province with people we talk to.

 

            Madam Chairman, I'm going to give my colleague an opportunity to ask a question or two prior to beginning.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacMaster, if you could just introduce yourself and start your questions.

           

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Allan MacMaster, MLA for Inverness. Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Dunn, for allowing me to ask a couple of questions. I wanted to start off, minister, by thanking you for making some time available to meet with some concerned citizens from Whycocomagh about the park closure there. It's a tough situation for the people involved and I wanted to thank you for making some time to meet with concerned citizens. We covered a lot of ground that day.

 

I'm not going to ask questions here about that but I do want to ask a question about silviculture. There are people in Inverness County working in the forestry sector and traditionally silviculture was a good source of revenue for them. I know forestry has changed, at least in terms - there is less plantation-style forestry nowadays. Years ago there was more silviculture being done, I think, because of the nature of cutting. There were also things like the spruce budworm that necessitated a significant replanting program.

 

            My question, minister, what I hear from people who are doing forestry work, trying to do silviculture work, is the amount of money that is made available to them for that work is not significant enough to make it worth their while. I think they are still dealing with rates that are about 15 years unchanged. I wanted to ask if there has been any change in that regard in this budget for silviculture.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I appreciate the question and I appreciate the member's comments related to the Whycocomagh Park. Of course when it came to our park decisions, they were not easy decisions to make. There are seven parks, as I mentioned earlier, that were impacted. All those parks are considered to be supporting parks of the province. The 13 core parks that have been identified through our natural resources strategy, consultation, will be all currently maintaining the same level of staffing. We will be monitoring the situation because long term we want those parks to be sustainable; we want to keep them in our rural communities. We believe, in this case, with those seven parks that were identified, a change in model was necessary in order to do that.

 

            I appreciate very much the manner in which the member for Inverness has handled this issue. He has done so very tactfully. While conveying the concerns of his constituents, he has been very understanding of the situation the province faces financially and has always dealt with myself and my colleagues with a high level of respect and I appreciate that very much.

 

            If we can finance the silviculture issue I'll be very happy. That is probably one of the most recurring issues brought forward from various players in the forestry sector. There have been no changes in our current budget for this year for our silviculture funding, or change in the policies around our silviculture, but we are currently reviewing all our forestry policies.

 

            As I mentioned earlier, the forestry sector has been facing significant global market challenges and some domestic challenges as well in the impacts that have happened to the supply chain, so we are reviewing all our current forestry policies, including the delivery mechanism that we use for silviculture, and trying to identify if there is a better way to support the forestry sector through our policies and regulations; that is an ongoing conversation.

 

            There have been no conclusions to those conversations yet but over the course of the next number of months we will be bringing forward some recommendations from a policy perspective on this.

 

            MR. MACMASTER: Minister, is one of the reasons this has become as complicated is because the industry that would be paying some of these silviculture fees in tandem with the government are concerned that if the fees start going up for the silviculture - well would it bring added cost for them? Is that why rates really haven't changed in many years?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Our silviculture rates are actually in line with market rates. It's a policy of the department when it comes to our stumpage rates and our silviculture rates that those are reflective of what the wider rates are. We do not want to be in a position where we are unfairly competing with the private sector or where we're jeopardizing our exclusion  of the softwood lumber agreement, so those rates are reflective of market prices and costs.

 

            MR. MACMASTER: I am going to thank the minister for those answers and I'm going to turn the table back over to my colleague, Mr. Dunn.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunn.

 

            HON. PAT DUNN: Again, in the minister's opening comments he mentioned that he was happy to have his staff here, but I'm not so sure when the staff finds out that they are going to be here for three days that they will be too happy. Anyway, all jokes aside, we'll certainly get on with the questions and answers.

 

            The first few questions I'm going to ask - I'm just going to sort of jump around, something like the last time I saw you Play hockey, you were all over the ice. After that I'll try to get a little system together and if I'm going to ask a couple of questions in a particular area, I'll try to give them a heads up.

 

            The first question, if I can perhaps get some comments from you, and I'm actually asking because I don't know the answer. It is dealing with domestic coal in our province, as far as domestic coal being produced, being used, what amount, is there a need for it now? I did have, not a constituent of my own, but someone who was asking about it -just maybe a short update.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Coal is, by all accounts from the folks in the energy sector - and energy is not currently the portfolio I'm holding - coal is going to be a source of energy for Nova Scotia for probably some time. So the question for us is around the benefits of producing our own coal or importing it. Currently the majority of our coal is imported. From a climate perspective, that most likely increases the carbon output of that coal because we're shipping it from other parts of the world on barges and on machines that burn fossil fuels, so we believe that producing it here is better for the environment because it reduces the carbon footprint of the coal and also, more importantly for us in the immediate future, we get the economic benefit of those jobs that are created.

 

            I know that the Donkin coal mine in particular has been a project that folks in Cape Breton have wanted to see active for quite some time and what has been very encouraging is that despite the fact that there has been a global downturn in the coal market - and really a global downturn in all commodities in mining has had a wide-ranging impact on that sector across the globe - despite those negative indicators in the market, we still have a company that has purchased this coal mine and is actively working to bring it back to production. That's a very exciting development for us. If Donkin coal comes online, we'll be doubling our mineral production in the Province of Nova Scotia. Of course there are, I believe, a couple of other coal projects that are being pursued as well.

 

            MR. DUNN: I'm going to jump over to another question dealing with Christmas tree producers and other people who work in the forestry industry across the province. This question perhaps is more of a TIR question, but I'm going to try to tie you into it to see what you can say about it. We can always talk to your colleague, the member for Glace Bay. It's dealing with the K-class roads. In one particular area, the people I was talking to from Bridgewater, I believe they're over the Sanborn Road, at times they were having great difficulty getting their product out because of the conditions of the road. Although the road is probably a TIR responsibility, or was, it's still tied in with the forestry industry.

 

            I wonder in cases like that if there is anything that can be done to help these people get their product out, when the roads get really bad. My understanding of K-class roads is they're not maintained. They come to a point where they're not maintained by the province. I wonder if you could comment on that.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: We work very closely with our forestry producers, as I mentioned in my previous comments. That is an important sector for the province. They export an incredible amount of product, and of course they're exporting trees that we can be very proud of because they're being placed in houses in various parts of North America and beyond. It's a great industry as an ambassador for the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

            Any of our stakeholders or industry partners that we work with, we of course serve as a bridge between other departments. All of our departments work very collaboratively. There are three departments that would probably impact that sector - ours, the Department of Agriculture and in some cases TIR, when roads are involved. We work with our government departments and the Christmas tree sector to find solutions to these things. If there are particular road cases that sector has concerns about, we'd be happy to pass their concerns along to TIR.

 

            MR. DUNN: Moving on to another area in the province - you mentioned in your opening remarks about Pioneer Coal. I know people who live around Pioneer Coal continue to complain about dust particles. That brings in another department also, the Department of Environment. This particular location is near what we call Evansville, which is part of Stellarton. Prior to that they were in Westville.

 

            I know the problem is there because I am not very far away from that particular site and it's just a stone's throw from the Pictou County Wellness Centre. It's a very busy place with a large pit. They certainly water down the roads and so on but I have seen many examples of dust around the homes nearby, over the vehicles and the toys and swings and stuff in the back yards. I'm wondering, how much collaboration is going on between, say, your department and the Department of Environment with regard to - I know there is an individual there who has been sending a lot of emails to the Department of Environment. I'm not sure about your department but I wonder if you could comment on that.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The regulatory authority for oversight of dust emissions, anything environmentally-related, does fall under the Department of Environment. We do work collaboratively with that department on a number of files. I can't speak for the Minister of Environment but I'm sure if he has received correspondence related to this issue, he'll be treating them as a priority and he'll be responding to the folks who have written to his office.

 

            MR. DUNN: Again maybe if I just jump for a couple of minutes - I mentioned about the beautiful Melmerby Beach area. You did mention in the House one time that you will make an effort to try to get down to see that particular area at your earliest convenience. There has been a fair bit of erosion along that beach for the last number of years because of the type of weather we have in Nova Scotia, including the road that takes you out to Roy's Island, which runs parallel with the beach, and of course there are permanent residents on that island.

 

            Maybe TIR ties in that too, although it's a provincial park. I know that you probably wish there were more dollars in your budget and I wish there were, too. That's the reality of the revenue coming into our province in this current year. Are there any dollars there to do any type of repairs in any of our provincial parks, in particular areas where the road should be fixed, where if it deteriorates any further, they may not be able to use that particular road to get out to where they live?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I know that I owe the member a long walk on a beach for this particular issue. When I did make that commitment to him I was also hoping that the member for Pictou West would be in attendance as well; I'm sure he can accommodate me there.

 

            Listen, once the weather gets a bit better and we're finished up our work in the Legislature, we're going to be doing numerous site visits across the province in our parks, our local depot offices, and other areas where we've received questions on. I'll be very pleased at that time, when we're in the Pictou area, to coordinate a meeting between myself and my colleague, for us to do a site visit there, examine what needs to happen and see if there is any room or opportunity in our budget to address that.

 

            I cannot make any guarantees at this time. We do have a limited envelope and there are priorities that the department has identified for capital spending. Of course we will visit and have a conversation and see what we can do.

 

            MR. DUNN: Staying with parks and staying with the maintenance of parks and the upkeep of parks, I think you mentioned in your opening comments that for every dollar of revenue, we lose three - I believe that was the statement you made. Will there be any park maintenance this year, any improvements in any areas across the province that you are aware of or have planned?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Absolutely, every year there is a priority list for maintenance. For the smaller maintenance issues, our budget this year is $600,000. I believe that's consistent with previous years. That's a consistent budget line with previous years. That budget line has not been impacted so we will still have the full $600,000 available for park maintenance.

 

            MR. DUNN: Continuing on with parks, you also mentioned in your opening remarks that we have some parks that are not going to have the human resources like we had in the past and machines and so on. Is your department still looking or delving into potential creative ways to increase the participation at our parks and perhaps getting that dollar value a little higher so the revenue will meet the expenses?

 

            The core of my question is, is your department still trying to go beyond the envelope to look at what possibly could happen, putting everything on the table and moving outside the box to see if there is anything we can do to entice people to use our parks more, which would increase the revenue?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: That's absolutely a priority for us. We partner every year with a Tourism Agency in Nova Scotia so that partnership will continue in order to ensure that our parks, particularly our signature parks, are properly and adequately highlighted in our tourism literature. With our new connection between Nova Scotia and one of the largest tourism markets in the world in the State of Maine, it is particularly important that we ensure that those assets are properly marketed, so we do partner with the Tourism Agency.

 

            It is important to note that the majority of our park users, the vast majority are actually local, they are domestic users. The primary users of our parks aren't tourists, although that's a market we'd like to continue to tap into, but the majority of our park users are domestic users. It is important to understand that the profile of our users is they are primarily from the communities in which the parks are servicing or from areas close by.

 

            When it comes to promotion, most of these families, most of these folks are actually going there because of family tradition, because of the geographical location of those parks. We benefit greatly from the connection that our folks have with those parks, but we are also looking at ways to encourage a new generation of Nova Scotians to participate in our parks; to enjoy them; to engage in healthy, active lifestyles in our parks; and benefit from the recreational and social and environmental opportunities that are present there.

 

            We are currently working with the member for Halifax Chebucto who has had a very good idea that he has brought forward to myself and to the department to engage students in our schools at a young age, around our parks and the great opportunities that are there for them to enjoy. We will actually be moving forward with a plan in that regard to try to encourage the next generation of Nova Scotians who are growing up here to participate and enjoy our parks. Hopefully we can continue on that great tradition of Nova Scotians camping, hiking, fishing and all these lovely things in our rural communities.

 

            MR. DUNN: Another thing you mentioned in your comments was about Sunday hunting. My question - I want to make sure I heard you right - did you mention that there were approximately 21,000 people who responded?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: We had almost 21,000 responses - I think it was 20,900-and something - so it was actually, from our perspective, one of the most successful public engagement campaigns that we've initiated. It elicited an incredible amount of feedback on both sides of the issue. Nova Scotians are very passionate about our land and about the various uses for our land. We've already begun the process of evaluating those submissions, going through them, Our staff, particularly in our policy shop at DNR, have been doing a fantastic job getting to the fundamentals of the issue, understanding what people's concerns are around the potential of lifting the ban on Sunday hunting, understanding the reasons that proponents want to see that ban lifted.

 

            We are dedicated to hopefully finding a solution to this question that minimizes conflicts in communities between the various users of our lands. That's the challenge that I've laid out for staff and that's the challenge that I have, as minister, to either see if this can work or if it can't. We're going to keep the conversations going with Nova Scotians as we move forward with this to ensure that they are very well aware of where we're at and where we plan to go, once we finish with the evaluation of the public consultation.

 

            MR. DUNN: Twenty-one thousand - that's totally amazing. When this process started I certainly never dreamed of having so many people responding to it. I guess I thought that maybe if 10,000 did I would be pretty happy with it. I believe I am right in saying the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development's panel review on education had just slightly over 19,000 people respond to that, so you're doing a good job, Mr. Minister.

 

            Staying with that particular survey, will the survey show the information with regard to the breakdown across the province, like from this area of the province we received 30 per cent compared to 15 per cent here or 10 per cent here? Will you also be able to tell the age group of the respondents and any other data that might be in that survey that would break down the analysis across the province? For example, when this started I was very surprised. I am the member for Pictou Centre, which is three towns - the Towns of Trenton, New Glasgow and Stellarton - not a lot of area to hunt in those three towns so I was surprised at the number of people who were very interested in where this might go.

 

            I'll leave that question with you: the type of breakdown from this survey, what kind of information we will get from it, outside of yes, there should be, no, there shouldn't be.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I appreciate the kind remarks from my colleague. I've asked our staff to break down that information as specifically as they are able to. I'm very interested in seeing if there's a difference of opinion based on region. I think there is, so that is something that will be taken into consideration. That begs a question, should we look at this issue on a regional basis, if there are people who want it in a particular region and don't want it in another, is there a way to accommodate that?

 

            We've basically left the question wide open at this point. My directions to staff have been to basically come up with all the options between leaving it the way it is or fully changing it. All those options are going to be on the table for consideration. We will be making it public, the percentages for and against. I can tell you that based on the information I've received so far, it's fairly evenly split, so more importantly, what we're going to be looking at is the content of the submissions, the ideas, the concerns both for and against, to see if there is a way to accommodate this in such a fashion that would minimize conflict and hopefully provide our hunters and anglers with what they're looking for, while minimizing conflict with other stakeholder groups and communities that aren't interested in lifting the ban.

 

            It has been an interesting puzzle for us and we're very excited to continue on with this challenge. We're hoping to have clear direction on this before the next hunting season as a timeline. We want to have an answer for Nova Scotians in the next number of months.

 

            MR. DUNN: I thank the minister for that answer, he pretty well answered my final question on it just a second ago. I am a former hunter myself. The people I have talked to - and it was considerable - I would say it's probably just what you said, a 50/50 split; they are on both sides of the fence. Some of them have very strong opinions about it.

 

            That final question that you just alluded to, I was just wondering, as far as the answer to this survey, as far as what the people who use our forests for hunting, they will probably know, before next hunting season in the Fall, what the department decides.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: That's our goal. We committed to looking at this question in the election campaign. We know that Nova Scotians want an answer for this. We could understand that from the amount of interest that the public consultation solicited. So that is our goal. We are looking to have clear direction on this in time for next hunting season.

 

            MR. DUNN: Just one more question before I try to get into some sort of a system here. I'm just throwing this out for a comment; it's something that actually I've heard a number of times. You could be sitting at Tim Hortons in Stellarton and seeing trucks coming through carrying logs. I've heard it down in Port Hawkesbury and basically the comment is this: we often see, daily, large trucks with double trailers full of wood, in approximately 16-foot lengths, en route to the biomass plant in Point Tupper. Ninety per cent of this wood is not much bigger than a broom handle. My question is, should we be placing a limit on the size of logs that are allowed to be cut, in an effort to manage the forestry properly?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Thank you very much for the question. This has been a point of contention for some folks but I want to be very clear: our goal as a department is to ensure that any wood that comes off our Crown land is being used for its highest value. We actually do monitor where our logs are going and what they are being used for.

 

            We did receive some concerns that the biomass plant was burning high-quality wood and there have been inspections related to that. What the inspections have indicated is that there is not a concerning level of quality fibre going to the biomass plant. The vast majority that is coming off of Crown land is low quality, is low grade. I think Nova Scotians can be assured, from a Crown perspective, that their resource is being used appropriately. Our goal, of course, is to get the highest value for our quality fibre. We've got mechanisms in place to ensure that happens.

 

            As I mentioned, the inspections to date have not indicated to myself or the department that there is a concerning level of quality timber going into that biomass plant. I will note, however, that over 75 per cent of the wood supply in this province is not coming off Crown land. While we manage our Crown land assets and the fibre coming off Crown land, we do not control what private landowners do when it comes to selling of their product.

 

            I would suggest that it does not make much economic sense for a private woodland owner to sell high-quality logs as a low-quality product for biomass. I do not see there being an economic incentive for folks to do that and it wouldn't make sense to me, from an economic standpoint. But that being said, we do not control or tell private woodland owners in the province, who collectively make up the vast majority of wood supply, we do not tell them how or where to sell their wood. From an economic position, again, it would be intriguing to me if they were actually selling high-quality timber at a lower cost, when they could be selling that timber elsewhere, because there is a demand for it.

 

            I can assure the member and I can assure the public that from a Crown supply perspective, we have not had any indication that there is high-level timber moving off Crown land into the biomass facility.

 

            MR. DUNN: I must admit, too, that these several comments at different times have come from people who are definitely not involved in the forestry industry; they just happen to see the trucks go by and they're looking at the size of them and they make those comments.

 

            I'm going to switch over to the shortage of sawmill-quality hardwood. In the last year or two, hardwood manufacturers in Nova Scotia have been forced to close. Of course, as we well know, people lost their jobs as a result of it. River's Bend Wood Products in Antigonish County and Finewood Flooring in Middle River, Victoria County, both cited lack of saw-quality hardwood logs as the problem. In Westville, in Pictou East constituency, Groupe Savoie, which employs 45 people and is probably the biggest hardwood mill in the province, they have a history of struggling due to the lack of hardwood logs. I'm not sure if their future may be in jeopardy. There certainly is not a consistent place where people can work every month of the year.

 

            The reasons for lack of available hardwood have been attributed to lack of access to Crown lands administered by Port Hawkesbury Paper and high-quality logs from private lands being chipped for Nova Scotia Power's biomass facility. So I guess with that background just maybe a few questions.

 

            The first one: is the department aware of the amount of material being consumed by the biomass boiler?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I do have the numbers here. The total amount of green tons that was consumed by the biomass boiler in 2014 was 393,400 green metric tons.

 

            MR. DUNN: Thank you, minister. Just a quick question, just an opinion, do you think this should be reduced, should it stay the same, or should it be increased?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The market is going to drive where these products are going, period. Our biggest concern on this one is ensuring that the high-quality Crown timber is getting to high-quality markets. But again, the vast majority of wood supply isn't coming off Crown; that needs to be very clear, it is coming off private. The economic situation is such, I believe, that private woodlot owners would much prefer to sell their quality timber to a higher value market.

 

            The member mentioned Finewood Flooring and River's Bend and their closures; from our perspective it is not fair to suggest that those closures happened because of access or lack of access to Crown timber. Again, the majority of wood that is moving in the market, over 75 per cent is coming off private, the vast majority of it.

 

            High-quality hardwood logs are limited in this province as it is. A lot of the stands that are out there now with high-quality hardwood logs were actually protected by the previous government, so we are not able to go in there and harvest them because they are now wilderness areas or protected areas.

 

            With Finewood Flooring and River's Bend obviously it's never a good thing when we hear of companies closing, but we need to be very honest about what the situation is that is leading to that. There has been a contraction in the forestry sector for over 10 years. Over the last 10 years we have lost half of our sawmills. That is not because of any government policy; that is not because of access to Crown timber; that is because of global market forces that have been impacting that industry for quite some time.

 

            When it comes to access to Crown hardwood for these mills, we did not receive a request from either Finewood Flooring or River's Bend to have a Crown licence. In fact neither one of those companies actually go out and cut their own supply; they are purchasing from other private suppliers. They were purchasing from Port Hawkesbury; they were purchasing from other people who are actually going out and harvesting the wood. So to suggest that their closures are a result of lack of Crown access is not accurate; it's not reflective of what's happening in the marketplace; it's not reflective of the actual market conditions that led to those closures and the owner's reasons for closing.

 

            When it comes to Groupe Savoie, they have made a request for hardwood Crown logs and we have actually given them some hardwood off Crown land in the west. We will see if it's economical for them to bring that wood up to their operation but we're listening to them; we're trying to work with them; we understand the issues they are facing from a supply perspective and we've responded by giving them access to land in the west, which historically has not been done to sawmills in the east or in the northern part of the province.

 

            When it comes to the licence of Port Hawkesbury Paper, that framework was decided by the previous government. That licence was given to them by the previous government so we are working with a situation that we've inherited.

 

            I'll be clear, I have not seen any indication that Port Hawkesbury Paper is being unreasonable or that Group Savoie is being unfair in their dealings with Port Hawkesbury Paper. Those two organizations need to come to a commercial agreement in order for Savoie to secure more fibre from Port Hawkesbury Paper. Port Hawkesbury Paper has successfully negotiated commercial agreements with other sawmills in that area. We have been very clear with both sides that we are very interested in them coming to a commercial agreement in this particular case.

 

            The Crown does have an ability to intervene in this matter but that is not something that we take very lightly. We do not want to intervene in private commercial mattes when it is not necessary, especially if there's no evidence to suggest that either company isn't acting in a reasonable or fair manner. We do reserve the right to intervene in this case and if it is demonstrated to us that someone is not acting in good faith in those negotiations then we leave the room open for intervention. But that said, we're working with Groupe Savoie. We've given them an allocation on western Crown land for hardwood and we've been facilitating a number of conversations between that company and Port Hawkesbury Paper. It is incumbent on both parties to come to the table reasonably and figure this thing out.

            MR. DUNN: I may go back to Groupe Savoie in a few minutes. As you were talking, I think you were looking at some of my notes before-hand because you were answering some of the questions, which is good.

 

            Staying with the biomass issue, how often does your department talk with the Department of Energy regarding this particular issue? Is there much consultation?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Our staff does meet with the Department of Energy on a regular basis. I was just informed by my deputy that the most recent meeting was actually yesterday.

 

            MR. DUNN: What research has the department conducted with regard to the proposed biomass plant in Lunenburg County?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I would ask the member to clarify in what regard, what questions are you looking to have answered?

 

            MR. DUNN: Basically the preparation or any research, any fact-finding that occurred that is provided regarding the proposed biomass plant in that particular county.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Just for clarification for the member, I'm not familiar with a biomass plant in Lunenburg County.

 

            MR. DUNN: My understanding was that there was a proposed one, I mean it's not there yet.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I've just been informed by our staff that the department has not received a proposal for a biomass plant in Lunenburg County, to date.

 

            MR. DUNN: Moving on to another question then, has the department considered conducting further research to review the impact and sustainability of the biomass plant?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Absolutely, we monitor that situation. We monitor it in a more general sense with our approach to land management in the province. We are moving, for the first time, towards an ecosystem-based land management strategy, which will be much more sensitive to ecological impacts of harvesting, and we'll be keeping in mind the longer term impacts in our decision-making, when it comes to the types of harvests that will happen in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

            We're making this process more open and transparent to the public as well, which is something we're very excited about. We know that Crown land in Nova Scotia is very important to rural communities; it's very important to Nova Scotians in general, whether they hike, whether they hunt, whether they camp, whether they go fishing, whether their focus is on conservation and wildlife preservation, we take into consideration all these things. We are moving in a way that is going to be focused on ecosystem-based land management. We have opened up that process for public scrutiny.

 

For the first time in the history of this province we're actually putting maps online so that stakeholders, communities, and individuals can actually get online, see where Crown harvests are happening, and see what kind of harvest is going to happen. We are proactively soliciting feedback from the public on this. This is the first time this has ever happened.

 

            We have actually already seen to date how that process is improving the outcomes of our decisions because there have already been a couple of circumstances where we have changed the harvest prescription, based on the feedback that we received from the public.

 

            Most recently in the Ingramport area, where there was a scheduled clear-cut of I believe six woodlots, the previous government purchased a St. Margaret's Bay land area for the purpose of harvesting. That land was purchased very clearly with the intent that it would be primarily for economic purposes.

 

            We heard from the community, upon coming into office, that wasn't necessarily what everybody wanted to happen there so we've adjusted the priority of that land to not just be an extraction, number one priority asset, but to be a multiple-use asset. We've actually brought in recreation, social and environmental values into our management plan of that area. Specifically with the proposed clear-cut that we had suggested, there were many members of the community who informed us that they did not want to see that happen, primarily because of impacts to view plains and the perceived impact to potential tourism in the area, so we've adjusted those.

 

That's one situation where the public impact actually helped us adjust our harvest prescription and do it in a way that we believe was fair to the industry and definitely took into consideration the concerns of the community. That has happened more than once. This process is going to be one that is going to help build a higher level of trust between the Department of Natural Resources and the public because it is one that is open, transparent and inclusive of the various opinions that are out there.

 

            MR. DUNN: Just one more question before I pass it over to my colleague. Staying with the impact and sustainability of the biomass plant, and following up under your previous conversation there, has there been any unforeseen consequences or are you aware of any that should be addressed?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The biggest concern that has been brought to my attention regarding the Port Hawkesbury biomass plant, which I believe is what the member is asking, is around whether or not high-quality timber is being used to burn as a cheap energy source. As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to the logs that are coming off of Crown land, we do not believe that is a problem. There have been site visits and inspections to make sure of that and the inspections have come back without any reasons to be concerned.

            That said, we do not control the flow of fibre off private land, which is where the majority of wood is coming from and so we are continuing to work with our private woodlot owners to ensure that they have a model that is more accessible and economical to get there with the product.

 

            A big challenge that we've seen, when it comes to the private woodlot owners, is that from an industry perspective, it seems difficult for them to negotiate various agreements with multiple landowners in multiple areas, not having a full understanding of what stands are necessarily available or what volume. We've actually started a pilot project in Cape Breton where we're bringing private woodland owners together and creating one access point for harvesters whereby they can see all the volume that's available, where it's available and so they're only negotiating at one time.

 

            We believe that's a model that is going to help ensure a sustainable supply of fibre to the market over the long run because that's where the majority of the wood is. We need the private woodlot sector to look at this model and hopefully we will have other success stories as we've seen in Cape Breton so far in other parts of the province, once we apply this model in those regions.

 

            MR. DUNN: I'd like to turn it over to my colleague.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacLeod.

 

            HON. ALFIE MACLEOD: I just want to say how good it is to be able to see the minister's face because when we're sitting in the House, where our chairs are located I can't see him because of the Speaker's podium - and even when he stands up I still can't see him. (Laughter)

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Because of the podium.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: Because of the podium. Before we go too far, I want to thank you for the opportunity to ask a few questions and welcome your staff here. I want to just say for the record that the staff that you have employed in Coxheath, at the depot there, are very professional individuals who I enjoy working with. We don't always see eye to eye, but they're always very professional. They're always very open to being approached and I'm very grateful for that. I would just hope that the minister realizes the quality of the people that he has in his department, and I'm sure he does.

 

            There are several questions that I would like to ask. One of them deals with the Mira River Provincial Park on the Brickyard Road. There has been a large investment in the Mira River Park over the last number of years and it's a very quality area, but there is always a challenge and the challenge is the hours and the time that it's open to the public.

 

            We have an event in Cape Breton called Celtic Colours and it goes into the Fall of the year. Some of the people who travel there are international travellers and some of them travel from other parts of Canada. Some of them come and they want to camp, and it's unfortunate that the facility at Mira River Park, which is a quality facility with all the quality things that people look for like dumping stations, showers and all of those things are there, yet it's not open to the public during that period of time. Other parks, such as the Battery Park in St. Peter's have seen their schedule extended. I'm just wondering if the minister could talk to us a little bit about the rationale for the limited hours that are in that park, considering where it is located and that a lot of the events that take place for Celtic Colours are in that geographical area.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: It's definitely something that we're open to discussing. As the member mentioned, we recently extended the hours of Battery Park to accommodate for Celtic Colours. We've done that on a pilot basis to see if the traffic into the park is still high enough to validate the park being open for longer. It's more complicated than most people would believe because there are collective agreements that come into play when you're looking at park hours, and of course there is the cost of the bottom line in the department. To keep Mira open for the amount of time to accommodate the Celtic Colours, the cost would probably be about $50,000 or higher for that. That is a challenge from our perspective at this particular point.

 

            We've just engaged in a very difficult exercise of minimizing our costs and that has resulted in affecting our employees in various parts of the province. It is difficult at this time to justify an extension of any more parks until we see the data that comes in from Battery because we've just told people that we didn't have the budget to keep them employed at our parks, and so to extend the hours at that cost would be a challenge at this particular time, considering the position that we're in. But I want to be clear, we are very open to having those conversations and evaluating the cost benefits of engaging this.

 

            I hear from people across the province. I hear from people home in my constituency in Yarmouth who want to see our Ellenwood Park open later, but we really don't know at this point if the volume of users can justify it, but we're going to evaluate what happens at Battery and then if it does make sense financially, and if we can wrap our head around the impacts of the collective agreement, that's something we're open to discussion.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: It's my understanding this is the second year in a row the Battery Park is going to be open, so my question would be, of course, if we'd had numbers from last year, would it not make sense to try a different park this year so you'd have something to do comparisons on and to move forward from there? I do realize that there have been a number of employees laid off in Whycocomagh and several other areas and that is very unfortunate because jobs are very hard to come by in rural Nova Scotia. We're not happy about that and we may have expressed that in a different forum.

 

            The ability of having a park available to something like Celtic Colours and the amount of dollars that generates into the economy of Cape Breton Island, which in turn is good for all of Nova Scotia, is very important to consider, so I would ask you to look at that as you move forward.

 

            Because of the limited amount of time, I'm going to move on to another standard of mine and that is the Two Rivers Wildlife Park, which is owned by the Province of Nova Scotia, but is leased to a community group. There has been a significant investment made there by the province, by the federal government, and by the municipal unit in the process - actually it's not completed, but it has been started. I just want to thank you on behalf of the residents for the investment that was made there because I think it's a significant investment.

 

            The challenge as we move forward with the Two Rivers Wildlife Park every year is keeping the doors open and making sure of the operating costs. I'm not sure if you've visited Two Rivers yet, but you'd always be welcome. I'm not the member for Pictou West, but I would be more than happy to accompany you on a visit there and show you around. It is a small facility that has a huge impact on the rural Nova Scotia economy. We have the equivalent of 10 full-time jobs there every year for a number of years, and it has always been a question in my mind with this government, the previous government, and the government that I was part of: I've always wondered if they ever sat down and actually figured what the cost of keeping those animals would be, feeding those animals and maintaining those buildings if the park wasn't open.

 

When it comes to the operating grant - and I believe this year there was a $40,000 grant that went to them, which I think was a good investment, considering the number of jobs - the whole reason behind the expansion of the money that has been spent, as I'm sure you are well aware, is to broaden the different things that they're able to do with that park so they can become more self-sufficient. That has been the goal ever since it was closed in the mid-1990s by a former Liberal Government actually. It was closed in those days and was taken over by a community group that has been quite successful in keeping it open.

 

            The challenge, of course, is keeping the doors open during the winter, and we all know how hard that is. They've gotten the operating grants the last number of years and I'm just wondering - and I know money is tight and I know that's where you've done program reviews and there isn't a whole lot of money.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacLeod, that's time for this hour.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: You didn't give me as much time as you normally do. The sad part is now you're going to have to hear it all over again.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: That's not sad. That's alright.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Belliveau.

 

            HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: First of all, I want to apologize to the minister. I was occupied in the other Chamber and unfortunately, you can't be in both places at once, but I missed your opening remarks. I actually look forward to the opportunity to ask a few questions. You probably can predict one of the questions - maybe you can predict all of them - but I suggest that you may be able to predict a couple of them.

 

            I'm going to start off with one of the interesting questions I think is important and that is the previous government purchased the former Bowater lands and they are, in my view, large parcels of land. My understanding of being involved with that government was that the intent was for the purchase to make sure that they would stay within the ownership of Nova Scotia and also for the priority of making sure those lands were for recreational and commercial use.

 

            I want to bring the minister's attention to one particular large parcel, this former Bowater land, which is west of Caledonia. I believe the minister is very familiar with it, but I'll try to describe it as quickly as possible. There is a large parcel of land there that has closed gates on it and the contentious issue is these closed gates on this particular area. I just took the privilege of visiting that area this summer. I drove it and it is a large parcel of land. It literally takes you all day to surround it and familiarize yourself with it.

 

            On each closed gate, a very large steel gate, there is a sign and that sign reads - and I just checked to make sure I had the wording right - unauthorized use of motorized vehicles on this road system is prohibited, and on the bottom of it naturally has the Act through the Department of Natural Resources.

 

            I did that little jaunt this summer and I can tell you that a number of residents in that particular area of southwest Nova Scotia are concerned about the opening of those gates. This particular parcel of land is of deep interest and, to me, not only because the recreational users want access to it, but the key question of what I'm trying to get to is that there are private lands inside of this particular parcel.

 

            First of all, I'm trying to understand - and I appreciate there are private lands there, there is no question - the process, in particular, of those individuals and the public. My first question is, does the public and those private landowners have access to this land? The only restriction is on unauthorized use of certain motor vehicles. That is my first question.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I am familiar with this parcel of land and as the former Minister of Environment would know, when those lands were purchased, a large percentage of those lands were brought under protection. A large part of those lands were made into wilderness areas.

 

            As the former Minister of Environment would know, there are numerous ecological sensitivities in those lands. Furthermore, there is also an Aboriginal interest and so currently our department is involved in consultation with the community and with our Aboriginal partners, before we make any decision related to those lands and the gates that are currently protecting those lands from vehicle use.

 

            I will say that the private landowners that the member mentioned do have access to their lands and so there has been no issue in terms of access for those folks who do have lands in those areas, but as the former Minister of Environment would know - who oversaw the protection process in the Parks and Protected Areas plan - large swaths of that land are under protection for wilderness areas because of ecological sensitivities. So we're not going to make any rash decisions when it comes to the opening of those gates.

 

            Quite frankly, we've heard from a lot of people on both sides of the fence. Many people want those gates to remain closed because of the ecological sensitivities, because of the nature of - there are recreational interests in those lands - and we've heard from people who want them open for ATV and vehicle access. We're going to be proceeding cautiously on this.

 

            Consultation with the Mi'kmaq is a priority, as the member would know. The Mi'kmaq have land rights on all Crown lands and so anything we do on our Crown lands, we do need to consult our Mi'kmaq partners. I want to say very publicly that that process, since I've been minister, has been a very smooth and co-operative process. We are actually leading the country when it comes to the model we have for First Nations engagement and consultation for Crown land use. That's why we're able to avoid some of the conflicts that arise in other jurisdictions - because of the great relationship that our department and our government have been able to build with our Mi'kmaq leaders. We will maintain our obligation to consult them on this matter and all matters, when it comes to use of Crown land.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I understand the wilderness area, the ecologically sensitive areas, and the Mi'kmaq opportunities, but what I'm trying to understand is that these gates are closed and just certain vehicles can enter that particular restricted area. That's what I'm trying to get to. The local recreational fishermen or hunter or the private landowner in that instance can have access for hunting and fishing - am I correct?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: We are currently continuing with the policy that the previous government had in place when it comes to these lands. We have not deviated from that course to date. Moving forward, any decisions we make on the opening or closing of those gates will take into consideration what we're hearing from the community. We'll take into consideration what the issues are that we learn about through the Mi'kmaq consultation process, and we'll take into consideration the ecological sensitivities and nature of the wilderness areas there. We are moving closer to a decision point on this, but we're doing so cautiously, because we know that there is a lot at stake.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I'm going to ask for the third time; I'm going to ask through you, Madam Chairman to the minister. I asked two times - I'm going to ask a third time for the record. I'm asking, do the public and the private landowners have access for recreational and hunting on this particular parcel of land?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: It depends on the nature of the activity. Currently, the folks who are walking into that parcel are able to engage in that recreational activity. What we have not allowed to date is access for motor vehicles. That is because - as I've said twice already and I'll say it again a third time for the record - we have not completed our consultation with the community or with the Mi'kmaq. We will not rush to make any decisions on this until we have completed that robust process because our obligations to the Mi'kmaq, to the community members there, and to the environment are significant. That's why we're going to take our time with this one.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: Well we're gaining. So we know now that if I was a member of the public or a private landowner - and I assume that private landowner has a motorized vehicle, but that's not the issue; I'm concerned about those two individuals - the private landowner and Joe Public can hunt and fish on this land. That's the question I'm trying to get nailed down - that that is allowed in this particular area.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Again, it depends on the nature of their activity. So if there are hunters, fishers, hikers, canoeists, kayakers - anybody who is going into that area to engage in a recreational activity, they're able to do that by walking in or by canoeing in. Currently there is limited access on motor vehicles and that is because of the ecological sensitivity in the area, which we are still evaluating, and because there is a Mi'kmaq interest there that we have not fully fleshed out yet. We have a constitutional obligation to do that, as the member would know. We are required to go through that process. We also want to evaluate all the opinions that we've received from community members on this.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I think that we have established that the public and the private landowners do have capacity to hunt and have recreational fishing use of this land. I think that's what I've heard or think that's where we've come to the conclusion.

 

            I want to bring you to this point because I think there is some concern around that point. When you have a large parcel of that land - and I'm suggesting it may be a 40-kilometre box at least of wilderness area - and when you have gates on either side of that, to me you have established a sanctuary or a protected zone. I'm starting to ask the minister now to move into the wildlife regulation. When you have a protected area that you only allow certain members of the public to go into a sanctuary, I think that's a violation of the Wildlife Act. I want to bring that to your attention.

 

            If there are private landowners in there who can go out and hunt and fish, and the ordinary person from wherever across Nova Scotia doesn't have access to that, there is a problem. I think there is a violation under the wildlife regulations. I'm going to ask the minister to explain that. Is there a violation of the Wildlife Act?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: As I have explained, the public actually does have access to those lands. As the former Minister of Environment who brought in the Parks and Protected Areas plan, who led the charge on protection of Crown land, he would understand that the policies that are currently in place are very consistent with the policies that were being developed by the previous government. We have not deviated from the path that the previous government had started when it comes to our protected areas. As the former minister who oversaw these files, I think he would know that.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I know the minister brought this up several times about protected areas and talked about the previous government. I just want to remind the minister that there was an Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, EGSPA, that I'm somewhat familiar with. It's my understanding that there was an all-Party agreement to that to obtain the protected areas.

 

            Does the minister recall that Act being endorsed by all three Parties? Isn't that something that should be remembered when you talk about protecting this particular land?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I just finished stating that our government is continuing on the course that was set by the previous government, when it comes to the protected areas plan. That would suggest that we are supportive of the 12 per cent target that government brought in, when it comes to land protection. There has been nothing that I said to this member during this conversation that would indicate any differently.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I certainly like the engagement on that question. I want to move on now to firewood, something that the minister is very familiar with, and I think I'm familiar with bringing that to the minister.

 

            In the most recent session of this House, I made note that when the question was asked in the other Chamber, you made reference that the wood supply in Nova Scotia in the last six months - and I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm going to give you an opportunity to explain; I've asked for some clarification on this - but what I thought I heard you say is that since the last season, you or your department has increased wood supply by threefold. Can you expand on that?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Absolutely, and just to provide some context to this conversation, there were areas of the province that did experience a shortage in firewood supply - not all areas of the province. In fact, there was an over-supply in some areas, my area and Clare area and some other ones.

 

            The reason for that was because of the long winter last year that we experienced, and of course we've had another long winter this year, but more directly there has been an impact because of the contraction in the forestry sector, which has led to there being fewer contractors who are out cutting wood in our forests. So that has been the number one challenge when it comes to firewood supply: there are fewer contractors cutting it and there are other markets that are paying a higher dollar for that hardwood. That is what impacted the firewood market.

 

            I will mention again that over 75 per cent of wood supply in this province is coming from private lands. It's not coming off Crown land. Although I know the member would make an argument that the government is somehow responsible for that shortage of firewood, I would just like to explain to him that that's not the case. This is a market condition - the same market conditions which led to the closure of Bowater; the same market conditions which led to a contraction of that industry where we lost half of our sawmills over the course of the last 10 years - no matter what government was in power.

 

            These are market conditions that we have to be realistic about and we have to be fair when we're talking about them so that Nova Scotians understand them. What we did do as government was work with our private wood suppliers. We had very frank conversations with them about the shortage of firewood in some areas of the province and asked them to partner with local firewood suppliers to increase the flow of hardwood into the firewood marketplace.

 

            As a result of that, along with the Crown tenders that we issued - because in response to the situation we also wanted to encourage more harvesting of hardwood on Crown lands, so we issued seven tenders in the western part of the province, five of which were bid upon, two of which weren't. As a result of those efforts, according to our staff, the flow of firewood into the market was expanded threefold.

 

            What was interesting to note is that in two of the seven areas where we had the tenders, there were no bids. The reason we believe there were no bids is because of the lack of contractors in those areas, which is a result of what's happening in the marketplace. So doing what we could do, we were very effective in terms of encouraging more firewood into the marketplace, and I think that helped a lot of families, but our ability to impact that is very limited, as I've explained to the member numerous times. We do what we can do and it did have an impact.

 

            Also, we're encouraging all members of the Legislature who are receiving calls for hardwood to look at the areas where there was an over-supply, and we do not have any calls from any members to get connected with those companies that had a supply of hardwood. We're doing what we can to help this issue. More importantly, we're being honest with Nova Scotians about what the real challenge is that they are faced with.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I was moving on, but you've tweaked my interest because you talked about the tendering process that was put out. I do appreciate that, but again, this is the importance of having this budget process. It's because the minister has a belief that the tender was trying to address the problem. In all good faith, I think that was a possible first step, but when you talk with the individuals that didn't apply for the tender, this is where communication breaks down.

 

            I talked with those individuals and a good part of this process is to flush some of these concerns out. The people who didn't apply for that tender, they wanted supply or access to hardwood for fuel, and I wanted to understand why. These contractors said it wasn't because they weren't interested in doing it or lack of being a contractor; they said to me, it's going to cost me so much to put a road in there that is not going to be worth my interest to establish and build a road; so there's one reason.

 

            The second reason is that the quality of access to land was such poor quality, whether it was swamp or whatever. These individuals know these areas. So after sitting down for five or six minutes, I understood clearly what the problems were with this tendering process. There have to be some kind of checks and balances to say, we can raise this publicly. I think the minister wants the same thing. We all want Nova Scotians to be warm in their homes and have access to firewood. We also want suppliers to have a fair opportunity in the tendering process. I'm honoured to bring these concerns forward and hopefully the minister will respond to some of this negativity built around this tendering process.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: It's important to note that the tendering process was successful in five out of the seven regions where we had them. To suggest that process is somehow unfair, I do not think is reflective of the actual outcome of that. When five out of seven regions actually had a successful bid, that tells me we had a pretty fair process in place.

 

            The fact is that there are market conditions that have led to a contraction in the forestry sector that has resulted in fewer contractors being out there cutting wood for the purpose of firewood. That's the fundamental issue here and that was reflected in two areas that have recently faced that contraction in a very real way. From the feedback we received from the successful bids, it was positive. The two areas where there wasn't a successful bid, I think is a clear indication that there is a wider challenge in the market that has led to fewer contractors being out there doing this sort of work.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I'm going to try to move forward here with this because it's certainly an interesting issue in southwest Nova Scotia. The minister talked about wood supply being threefold. I know he pointed out that there are certain supplies of firewood in certain areas. I would love to be able to have statistics or somehow we could get that information to point these contractors in that direction for that supply. I think that's something that we can all do collectively. I'm going to ask the minister for that before I move on to the second part of my question here.

 

            The minister made reference several times to market conditions. I made note of that because one of the market conditions that I have observed in the last six months is the shortage of wood pellets. The market conditions are - we're making the wood pellets, yet our store shelves and the people who want this product in Nova Scotia - it is in very limited supply. I know that's market conditions, but to me there has to be a mechanism - and I guess I'm putting this as a general question. Is the minister concerned about this? I know that Nova Scotians experience wood pellet shortages due to market conditions. Is the minister addressing this and are we going to have this issue addressed for next winter?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I really appreciate the member's recognition that it is market conditions that are impacting this. That's the first time that I've actually heard that come from the member, so I think we are getting somewhere in terms of mutual understanding on this issue. One moment, I just want to clarify something with my staff.

 

            I just had some helpful information given to me from our deputy. Again, I want to thank the member for finally recognizing that market conditions are the driving force, when it comes to wood supply in the province. If you look at the fact that 75 per cent of the wood supply is coming off of private land, not Crown, it helps put everything into perspective. I think it demonstrates that whatever the Crown does in terms of supply won't have an impact on that greater market issue.

 

            With wood pellets, what tends to happen is when there begins to be a shortage of wood pellets due to these market conditions, people have a very instinctual response to go out and buy a lot more. During these moments when there is a drop in supply for wood pellets, people who purchase, say, 10 bags of pellets, will go out and purchase up to 25 bags for their own purposes. So these market conditions actually result in a snowball effect, which has a greater impact at the end of the day on the availability of those things. When there is a slight drop in the supply, people tend to over-consume, buy more, and that of course has a snowballing impact on the market.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: One of the other businesses I know that has been hurt in the last six months has been the hardwood flooring industry. There have been several announcements of these companies that have struggled or have closed shop. This is unfortunate for these jobs, especially in rural Nova Scotia. To me, this is an access issue.

 

            We have firewood, wood pellets, flooring - that's probably a high-grade flooring for hardwood. I know the minister is aware of them, but is he actually being proactive in trying to address these shortages in general?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I believe the member is referring to the closure of Finewood Flooring and River's Bend specifically. It would be, as I mentioned earlier, grossly inaccurate to suggest that those closures happened because of access to Crown supply. Historically, neither one of those mills actually harvested their own fibre. They did not send in any requests for Crown access. Where they get their supply from is they purchase it from other private suppliers. That's where they historically get it from. They're not harvesters. They're not a mill that goes out, has their own contractors, cuts their own wood and brings it back. They purchase it from contractors and other private sources.

 

            To suggest that what happened there was a result of access to Crown timber is not accurate. It's not reflective of the reality of the situation. The fact is that the forestry industry has been contracting for over 10 years now. We've lost half our saw mills. To speak frankly, that contraction may not be over, but it is not a result of access to Crown land or a result of government policy. It's a result of global market factors that are impacting it.

 

            I can just point to the fact again that the vast majority - over 75 per cent - of wood supply is coming off of private land. It is not coming off Crown. Crown supply is important, but that is not what is feeding that industry; private wood lots are. In these particular cases with these two companies that I referenced, again there was no request put in to the department for a Crown allocation from either company and from all indications, their closures were a result of these market forces and probably a difficulty that that industry is having when it comes to succession planning, because of the current nature of the market. That's a frank assessment of what that situation is.

 

            We work very closely with our saw mills. They are partners with our department and we value that relationship. We work with them every single time that they have a supply issue, whether it's facilitating a conversation with Port Hawkesbury or Northern or anybody to get more fibre to them, or whether it's entertaining a proposal to have a Crown allotment. That relationship will continue with our forestry sector, but I do want to emphasize again to the member that to suggest that this is an access issue is incorrect.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I've had some discussions with some of the stakeholders in the forestry industry. One of the concepts - and I'm sure the minister may be familiar with this concept - is that there are some issues in the industry. I think we can all recognize that. One of the things that I was impressed by was the scenario of trying to address all the issues that we discussed here in the last few minutes of trying to address the shortages or supplies, or access, to certain types of wood.

 

            One of the concepts that was of interest to me was a loading area or hub central location for all woods, whether it's private or whether it's commercial, whether it comes off of Crown lands or it comes through a hub or central dispatch loading area and my understanding is that the wood would be separated and the lower quality may go for a certain use, the wood pellets. The high grade may go towards wood flooring, which we described earlier. I was deeply interested in this concept and it's something that we could probably proactively move towards.

 

            I'm asking if the minister could expand on that and has he ever been presented with a presentation and what he thinks of that particular idea?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I know that hub model was piloted by Bowater and from all the indications that we received from their experience, that model didn't work and it wasn't sustainable.

 

            When it comes to use of Crown fibre though, I will inform the member - this was a conversation I had earlier in the day with our Progressive Conservative colleagues - we do monitor where our Crown wood is going and we monitor it so that the high-quality fibre is getting to high-quality market. We want Nova Scotians to receive the greatest benefit possible from our lands. That's economic, that's environmental and that's social as well, but we do monitor where our wood is going and it's regulated. We believe that the high-quality sticks are getting to the high-quality market. Low quality, low-grade stuff is getting to a low-grade market.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I find that interesting because I have been approached by Nova Scotians, and I think we all spend some time driving our highways and I have noticed when people have brought it to my attention, the diameter of certain trees on these large trucks as you pass them appears to be - and certainly appears to the average Nova Scotian - that these logs are becoming smaller and smaller.

 

            It was also noted earlier by my colleagues and the critic from the PC Party also had that in their questions. With that in mind, Nova Scotians are noticing that these logs that are going to the biomass facilities are becoming smaller and smaller.

 

            It leads into my question, as a second part of the initial questions about if we had this hub or sorting area to try to direct the best wood to the right area, it may benefit that particular sector. I had the good fortune to go to Copenhagen and they were actually feeding their biomass plants with farmers' straw. That is an interesting concept because if I remember in Copenhagen, 5 per cent of their energy was coming through biomass supplied by farmers off their fields by straw. That's an interesting concept. Not only would you save wood fibre, but you would create some cash in our farming industry. With that, I'm going to turn it over to the minister for his response.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I'm glad that the observations that the member is hearing about - there being smaller and smaller sticks going to the biomass plant, that's precisely what should be happening. We don't want our larger, high-quality hardwood getting to a low-value market. That's not what we want to happen so I'm happy that the member's observations are consistent with what the department's inspections have yielded in terms of data. For the member's information, we monitor where our fibre is going and we do that with the eye of ensuring that our high-quality fibre is getting to high-quality market, and that the low-quality stuff is entering into the appropriate marketplace.

 

            The inspections we've had on wood that's going to the biomass plant are consistent with what the member's observations are and that they're low quality, and that there is not a significant amount of high-quality hardwood finding its way there off of Crown. That said - and the member would know - we do not control what private woodlot owners do when it comes to selling and harvesting their own property.

 

            That said, I know the member mentioned a connection between the agriculture sector and biomass and what he learned in Copenhagen. Currently, 43 per cent of the product that the biomass plant is receiving is actually a result of land clearing related to the agriculture sector.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: Now I'm going to try to draw the minister's attention to somewhere near his hometown. I think he'll be somewhat pleased with this question. I've heard the minister do a couple of interviews regarding the tin mine, which is located in Argyle municipality, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly. The locals refer to this as a tin mine and I know that the minister has raised this issue, so I'm going to ask him if he could expand on that and if there are any proposals or something newsworthy that I or Nova Scotians - especially southwest Nova Scotia - should be interested in, in this particular project?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Absolutely, in fact, the opportunities that are arising in the mining sector are creating a lot of optimism in our rural communities, and from a government perspective it's very encouraging. What's really encouraging, as I mentioned earlier, is this is a time when commodity prices are low and globally the mining industry has been affected by that with the downturn.

 

            Despite those wider market conditions, we are actually seeing some great potential here in Nova Scotia for our mining sector, particularly with the tin mine, which I'm very familiar with. I grew up next door to the Shelleys. One of the sons, Jody Shelley, went on to play in the NHL. There was a great affinity with the old tin mine and all the great people that it brought with it in Yarmouth. When we think of it, we think of the Shelleys and we think of other families that moved to the area as a result of the tin mine and their employment with it that are still contributing to our community in many different ways.

 

            Avalon Rare Metals is a mineral exploration company that is currently undergoing exploration drilling on the former tin mine site. They are very interested in acquiring a mining lease on that site. As the member would probably know, BHP is currently the leaseholder there and they have remediated the site, which was shut down in the early1990s because there was a drop in tin prices.

 

            Tin prices have actually gone up in recent years and they've plateaued around $8 currently, which is actually probably high enough to have a viable operation at that tin mine. What would need to happen in order to bring that mine to operation is there would need to be a commercial agreement between BHP and Avalon. Avalon would have to be able to demonstrate to the province that they are capable of running a safe mine and that they are able to deal with any environmental liabilities. A commercial agreement needs to happen, a commercial agreement that satisfies the Crown's need to look after safety and environmental factors is what's critical.

 

            We also need the price of tin to stay high and we need Avalon to be able to find the appropriate amount of investment to get that going, but all indications are encouraging. I've had numerous conversations with Don Bubar who is the president and CEO of Avalon and some of his staff. I've also spoken with BHP, and so I think there is a great opportunity there for a commercial agreement to happen between those companies. It is my hope that one would happen that would satisfy the needs of the Crown when it comes to issuing any sort of mining lease there. They will currently be probably doing exploration on that site for, I'd say, at least another year to two years.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I must confess that the next question is certainly self-serving, but it was of great interest your interview that you did on the tin mine. The potential there for the opportunities, I think we all recognize that in southwest Nova Scotia. What I was looking for in your remarks was - I know that the tin mine in the past has used the facilities in Shelburne harbour, which is a deep port. I know this facility benefited tremendously with the previous owner of the tin mine. So there is the self-interest.

 

            The second part of that self-interest is I know that residents in that general area have been trying to get the tin mine road upgraded from the tin mine to Ohio through to Shelburne. If this is a possibility, I'm just concerned. You have to have roads in order to move this particular product and the residents have called for that. Is that taken into the evaluation when you speak with your Cabinet colleagues?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I've notified the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal about the great potential of that mine site and that we might very well have an operational tin mine sometime in the near future. Of course that would have a role to play in terms of any decisions around the old Tin Mine Road.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I just want to move the minister's attention to one of the parks that was closed and the impact of removing some of those individuals in our provincial parks. There were seven that were closed or adjusted and have some self-service machines in them as we enter our new camping season. I think all Nova Scotians are looking forward to that.

 

            What people have presented to me is that there is a lack of personal touch when you have a self-service machine. I understand that; I get that, but my question is: I know a lot of Nova Scotians, a lot of visitors to our province, enjoy the camping experience. I know, locally, in southwest Nova Scotia that these private campgrounds are full to capacity. They are booked way in advance.

 

            This is the question I have: was there an impact study done on the loss of these jobs in rural Nova Scotia? Camping is something that we all appreciate and Nova Scotia values, and it's really a small success story, especially in rural Nova Scotia. I'm trying to paint that these private campgrounds are full to capacity so why would that cut happen at these provincial parks? Was that point ever made to your Cabinet colleagues?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: When it came to the decisions around our parks, our first priority was to ensure that those parks, which we consider to be economic, ecological and recreational assets to our communities, were able to remain and be sustainable. That is a priority for us. It became pretty clear in looking at the numbers that in order to do that we would need to shift to a different model that would be more reflective of what the current demands are on our parks and reflective of the actual occupancy rates.

 

            We took this question very seriously, and of course when you make any decisions that impact the lives of employees, whether they're seasonal or full time, of course they are very difficult decisions to make. I just want to assure the member, and all the members here, that all the staff that were impacted by these decisions have been treated with respect and in accordance with their collective agreement. I do want to thank them for their years of service. I am sorry that we did have to move to a different model, but if we do not change, then the risk is that we lose our parks because they won't be sustainable.

 

            That's what is at stake here. We need to keep the system alive. In order to do that, changes needed to be made. I know when Nova Scotians consider the fact that occupancy rates in some of these parks were down to 12 per cent, on average, with the parks that we made adjustments to, occupancy on average was down to about 30 per cent.

 

            For every dollar that we gain in revenue from our provincial parks, we have to spend $3, so we lose $3 for every $1 we gain in revenue in our parks system. When you consider the fact that oftentimes during the year there were more staff in our parks than actual campers, you can start to see that the model isn't sustainable.

 

            Furthermore, when it comes to the major change that users will experience at our parks is the self-registration model, I know my colleague has indicated he believes that will be some sort of space-age robot that will be doing it, but in fact, the difference that campers will see when they enter the park is that there will not be someone who is taking the registration. There will, in fact, be a low-cost phone booth whereby they can call our registration line, which is already up and running, to book their stay and they'll know what lot is available for them. They can pay by cash or cheque at a cash box at the park or they'll be able to pay by VISA or debit through the call system.

 

            The reason why we believe a self-registration model would work is because over 80 per cent of park users currently are self-registering before they get to the park. The vast majority, over 80 per cent of people who are using our parks, aren't paying at the front gate. They're not registering at the front gate. They're registering before-hand online or by phone - over 80 per cent. The impact to users is going to be extremely minimal. Folks who have been accustomed to driving up to the park and meeting an attendant and paying the attendant, unfortunately they will not have that experience. That's only 20 per cent of our park users; 80 per cent of them are already self-registering.

 

            There are significant cost savings to having this new self-registration model and we're saving over half a million dollars a year by moving to this model. We believe that this will ensure that those parks are sustainable for the long run because out of all the comments I've heard coming from my colleague from the NDP caucus, one of his comments has really rung true in that this is about rural Nova Scotia and it's about ensuring that these assets - that are economic assets to the communities that they're in, that are ecological assets, that are recreational assets for community members, that are assets for tourism - remain and can still service those communities.

 

            I want to assure the member that the needs of rural Nova Scotia were particularly at the forefront of our mind when we decided to move to a model that would make those parks sustainable. The last thing any of us want here is to start shutting those parks down because we know they're important for people.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I just want to back up. I had another question on the mining industry. Again, I heard you through radio talk shows and through interviews and when you talked to the mining industry, to me there was a campaign promise about reducing the fuel tax rebate for the mining industry. I think there is some confusion around that because I've heard what I thought were different statements saying that it may be phased in this year. I thought that I actually read a statement saying that you put out a press release saying that it would be initiated this year. I think the mining industry was concerned when I heard the radio interview from the spokesperson from the mining industry that they were concerned this was not going to happen this year. I was hoping that you could expand on that topic.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I do appreciate the question. What we have indicated to the mining association and the Mining Society of Nova Scotia is that we're very interested in bringing in a fuel tax rebate for that industry. That is something that we do remain committed to. That said, we have an obligation to this province, to all of its citizens, to ensure that our province is in a state of fiscal health, long term. We cannot afford to saddle future generations with the crippling debt that we're currently faced with or with continued deficits. That, long term, causes significant problems for any government's ability to provide services - essential services like health care, education, transportation. Our ability to provide all these things is absolutely and fundamentally dependent on our ability to pay for them. Money does matter.

 

            One of my friends from Yarmouth who is a very smart businessman, Tim Wood - the first advice he gave to me when we won government, he said, listen, don't be scared to change your mind. As a business person, I've got to change my mind on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, to adapt to changing circumstances. Circumstances are continually changing economically in this province, continually changing financially as well. We've got to be able to adapt to those changing circumstances.

 

            The fact is that the previous government spent - and ensured that this is a structural cost in every single budget - $300 million for our Public Service in labour contracts. That was at a time when our economy was contracting. Our economy, I think, contracted by 3 per cent and the wage agreement was up around 7 per cent increase. That's not sustainable and that has resulted in a structural problem, financially here, where we have to eat that cost on an annual basis. That causes significant challenges for us to provide the services that all Nova Scotians expect and demand of their government.

 

            We have to be flexible here, but I will say very clearly that all indications that we've given the mining sector on this particular commitment have been consistent. I've had conversations with the executive director of MANS numerous times and told him that this would be phased in over the course of our mandate.

 

            The Department of Finance and Treasury Board has since indicated to us that phasing in this program over the course of two to three years isn't feasible. It would need to come in at one point, and we're still committed to doing that, but we need to be able to afford to do that because none of us on this side are willing to put future services for our kids and grandkids and the next generation of Nova Scotians coming up in jeopardy because of demands from special interest and stakeholder groups. We're not going to be governed by that because there are wider implications out there and our responsibilities are greater than that.

 

            To be honest, all indications I receive from the companies that are actually looking at exploration development in this province are all positive. Chris Cline who purchased the Donkin mine - and it's already active, there is already work happening there. This is the return of coal to Cape Breton Island. He never once asked about a fuel tax rebate. Don Bubar who is looking at getting the tin mine open in Yarmouth County for the first time since the early 1990s, he didn't ask me about a fuel tax rebate.

 

            The companies that are looking at and exploring for gold, who want to bring gold production back to the province, none of them asked me about a fuel tax rebate. Those companies that are currently looking for copper, indium, zinc, all the current folks who are investing their time and energy here have not brought this up in any conversations with me, which is an interesting point to make.

 

            What that tells me is that we actually have a very competitive province to do business in and the companies that are coming forward are actually very excited about the legislative framework that they're going to have to work with once we bring in those changes because they were a part of those changes. For the first time in 25 years, we've actually taken a look at the legislative framework around our minerals. We'll be bringing forward a package in the Fall, which will have our province leading the pack in the country, within the federation, when it comes to competitive legislation and regulatory framework for the mining sector, and one that also takes into consideration the needs of landowners, community members, other stakeholder groups, and our environment, of course. That's a very progressive package we'll be bringing in in the Fall.

 

            The reason that's important to note is because the greatest concern that has been expressed to me from the actual companies - not their lobbyists, not the people out lobbying for them that they pay to lobby and push the government to do various things, but from the actual companies - the biggest issue they've indicated is regulatory certainty. We are going to provide that to them. That's why we still have these companies continually looking at this province to do business in.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The time allotted for questioning by the NDP caucus has lapsed. We'll turn the order over to the PC caucus and Mr. Dunn. We'll have a two-minute break.

 

            [5:21 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

            [5:25 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll call the meeting back to order. It is 5:25 p.m. The reason I called for two minutes was because two minutes turned into four, so five minutes would have turned into 10. Mr. Dunn.

 

            HON. PAT DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be back here again for another hour - well, on my behalf, an hour of questioning. What I would like to do right now is to pass it over to my colleague for Pictou West.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacFarlane.

 

            MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: I just have a couple of questions. I know in 2010 the Friends of Redtail Society in Pictou West were able to secure approximately 300 acres, with regard to starting a community forest project at the time. I can appreciate that - I believe former minister, Charlie Parker, helped them secure that. I know that immediately after that, they began the process of following the strategy to secure another 300 acres. They worked closely with Gretchen - I can't remember Gretchen's last name - and everything seemed to be going well. Actually, your department sent them the criteria to follow and it was very encouraging. They felt that it was very positive communication back and forth.

 

            As we know, at the end of the day, it did not develop. They are still hoping that they can move forward in some direction. Basically I'm here to confirm what exactly happened, why it was that land was not able to be part of their project, and if perhaps there is some guidance on how we can move forward with it, as well as confirmation to take some time when the minister is free for a visit to the forest.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: We have indicated to the Friends of Redtail Society that we're interested in doing a site visit when the schedule allows. We have indicated that to them in writing. Specifically speaking to the proposal that the Redtail Society put in for community forest, there was a public tender for one community forest in the province as a pilot project and there was criteria set for that.

 

            I believe there were three bids for a community forest that came in and I believe only one actually fit the criteria of a community forest and that was not the Friends of Redtail Society; that was the Medway Community Forest Co-operative in Medway region. We just announced earlier this year that the community forest pilot project is happening in that area. They were the ones that clearly demonstrated that they were able to have a full community forest with economic outcomes projected. I believe they were the only bid that came in that actually fit the criteria.

 

            What we have informed the Friends of Redtail Society is that there may very well be another opportunity in future years to submit an application or a bid for a community forest in that area. They would have to have a proposal that fits with the criteria, but first, before we move forward with that, we want to see how this pilot project goes with the Medway Community Forest Co-operative because it's a very exciting project. This is the first community forest, I believe, east of Ontario. We've got a great partner leading the charge, Will Martin in that area, who knows the forestry business and who has put together a very capable community team to run their project.

 

            It is a three-year project. At the end of it, we will be evaluating its outcomes and at that time, the department or whoever the minister or government may be at the time will make a decision whether that is a program that it believes should be expanded in the province.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: Is there potential with that parcel of land that they're looking at that - I believe Port Hawkesbury Paper are looking to secure that too, obviously for fibre. If the case is that that small parcel of land of 300 acres, in the next couple of years, where the potential could be to apply again for a community forest project, actually the trees will be gone in the next two to three years and so it eliminates the opportunity to actually follow through with their hopes and initiative.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The challenge with that is that the land that group identified is licensed to Port Hawkesbury Paper. That licence was given to Port Hawkesbury by the previous government, when there was that existential crisis that hit the forestry sector. I know the department and the previous government did a lot of work to ensure that Port Hawkesbury was going to remain in operation, but under the Forest Utilization License Agreement, those lands are licensed to Port Hawkesbury Paper and we are not in a position to change their licence.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I'm just going to touch base on the fibre issue here in Nova Scotia. Long before I was an MLA I was very interested in the forestry model plan that we have here in the province and took the opportunity to fly over Nova Scotia and look at our Crown lands. I was shocked. I didn't realize how - for lack of better words - raped our Crown lands really are. I've had the opportunity to speak to some individuals who have been in the forest industry for years. One gentleman is actually in his late 80s and I really value his thoughts and opinions on it. Is it true that it would take 80 to 100 years right now in order to get our Crown lands back to where they should be, in order to begin harvesting them again?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I don't agree with the assessment of our Crown lands that have been presented. In fact, the department - we take our responsibility to have a balanced approach to our Crown land management very seriously. When you look at what we're doing, you can actually see how that balance is playing out in a very positive way.

 

            Looking at the western Crown lands, for example, which are the only lands that I, as minister, have been privileged to be involved in, in the management plan. Almost 50 per cent of those lands are now protected. They're protected from harvesting, they are wilderness areas. They are parks. There are protections for wildlife habits, for moose corridors; there are setbacks from water courses. When you take into consideration all those various things, 50 per cent of that land is actually protected from any sort of harvest.

 

            When you look at the lands that are specifically prioritized for harvest, that's about 25 per cent of our western lands. You look at the numbers and you can see that we're actually doing a very good job in terms of balancing our economic, environmental and social values because we know people care about all three of those things, when it comes to the use of Crown land.

 

            Clear-cuts are ugly. There is no question about it, but they are an internationally accepted method of harvesting lands. When it comes to allowing a clear-cut to happen as a harvest prescription on Crown, we stick to the science when it comes to making that decision. We look at soil types; we look at the kinds of trees; we look at the frequency of weather events or impact of wind. All those factors are taken into consideration when it comes to prescribing a harvest - that's a clear-cut. For example, there are areas in the province where if you do a partial cut or a selective cut, most likely the rest of the trees are going to blow down in a weather event or if there are high winds because of the nature of the soil and the nature of the tree stands. So in circumstances like that, we prescribe a clear-cut because if we don't, then Nova Scotians will lose the value of that timber because it will fall down.

 

            Clear-cuts aren't a pretty business and so people who fly over those areas or drive by them and see them, tend to not like it, but those same people will go back to their houses that are made of wood; they'll sit on furniture that's made of wood; they'll use their toilet paper that's made of wood products; and they'll walk around on their hardwood floors. These products are dependent on a vibrant forestry sector and a lot of people don't make the connection between the everyday comforts that we enjoy or the economic impacts in our communities, with the need for clear-cuts in certain circumstances.

 

            We do have a standing policy that is the result of two years of consultation that has us focused on reducing the percentage of the clear-cut for the overall harvest down to 50 per cent. We are actually on target to reaching that by 2016. I believe, if memory serves me correctly, in 2012 the percentage of the harvest that was a clear-cut was around 75 per cent. Last year, that was down to approximately 64 per cent; so we've actually had a reduction in clear-cuts.

 

            The challenge is to explain the science around these decisions to the public, which is why we have opened up our process, when it comes to harvest prescriptions, to all Nova Scotians. For the first time in our Nova Scotian history - I mentioned this earlier - we have all of our Crown harvests now listed on maps online for people to go and look at them and see where the harvests are happening and what kind of harvest is happening, and then give us feedback.

 

            We are also being proactive with this engagement with the public, so people don't have to keep going on and looking at these sites every day to see if there has been a change. People who sign up for our registration will actually get an email indicating that a harvest has been changed with a hyperlink to the maps.

 

            We have actually changed some of our prescriptions based on the feedback we've received from communities. One example would be in Ingramport whereby we had a clear-cut scheduled for, I believe, six different lots and we received feedback from the community that led us to change our decision there. We delayed the harvest on four of those lots, moved forward with two, and made adjustments so that the visual impacts that the community was concerned about wouldn't be there.

 

            During the early days when I was minister, there was a lot of fuss made about a clear-cut that happened in Ingramport. The first thing we did was we initiated an independent review of that clear-cut to see if the proper procedure was followed and if the science matched with what was prescribed there. What the independent report came back with - and this was with the Medway Community Forest Co-op and an independent forest auditor - they came back and said it was the appropriate clear-cut. It's difficult to explain that science to people because they drive by or fly by and say, oh that looks awful, but we need to remind ourselves that trees do grow back, if we are approaching our forestry in a sustainable manner, which I believe we are.

 

            So yes, the life cycle for those trees to come back is 50 to 80 years, but that has always been the case. We are currently evaluating our forestry policies to see if we can make any adjustments that will increase the yield of our forests. Maybe there are things we can do to make sure they grow back quicker or stronger, and so we are evaluating our forestry policies to see if there are improvements that can be made, but the fact is that clear-cuts are an important part of the forestry sector. They need to be done in a sustainable manner that takes into consideration wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, water courses, and all those environmental factors, All that science is applied before a prescription of a clear-cut is made.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I appreciate all that information. I think at the end of the day sometimes it's just different perspectives, different visuals, and how those individuals interpret it. For me then, I guess what you're saying is at the end of the day, there is no doubt for the pulp industry here in Nova Scotia, there is no fibre issue then - whether they harvest it from the Crown lands or there are plenty of private woodlot owners that they can harvest what they need in order to continue here in Nova Scotia.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: From a Crown's perspective, there is a supply issue. We do not have enough Crown fibre to supply the current demand of the market. That is because we have one of the lowest amounts of Crown land in the country and we have one of the highest percentages of protected space. Both of those factors contribute to the fact that we don't - Crown land is not going to provide for the demand that is out there currently, when it comes to supply. It's not going to.

 

            Over 75 per cent of wood supply is actually coming off of private land. So for the long-term sustainability of the forest - for the forestry sector from a supply standpoint - we need to do a better job engaging our private woodlot owners, getting them coordinated in a way that creates a more accessible, economic access point for contractors and wood harvesters.

 

            We've got a pilot project in Cape Breton where we're doing this where woodcutters, instead of having to go to 20 different small woodlot owners, can go to one access point and they'll have the mapping of all the fibre that's available and they only have to negotiate once. That's a more economic model. That's why they like coming to Crown, because they're dealing with one organization that can provide them information on where all their volume is going to come from. They don't have that in the private sector. We're working with our private woodlot owners to develop a more accessible economic model for them to get their wood to market.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: I know there are a number of other colleagues that would like to ask some questions so I want to be respectful of the time. I think I could actually sit here though and continue on because I do find it really interesting and I do have a lot of questions, but I am going to end it with: with regard to protecting the land around Brigadoon, that's through your department. I'm curious to know when that actual transaction happened and how long was the process of them expressing interest in securing it and then attaining it? There are some areas in Pictou West that we're looking at maybe doing the same thing, so we'd like to know how long that process actually took and what the actual protocol is for going about that.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: That land was purchased from Wagner's, which is one of our forestry companies in the province. The reason why we wanted to purchase that land was because there are significant ecological values there, especially when you consider the fact that the Brigadoon camp for children is such an important asset to the province and so we wanted to expand the recreational and environmental opportunities there. The land was purchased from Wagner with the intent of protecting it for the purpose of the needs of that camp and the residents of the area.

 

            MS. MACFARLANE: How long was the process? Was this something that took two years or was it something that just took a couple of months? Sorry for taking up time here.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The process took approximately three years. The negotiations with Wagner were tough. We needed to get a price point that made sense for us and they obviously wanted to get the best price point for their company and so that negotiation process was ongoing for approximately three years.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to go to Mr. Dunn now.

 

            HON. PAT DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to a question I asked in the first hour. It was dealing with the proposed biomass plant in Lunenburg County. A biomass plant to supply an alternative source of renewable energy using scraps of wood has been proposed for Bridgewater. This plant would perhaps be one of the first facilities of its kind in North America. I believe the location of that was going to be attached to the Nova Scotia Community College; at least that was the idea or plan.

 

            As of August 20, 2014, it gained support from the province by becoming a COMFIT project. The question I had was, did the department do any research into this or have they been provided with any information regarding this proposal?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: There is a COMFIT project that has been proposed. I believe that is for the purpose of heating the local NSCC.

 

            MR. DUNN: I believe at this moment I'm going to pass over to the member for Sydney River-Mira-Louisbourg for a few questions.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacLeod.

 

            HON. ALFIE MACLEOD: It's great to be back. Prior to our time running out before, I was talking to you about the Two Rivers Wildlife Park and the sustainability of that project. I think your staff is well aware of the project and its impact on the community. We talked a little bit about the background, the fact that if it were to close there is a cost to the Province of Nova Scotia, through your department, with the animals, the buildings, the land and so forth.

 

            Again, we understand there are real issues with the dollar flow, but the last few years they've been getting about $40,000 a year in operating money. I'm just wondering if your department would consider keeping that in place until this current project, which is meant to help the sustainability of the park. Can you look at keeping that in play so that they can become sustainable and move on from there?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I appreciate the question and I'm happy that we have a chance to discuss this because I know how important that park is to the community. I have not visited it yet, but I do plan on being there as soon as I'm able to. After yourself, that park has great champions in Minister MacLellan and Minister Samson, but of course you're always the lead. I know how important that park is to you and to the folks in Cape Breton. I think it's a park that, by all accounts, everybody is very proud of and families have been enjoying for a while.

 

            The issue with that park is around sustainability and costs. The original deal that was struck, I believe, with that community group was that the park would become controlled by the private entity and it would be self-sustaining. Since then, the park has not been able to achieve a self-sustainable model whereby they're able to provide the service without constant government investment. I think there has been close to $700,000 that has been given to that park over the course of the last eight to 10 years.

 

            Since I've been the Minister of Natural Resources, we have released close to $200,000 for that park and put up $100,000 for their expansion of the camping side of things. We've also extended an invitation for us to be involved in helping them with their business model to bring them to a place where sustainability is possible from their perspective. I know that their plan has been very much focused on getting to sustainability by an expansion of the camping part of their facility and so time will tell if that model is going to work.

 

            The current direction that we received from Treasury Board - because we have had to go to Treasury Board to release this money - has been that the most recent dollars that were given, I think in the amount of $80,000, would be the last government investment in the park and that we would focus our energies on helping them develop a business model that will ensure that they're sustainable for the long run.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: It's a conversation that I would like to continue with you, and I know that you're open to that at a future date, but again, when you come back and think of the investment, the jobs that occur out of that investment, and the cost that would be incurred if the park was closed and you had to look after the facilities in another manner, are all things that need to be taken into consideration. I do appreciate your answer and I understand the constraints, but with that in mind and my friend to my left is looking to have his time at a few more questions, I'm just going to move on.

 

            The Donkin mine - you've mentioned several times the move-forward position of the Donkin mine. As you know, I've been an advocate of that for a long time. I actually worked in the lab at the Cape Breton Development Corporation and did the testing on the coal when the original tunnels were dug, so I have a little bit of familiarity with the project.

 

            I heard you say earlier when they approached you about the viability of it - they being Kameron Collieries - they didn't mention the gas tax. I just say that the type of mining that would be done there, there wouldn't be a whole lot of gas that would be used because it would be longwall mining and the type of mining that they would do underground would not be open to - you're shaking your head no, so you know something that I don't. I'd like to hear what that is.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Based on the information we received to date, most likely the major mining that would happen here wouldn't be longwall mining. I think the client group is interested because it's a much more efficient way, from their perspective, of mining the coal, but it would most likely be a continuous mining model, which is what the original plan was for that. So I don't believe at this particular point that longwall mining is going to be what the organization does, although they are very good at longwall mining.

 

            The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and I, as part of our due diligence process, were able to visit one of their operations in Illinois, which is very impressive. That was a longwall mining operation and the technology is just mind-blowing to see that in operation.

 

            I think the biggest thing we learned in going down there was what we got back from the employees. They were a very satisfied, well-paid, dedicated group of employees, and that gave us great confidence in this company's ability to run a mine here and do it in such a way that would account for high safety standards and good quality work for the people employed there.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: Thank you for that information, but I would suggest to you that even if it's a continuous mine, continuous mines are operated through electricity - they're not operated through gas engines because of the ramifications that has because of the dust in the air and those other things. My point being, whatever the type of mining, it is not something that would be based on fuel-operated equipment, whether it's longwall, short wall or continuous mining.

 

            Again, that's just (Interruption) Well, we'll mark that on the wall. That's the difference in that type of mining situation than something that would be, for example, the salt mine in Pugwash, where they would be using different types of equipment underground.

 

            To move on from there, you did say in your opening statement that you expected, because of the Donkin mine, to see mineral production double in Nova Scotia. I believe that to be true because they have talked about somewhere around 3 million tons a year, if they got it to the top where they want to, which is an incredible amount of coal - much more than the Development Corporation ever produced with the three mines that they had.

 

            My question is, where is the other production of minerals that would lead you to that assumption? Do we include things like limestone at Kelly Rock and Pugwash and all those?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: We have currently got 11 active mines in the Province of Nova Scotia and I'm just waiting to get the full list from staff. Once I receive that, I'll list them off for you.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: In the consideration of time, if we could just have that tabled at one point that would be satisfactory. It's an educational tool and I'd appreciate that very much.

 

            The other thing I was wondering and hoping is that if you could table for us the department's definition of biomass and the department's definition of clear-cutting. Again, without going into a whole lot of explanation now, if we could just get that tabled that would serve the purposes of what I'm trying to achieve.

 

            My final question has to do with Crown land. In a lot of rural areas in Nova Scotia, we have small cemeteries and small churches that were built on postage stamps of land that were surrounded a lot of times by Crown land, and as they go to improve their facilities, whether they need to expand their cemeteries and/or if they have to put in substantial septic systems at their churches and that, sometimes they get into the problem that they don't have enough of the original land, they need to get Crown land. I'm just wondering what the policy is specifically for churches, when it comes to accessing Crown land for just the expansion of the church and its direct needs, or cemetery and its direct needs - not anything commercial.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: There is a process to facilitate that. That is something that the department is always interested in and open to discussing. There is an online application, if any community groups or organizations are interested in using Crown land for whatever purposes they deem appropriate. That said, we do have to go through a Mi'kmaq consultation every time that one of these requests come forward. That's a constitutional obligation that we have and so that is a process that we adhere to, but community groups are able to access that application process online and we are always happy to entertain those requests.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: I'm more specific about churches because churches, as we know, in all areas are having it tough. So my question - and maybe you can't answer it right now and if you can down the road, that would be fine - is there a process for churches to access Crown land, not community groups, but churches to access Crown land? If there is, is there a charge associated with that or is it something that the province does in community spirit, for lack of a better term?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Churches would be able to access the same application process that any other organization would in this regard. There is typically a charge associated with the use of Crown land. We do that to be fair with all Nova Scotians. Our Crown land belongs to every single one of us and we want to make sure that all Nova Scotians get the benefit from use of Crown land, no matter what that use may be, but of course every situation is unique and we look at those situations as they arise. If there are any issues there that need to be worked out, we are definitely open to discussing that with whichever proponents we're dealing with.

 

            MR. MACLEOD: I want to thank the minister and his staff for their help. I would look forward to following up with them on a few issues and those things if they have a chance to table that will be great. I would like to turn it back over to my colleague for Pictou Centre. Thank you.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunn.

 

            HON. PAT DUNN: The member for Pictou West was talking about clear-cutting and flying over. I can remember her talking about that a couple of years ago - flying over the area and having a look at the land and being quite surprised. I can also remember when I was an active hunter, which came to an abrupt stop when we started having kids so couldn't hunt on Saturday anymore. I had to run the rinks and soccer fields.

 

            During those years - and I primarily hunted in Pictou, Antigonish, and Guysborough - there seemed to be a real decrease in areas that you could hunt in because the woods were just evaporating. Another thing that I noticed during that time was - I always enjoyed going fishing in the lakes - sometimes where the wood was cut, there was that little barrier that was there. It never seemed to me to be wide enough. A lot of times you would see that particular barrier disappearing because of erosion and so on, and parts of it there was no barrier there at all near the water.

 

            Again, I'm not really leading up to a question, I'm just reflecting on what I have seen. I'm not even sure if you want to comment on that; I was just telling you what I experienced over the years.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The current buffer for waterways is 20 metres. That is a result of extensive consultation with the environmental community, along with other experts in the field.

 

            MR. DUNN: With not a lot of minutes left here, I'm going to jump to certain questions I have here and I'll give you the rest to take home tonight and I'm sure you'll write the answers in and give them to me in the morning, but we'll discuss them another time if there are questions there.

 

            I'm going to go to the budget for a few questions. I noticed a significant jump in the budget for Senior Management in the department this year. I think it's approximately $237,000. I also noticed an increase of one FTE in Senior Management. Does the additional $237,000 reflect the salary of one position? If so, what is that position?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: There was a change in our management structure. Allan Eddy, who is at the table with us today, was promoted to associate deputy minister and the salary budget that you would be referencing is reflective of his and the administrative assistant that is required to help him conduct his duties. This has been a very important investment from my perspective as minister. At a time when the forestry sector is still undergoing significant challenges on a number of fronts, ensuring that there was a high level of expertise on the management level around that sector and around our agenda for innovation was a priority for us at this particular time. We have received an incredible amount of value out of that investment.

 

            I will note that this is not new funding. This is just repurposed funding from existing funds. This wasn't an additional $200,000 to $300,000 on our bottom line. This was repurposing of those dollars for this particular reason and it has been a great benefit to all of us to have Allan operate at that level. He is an expert on all issues related to forestry. He is leading the charge when it comes to our agenda around innovation and helping that sector adapt to an ever-changing economic climate. I think that Nova Scotians, at the end of the day, will understand the benefit of having a person of his capabilities at that management level.

 

            MR. DUNN: I certainly agree with everything you've said. I have noticed a decrease in spending on forestry protection. Can you explain to me the reasoning behind this and why the department believes that this will not impact the forest protection in the province in a negative way?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: That estimate is based on our assessment of risks of fire. We're looking at primarily the current state of the weather and its impact on our woodlands and so there is a belief in the department that there will be less of a risk for fire in our forests because of the current state of the weather and so the budget is reflective of that.

 

            MR. DUNN: The next question is dealing with the enforcement officers and I believe that the shift is on to the Department of Environment. In the current budget, I see enforcement is still around $421,000 down maybe around $70,000. Next year, reflecting this shift of positions, will the budget be significantly lower? Are you hoping you're going to be able to maintain it?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: One more thing related to the fire protection - just to be clear - the reduction that you identified there is in basically travel and overtime related to staffing hours and movement. That's where that reduction comes from.

 

            Regarding the conservation officers, that won't be happening until July and so that budget will follow the conservation officers next year.

 

            MR. DUNN: A quick question with regard to that shift - is your department having any concerns with regard to moving these officers over and out of your department?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Our government is very focused on finding efficiencies within the current structure of the bureaucracy. We believe that housing all of the enforcement agencies into one department is an important move in terms of finding those efficiencies. Furthermore, it makes sense from a practical standpoint because the Department of Environment is the regulatory authority over a lot of the issues that conservation officers do deal with.

 

            We are looking forward to a smooth transition. We are going to work with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Wellness, the Department of Environment who are all being affected by this change and ensure that this transition is smooth, that the staff receive the supports they need to fulfill their mandate, and that we can continue to find those efficiencies that we need to keep going after in the system.

 

            MR. DUNN: Just staying with the enforcement officers - I assume their day-to-day work won't change because of the shift or anything else. In your opinion, do you think we have enough in the province?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: From my perspective, I think we do. I haven't received any complaints, to be honest, that relate to the resources. Sometimes there has been the odd complaint I receive about an animal carcass not being removed in a timely fashion. It's not easy to keep up with all of the animals that do perish and that require attention when they're in public areas. Other than that, I haven't received any issues related to safety concerns or anything like that as a result of not enough resources being allocated to the Conservation Officer program.

 

            MR. DUNN: I have one last question in the budget area and I want to jump to a question with Groupe Savoie and then to white-tailed deer and moose, and then we'll see. I don't know if any time will be left. This final question is dealing with the budget. The budget for Renewable Resources appears to be down $1.6 million. Could you elaborate on what this reduction means in practical terms?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: That is a reflection of a one-time innovation budget that existed in the department. The purpose of those dollars were to be expensed on various research and development projects. Those funds have been depleted. That said, innovation is still a priority for the department and for the forestry sector. We still have close to half a million - about $400,000 - allocated over and above the one-time $1.1 million for the purpose of innovation in the forestry sector: research and development.

 

            MR. DUNN: I'm going to jump over to Groupe Savoie for just a second. We talked a little bit earlier about it and we mentioned about hardwood logs continuing to be difficult to secure and so on. They think that the short supply could be eased by securing some more from Crown lands. Apparently, my understanding is, Groupe Savoie is to get 70 per cent of their wood from private lands - that's not part of the question - and that has gone down to 50 per cent now I believe.

 

            With their so-called apparent frustration of trying to work with that forest utilization licence agreement with PHP, I believe there is supposed to be a compromise there in accommodation, collaboration, and working together. It just seems to be from the little I know, from talking to a few people, that it's painfully slow. I'm wondering, has Group Savoie ever dealt with the department, as far as getting some assistance?

 

            For anything to move ahead, for you to intercede and work with both groups to see if they can be accommodated a little better than what is perceived that they're not.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, we've been in fairly constant contact with Groupe Savoie. They have informed us of their supply issues. We've actually accommodated them with an allocation off of western Crown lands. They have asked for allocation off of Crown lands in the east, however, the lands that they identified are actually under protection because they are part of the Parks and Protected Areas plan that was brought in by the previous government. Those lands are not available for harvest - the ones that they identify in the east.

 

            We have been working on an ongoing basis to broker a deal between Port Hawkesbury Paper and Groupe Savoie. I've met with Groupe Savoie on two different occasions, and I've also met with Port Hawkesbury Paper. My message to them has been to get to a commercial agreement because that's what needs to happen in order for them to secure a source from PHP.

 

            I think your assessment of wood supply is fairly accurate. The majority of wood supply, as I've mentioned a few times this afternoon, is not coming off of Crown land, it's coming off of private land, so it is absolutely incumbent upon all of our harvesters to work with our private woodlot owners and secure deals. We do not have enough supply on Crown to meet the demand that is out there in the marketplace. It's not going to come off of Crown. There is not enough for everybody. A lot of our land is protected now and we have a tiny amount of Crown land as it is.

 

            We're working with private woodlot owners to try to get them coordinated to have a more economical, accessible point of contact, but it's incumbent upon the forestry sector to adapt. Of course, innovation, technology and products is one side of the equation, but also making sure that they're securing their supply off the private woodlot sector is absolutely critical for their long-term success. There are no other options out there for them.

 

            MR. DUNN: I'm going to throw a softball at you this time. It's dealing with the white-tailed deer, a very general question. Where I live in New Glasgow, very close to the New Glasgow Academy, it's incredible. Every day, if you are out at the right time, you are going to see anywhere from two to maybe a dozen deer downtown. I don't know if they're going to Tim Horton's and walking through the drive-through or what's going on. I'm not sure if it's because of lack of forage they are coming in looking for food or whatever else. I know some people feed them, which is not good. I don't agree with that.

 

            Anyway, it's just incredible the number of deer. They're actually right on my lawn. I have to be very careful that there's a leash on my Lab when I go out because if there isn't, I'd probably have deer meat the next day.

 

            My question is dealing with - I'm looking for any information that you have on the current population in the province and if there is going to be any change with regard to licence to hunt deer in the future. Can you perceive anything? Should the licence be changed now because maybe there is an overabundance of does? Can you share any information that you might have with us?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: The amount of nuisance complaints that we've received related to deer since I've been in office I believe have been increasing. Most likely what's happening is deer are moving in closer to towns because there are fewer predators. People can't hunt them around towns; the coyotes aren't coming close to towns, necessarily. That's probably a factor that has been contributing to more nuisance deer around the area of towns and more populated spaces.

 

            Every year the department goes through a process where we evaluate deer populations. This is interesting; I'm sure people will be interested with this fact. We actually figure out what the deer population is by counting deer pellets. It took me a little while to realize that that was excrement from deer, but now I know. Our wildlife biologists are out counting pellets every year and our policies related to hunting and the amount of licences that go out are reflective of that scientific data that comes back.

 

            This past year the data was consistent with frequency of nuisance complaints from the agriculture sector, from citizens, and so there are actually parts of the province where we can safely say there is a high amount of deer. We adjusted the licence and the bag limits in those areas to be reflective of that situation. I believe in the Cumberland and Colchester Counties and around Truro, we had basically an open season on doe, if memory serves me correctly. We issued increased nuisance permits to farmers. In my area in Yarmouth there is an increase in population as well and we doubled the amount of licences.

 

            According to the wildlife biologists, the best way to tackle the population is to target the doe, and so we did that in the areas where our indications were that the data would indicate that there are increased populations. That very directly correlated with what we were hearing in terms of the amount of nuisance complaints. We'll evaluate that again this year. We'll evaluate again next year, and every year those decisions will be based on the best data that we're able to accumulate.

 

            MR. DUNN: You mentioned something about coyotes there - and this is not a question - just finishing off with a quick story. A year ago, just a couple of days prior to Christmas, again downtown New Glasgow, MacLean Street, it was snowing lightly for three or four hours. I decided to open up the door to see how much accumulation and I thought I was seeing things. There were two coyotes walking up the middle of MacLean Street and they were on a mission. Most dogs manoeuvre here and there. The deer are all around that area. I guess they were out for a meal, but that was the first and only time, and if I didn't open the door at that moment - and I hollered to someone to come to see it because I knew if I told someone they'd just say, well, you're losing it. Some of my colleagues may say that. So yes, 7:30, the middle of the road - I still don't believe it, but it actually happened.

 

            The number of ticks - I have a cottage at Melmerby Beach and it's incredible the number of ticks in that area on my Lab and other dogs. They want to count - do some research there, my lawn is full of it. I certainly have lots of shovelfuls of that.

 

            With the few seconds remaining before the chairman cuts me off, I want to thank you for all your answers. I want to thank the staff for being here. I greatly appreciate that. I wish we had more time to go on. I don't think I'll bother with that three days, but when I finish here, we certainly won't be back. I'll be passing it over to our colleague from the NDP.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll now revert to the NDP caucus, Mr. Belliveau.

 

            HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: My colleagues will be joining me shortly. I do have a few questions left and I just want to try to get the minister back. When we left off we were talking about the mining industry and the fuel tax rebate. Just to refresh the minister's memory, I think there is some confusion about that. I just want to talk about a couple of press releases here.

 

            What I heard the minister say is that the fuel tax rebate for the mining industry, that it's going to happen sometime over the course of this government's mandate. That's what I haven't been hearing. I've been hearing the opposite. There was an interesting article in The Chronicle Herald back in April 11, 2011 and it talked about the Mining Association of Nova Scotia says the province has reneged on a pledge to cut the fuel tax for the mining industry. I quote, "'It's been a long-standing issue in Nova Scotia that the provincial government does not give our industry the fuel tax rebate that it gives to other resource industries,' said Sean Kirby, the executive director of the association."

 

            I also quote Mr. Kirby saying the following, "The government promised to do so starting in 2015 and it has not fulfilled that commitment." Now, I have also a mining industry meeting that was held in - my understanding is this is a press release from the Department of Natural Resources dated November 10, 2014. I have a quote from the minister. "Mr. Churchill said the government will start phasing in a fuel-tax rebate program for mining and quarrying vehicles, and introduce a revised Mineral Resources Act, in 2015."

 

            Well, from reading those two articles, I'm left with the impression that there was a commitment made by this minister to phase in that particular rebate in 2015. That's the year we're in. I'm also left with the impression that the mining industry feels as if that has been a broken promise and the government has reneged. So I'm asking - what I heard the minister say, before I had to turn over my allotted time to the PC Party, was "over the course of our mandate." So we've got two different positions here and now is an opportunity for the minister to clear it up - over the course of the mandate or is it going to happen in 2015?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Just to clarify a few of the statements that were made by the member, we've been very consistent in our messaging to the industry on this. We've informed them that this is a commitment that we are very interested in following through on and that will happen over the course of the mandate.

 

            I've had these conversations with the lobbyist for that industry, Sean Kirby, on numerous occasions. I first informed him that this was going to be dealt with through the taxation review, and it was. The plan was to phase it in, beginning in 2015, however, we did have to change course because the Department of Finance and Treasury Board and the staff there suggested that phasing in wasn't an option because of the nature of the tax credit - that it all needed to happen at one particular point.

 

            So we do have to adjust to that changing information, but I do find this line of questioning from the member a bit curious, considering that member was a Cabinet Minister for four years in a government that was heavily lobbied to bring in this fuel tax rebate. At the time he was Cabinet Minister, the answer that the NDP kept giving back to the industry was no, no, no; we're not interested in doing it. It's curious to me to see that this is now a priority for a member of that Cabinet who continuously said no to the industry.

 

            It's also curious considering the fact that the Interim Leader of the NDP stood up yesterday in the House, during debate on an Opposition bill related to this, and she said that she didn't think it was a good idea to give this tax rebate - yesterday. We can get the Hansard comments in here I'm sure in short order, as soon as they're available for the member opposite. I just find it very curious that this line of questioning is coming from a member who was part of a government that shut the door on this idea for four years, and as a member of a Party whose Leader was standing up yesterday saying that this isn't something they think is a good idea. So then what is the motivation for this line of questioning, one needs to wonder? Because if the NDP is not for this, then why would one of their members be advocating for it?

 

            There seems to be some inconsistent information coming out of the NDP caucus on this and in order for us to continue this conversation in an open way, I would like to have some clarification from the member. Is this a policy that the NDP is actually in favour of, as the member is indicating here today, or is this something that the Party is still not in favour of, considering their record in government and considering what the comments coming from the Interim Leader were yesterday? In order for me to continue that conversation, I need to have some clarification on that from the member, please.

 

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, I think if you're asking me to rule on whether or not the member's question is in order, I think he does have a fairly wide latitude in terms of the kinds of questions that he can ask here in this forum, and you likewise have a fairly wide latitude in terms of the types of answers you can give. I'm not going to direct the member with respect to his questioning. I will turn the floor back to him and he can deal with your comments as he sees fit. Mr. Belliveau.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I respect your wisdom, but I believe it's my turn to ask the questions and I'm asking the question as a critic for this area. I see two documents in front of me where the Minister of the Crown has promised this industry to do something. I also see another document saying that they have reneged. These are the industry's words and they're asking this of the minister - that this was going to be fulfilled and it was a promise made to the mining industry that it was going to be fulfilled.

 

            I also heard the minister say that now we're going to change our course. Now, to me, it is about me asking the questions to the Minister of the Crown and I know when you're trying to deflect and not answer a question. That is a fair question and the mining industry is asking it. They feel as if they have had a promise; the minister has reneged. There was a date set for 2015 and now I've heard the minister say that they've changed course. I guess I'll conclude on that and ask, have they had this discussion with the mining industry about changing course?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: For clarity's sake, the commitment that was made to the industry, which is very different from how the NDP had ever approached this question, was that this would be rolled in throughout the course of the mandate. Our mandate is not yet complete. The plan is to bring in this tax rebate over the course of the mandate.

 

            We originally indicated that we wanted to phase it in beginning in 2015. However, the experts in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board told us that was not possible. This is not a tax credit that can be phased in over the course of three years. It needs to happen in one budgetary year because that's how this tax credit works. So we weren't able to phase it in and we learned that after a discussion with the experts in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board.

 

            Our indication in the industry from day one has been that this is a commitment we plan on fulfilling and we plan on fulfilling it throughout the course of the mandate. That, as far as I'm aware, is still the plan that our government has.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: I do think there was another question in there. I asked if this discussion was moving forward with the mining industry, to see if you indicated to me - there were press releases gone out and I refer back to - and I'll try one more time - that the minister has indicated there's a change of direction. This is not what's in these statements or these press releases. My question - again I'll try one more time before I move on - you're sensing that there is a change of direction. Has that discussion taken place and has the mining industry been consulted on that point?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Just to clarify, I wouldn't say there is a change in direction because the direction is still to provide this tax credit to the industry. There is a change in how that is going to be implemented and that change is based on information that came from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board when it comes to how the province taxes and what they're able to do in terms of taxation.

 

            So there has been no change in direction, as the member would suggest. The only change I've seen in the last two days is the NDP in the Chamber saying that they don't support this tax credit, and then the member sitting in the Red Chamber here, suggesting that the NDP does. That is what I've seen as being the most inconsistent part of this conversation.

 

            Our comments have been consistent from day one with the industry. We've met with MANS specifically, approximately 10 times since I've been elected, and the message to them has been consistent across the board. Are they thrilled that this tax credit wasn't in the budget? No. This was a tough budget to deliver and a budget through which the lens we approached it was ensuring that we were able to provide the core services to the people of this province.

            We're looking at an education system that was hacked up by the NDP Government - $65 million taken out of the education system. We've committed to restoring $65 million to the education system over the course of our mandate. We had $18 million in last year's budget for that. We had $20 million in this year's budget for that. We believe that's a core service of government.

 

            We need to have money to afford to pay for our health care system. We need to be able to pay for our critical transportation networks that we have in the province. Our ability to do that has been limited because of the unfair labour wages that the NDP dished out to their union friends when they were in government. That has impacted how we approach this.

 

            When we learned more about the financial position that we're in, the $3 billion in debt that the NDP added, we needed to change strategy when we're looking at certain situations. So can we afford, in this year's budget, to bring forward this tax credit? We can't. We're asking the industry to understand that - at a year when we had to lay off almost 300 people in government. In a year when we've asked many Nova Scotians to make sacrifices with us, we think that that industry, which is actually growing in the province, which is successful, which is competitive, can understand that.

 

            We've asked them to understand that, and they understand that, I believe, at an operational level because all the folks that we've actually talked to from the industry - not their lobbyists, but from the industry - have indicated they are very happy doing business here in the Province of Nova Scotia. They're excited about the potential here. We are on the verge of doubling our mineral production. These are all positive signs.

 

            We've been very clear: this tax credit is coming. We believe it's fair for that industry. We believe it will help them be competitive, but are we going to put those core services in jeopardy to do that? Absolutely not. When we get our books back in order, when we restore fiscal health, which is not far off, then that tax credit will come to the industry as committed. That will happen over the course of this mandate.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: Just one more question before I turn it over to my colleagues. I know there was a lot of talk about some of the previous comments about new species under your portfolio. To me, one of the interesting new species regarding wildlife is - I see an article concerning the introduction of wild turkeys for Nova Scotia. I believe, if my memory serves me right, I've asked this to the minister before. I know that there is a lot of revenue that's generated through licences in Nova Scotia. Before I turn it over to my colleagues, I ask the minister to comment on any new species that could be entered into Nova Scotia's wildlife.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Before I tackle that question, I just have for the record here - are we able to table documents in this Chamber?

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Sure.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: So just for the record, these are comments from the Interim Leader of the NDP from yesterday, just for clarity's sake. I think it's important for everybody in this room to understand where the NDP does stand on this tax break for the mining industry. I quote, "I am not sure that a tax break for the mining industry that is predicated on the fact that these other industries get it is the right approach to the kind of incentives you want to have available for the mining industry. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, our caucus does not support this particular tax break for the mining industry." That comes from the Interim Leader of the NDP.

 

            So just for clarity's sake in this conversation, because we did receive an indication from this member that the NDP were in support of this, all indications are that the NDP aren't. I just think that's important for clarity's sake in this conversation.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Churchill - if you could pass that document on to our Page and we can give it to the Clerks.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Regarding the question around the introduction of new species into the province, the Wild Turkey Federation has been asking for an introduction of wild turkeys for recreational purposes for some time now. We have not granted that permission. The reasons being is there is great concern from our agriculture sector, which is a significant sector when it comes to our economy, for our GDP, and more importantly, for producing our food and other things that are important for our society.

 

            There has been a lot of concern over bringing in a foreign species, and until any of those concerns or all those concerns are appropriately dealt with, we will not be granting permission for this introduction of wild turkeys.

 

            That said, there is a migration of wild turkeys that will probably make its way here eventually. There has probably been some illegal introduction of that species in the province, and so we're monitoring that situation to the best of our ability, but our policy to date, which has been consistent with every government before us over the course of the last 10 to 20 years, has been not to allow the introduction of that species.

 

            I've had a very frank conversation with the Wild Turkey Federation and I made it very clear to them that if the concerns that had been brought forward by the agriculture sector can be adequately addressed, then we'll revisit the question.

 

            MR. BELLIVEAU: Before I turn it over to my colleague, just for the record, this is not about a certain Party, about the mining industry. This is about a broken promise and the mining industry feels that this present government reneged regarding the fuel tax rebate. I just want to get that on the record that this minister has made that commitment. It was supposed to be done in 2015 and I think the mining industry is disappointed that the minister had an opportunity to address this and would like to deflect the question. At this time, I'll turn it over to my colleague, thank you.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. Peterson-Rafuse, we have about 23 minutes left for today.

 

            HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Good evening to you, minister, and to your staff. Get that smirk off your face. The minister and I have one of those love-hate relationships - I'll let everybody know right now. (Interruption) I just want to warn you, minister, the love is going to be gone for the next 20 minutes or so, but it will come back.

 

            As you know, we kind of go back and forth, I think it's probably quite an experience for you to be sitting on the other side now because of the fact that some of the things that you had talked about against the NDP in terms of cuts and so forth - I don't think there is much difference on your side now.

 

            I do want to say on the record that the education cut was not $65 million. We've said that many times. There has never been any proof of that. When requested from the Liberal Party, in order to show exactly how those cuts - it was $13 million - so I want that for the record. That's very important.

 

            I want to talk to you first about the clear-cut in the Ingramport area. I will give you some kudos towards the fact that you did meet with the St. Margaret's Bay Stewardship Association and myself. The unfortunate part was, it was actually after the announcement had been made and people were really up in arms. The fact is that you've been working for transparency within your department, however, the problem is transparency doesn't mean that the department just posts things on the Internet. It's a two-way conversation, communication process and that's what has been missing here.

 

            I do know that at our meeting on February 11^th you and your staff had said that there was going to be three different consultation groups within the Province of Nova Scotia. At that time, you said it would probably be established by the end of February or first part of March, but your department was very clear that that consultation group would not be involved with the decision making process whatsoever.

 

            I am asking you to reconsider that. The fact is, if you're going to be truly transparent and consulting with the public, it's very important to have an open process that allows opinions not only to be listened to, but part of the decision-making process. I'm sure that a group could be created that has the community choosing who they want around that table in the discussion process. It can be a collaborative, restorative approach. One has to wonder, when the department says that that group would not be involved in decision making, where is the transparency?

 

            I do understand and realize how challenging and scary that can be for a department. It creates more accountability. It creates more work. But as you know, as a former Minister of Community Services, that's how we were able to bring groups together that would never sit at a table before. That's how we were able to develop the transformation for those with disabilities. That's how we were able to come together and create the housing strategy.

 

            There were a number of other projects that were implemented due to the fact that all sides were sitting around the table. It gives a better understanding in terms of - it actually helps too for the department and for the government because sometimes people underestimate or do not understand what you're dealing with, and when you're all around the table at the same time, it gives an opportunity for people to hear your side of the story too. That has been part of the big issue for residents in the St. Margaret's Bay area; they were not a part of that and they've not heard anything else in terms of that group.

 

            I'm going to start with asking a question with respect to that area. I know that when the group came to you, they talked about the importance of tourism in that particular area of the province. They were concerned with the clear-cut on that basis. I know you took that into consideration and I want to thank you very much for that. I know that the community is very thankful for that, but there are other concerns that they feel are at a significant level too that they're thinking has not been considered.

 

            One of them of course, as you know - and we talked about it - is the issue around the environment and how the clear-cut will affect the environment in that area. Can you tell me what process does the department go through? Are there any independent studies that are done or is everything done within the confines of DNR? If it's all in the confines of DNR, who are the environmental experts in your department that are involved with these types of decisions?

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: I am very happy to have a conversation about this because one thing we've been able to do in the department over the course of the last 18 months is to develop a much more responsive model to community concerns. I think the St. Margaret's Bay area, in particular, demonstrates how we've been a responsive department, how I've been a responsive minister, to the concerns that have come forward from community members.

 

            For example, St. Margaret's Bay, which was purchased under the previous NDP Government - and under the previous NDP Government, its primary value to the Crown was considered to be harvesting. That land was purchased as an asset whose primary purpose was for harvest. We've actually changed that to a multi-purpose value area and that is different than what the NDP had planned for that area. That's important to know. That is the first indication that we've been responsive to the folks in that area.

 

            Secondly, after we submitted our harvest maps online, proactively soliciting feedback from community members, stakeholder groups, and Nova Scotians, we met with the group. The member was in attendance at that meeting. We adjusted the harvest prescription based on the feedback we received.

 

            The feedback we received did not indicate there are any environmental concerns related to that clear-cut. I asked very specifically about environmental concerns and the number one concern that was given to us was impact to tourism because of view planes that would be impacted by harvest. So we actually made a very significant adjustment to that harvest, and also generally speaking, to the St. Margaret's Bay area. Where the NDP had purchased that area - and I guess I'll use the words of former Premier Dexter where he said, "Gaining control of these lands and resources allows the province to put them into the hands of those in our forestry industry who will value them most and can best generate more jobs and wealth in the province." That was said December 10, 2012.

 

            When I came into the department, the primary value that was listed in the St. Margaret's Bay area was to harvest only. We changed that because we listened to the community and made that a multi-value area, which is in stark contrast to what the original intent was when the NDP purchased that land, and we responded very clearly with the changes to the harvest prescription.

 

            There is science that goes into a clear-cut harvest. We did engage an independent auditor and independent experts to do a study for us after the Panuke Lake clear cut. That was important for us to do because we want Nova Scotians to trust this process. We want Nova Scotians to trust the science behind the decisions, when it comes to harvesting. What the Panuke report identified, which was an independent report and an independent audit that was done on the Panuke clear-cut, was that all the science, the process, regulations were all followed.

 

            I'll remind everybody in the room that a clear-cut doesn't mean everything is going to be cut down. In our definition of a clear-cut, 50 per cent of the trees need to remain.

 

            We have sought out that independent advice because as minister, and the member knows, a minister comes into a department - I have no background in forestry; I have no background in mining; I have no background in wildlife or really anything else in the department. We're very dependent on the information that comes to us from our staff. I know the member knows and understands that. So it was very important for me to seek that independent advice. It came back indicating that our staff had done all the right things and that the proper prescription was made. So there is science that goes into clear-cutting. Clear-cutting is an accepted international method of harvesting. I know it's ugly for some time, but we need to remember that those forests regenerate.

 

            There is a road in Yarmouth County that is in Kemptville. On one side of the road you have a protected wilderness area. On the other side of the road you have land that was actually clear-cut several times by Irving. I'll tell you, the land that was clear-cut looks a lot better than the wilderness area. That's because the majority of folks in the forestry sector who are engaged in harvesting are doing it in a responsible way. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. They're doing it in a way that is sustainable.

 

            The definition that we have for clear-cut is the same definition that the NDP developed. We're keeping that definition. We're not re-opening that conversation. The same strategy when it comes to our targets for clear-cut reduction is the same one that the NDP developed. We have not deviated from that.

 

            What we have done is developed a model of public engagement that is much more accessible to the public and it allows us to be much more responsive to their concerns. It has been very satisfying to actually see that model work in numerous cases where there was a harvest that was listed online and whereby community input actually changed the outcome of that decision, and we changed course. Those are clear indications that this process is working.

 

            We are working on the final consultation groups and we hope to have those in place by the end of the year. We want that to happen right. We want a process that is open and Nova Scotians can trust, that allows us to be responsive, but what we won't do is set up a process whereby any player or any stakeholder group or special interest group can arbitrarily prevent a harvest from happening or prevent the needed flow of fibre in the Province of Nova Scotia because we do have an obligation to the forestry sector. That is an important industry in this province. I think it's the third greatest contributor to GDP, if I'm not mistaken. They directly employ a couple of thousand people in the province. It's a critical industry, particularly for rural Nova Scotia, and so we do have an obligation in that sector, but we do approach our land management in a very balanced way - in a way that allows us to take into consideration the environmental values, ecological values, recreational values, social values and economic values of our land.

 

            I believe we're doing a very good job in achieving that balance. All you have to do is look at how the land is being managed and what percentage of it is being protected, and how we've adjusted harvest prescriptions based on feedback we've received. We work very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Environment, when it comes to these harvest prescriptions, and we are dependent on information from that department as well.

 

            I have full faith in my staff, particularly after that independent report, that we are making the right decisions. They're appropriate, they are balanced and they are reasonable. We will continue to work on the consultation process with Nova Scotians so that over time we will be able to build even more trust and confidence in our process and how we're managing our Crown lands.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I do want to clarify that there was no way that the NDP bought that; we worked so hard to buy Bowater back that we were just going to - you're just taking one piece of information that was indicating to the forestry industry to let them know that we were not just buying that land for one use. It was going to be a shared use. We worked very hard on that, and as you know, we were the government that encouraged and started the community forest process and that St. Margaret's Bay actually put in an application to be part of that program. It wasn't given to that area just for the fact that when you compared the two applications, in the Liverpool area there was a long history of involvement in environmental community forestry concepts.

 

            So the starting place was there and from that starting place the intention was that eventually the St. Margaret's Bay area would be the next stepping stone. I know this because I sat around the Cabinet Table and we worked very hard to buy the Bowater lands back so the people of Nova Scotia could have the public lands to enjoy and we felt that it could be shared amongst different interest groups. We certainly understood the fact that the forestry industry, as you said, is a very important part of our province and supports the economy, but we also realize that there are many uses for that land - that people want to access it. We were the ones who opened the gates. We didn't close the gates. We opened the gates for public use.

 

            It is unfortunate that in the political world there has to be the back and forth and accusations in terms of pointing fingers at past governments. It will happen to your government at some point too, but (Interruption) Well, I can tell you that's quite a legacy that the NDP was able to provide the people of Nova Scotia - to have purchased land that they never were able to access before and to provide them with the right to use the lands, go fishing, have trails. We also included the ATV groups because we took the restorative approach. We didn't wait until after we made a decision or that we posted information on the Internet.

 

            Your department staff will know that we took a very active role in including Nova Scotians in deciding what to do with the Bowater lands and the people of Nova Scotia wanted the Bowater lands and supported the efforts on the buy-back of Bowater. I want that for the record because there was a lot of work; there was a lot of effort and it was because of the community and because there was a government that allowed the community to be part of the decision-making process that those lands were purchased. They were purchased and they're owned by the people of Nova Scotia and that was something that I would advise you and your department to remember: it's owned by the people of Nova Scotia and they do have a right to be able to access those lands. There seems to be some issues in terms of accessibility again, and in terms of some areas not being available for Nova Scotians. I would encourage you to continue on that route to allow the people of Nova Scotia to use that land.

 

            In two and a half minutes, can you tell me why you think that treasure-seeking on Oak Island should be under a mining licence rather than under protection of places? I'm going to give you the last word, and I don't do that very often.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Very kind of you. I will table, just for the sake of clarity, the press release that was issued by the NDP related to the purchase of the St. Margaret's Bay area. It clearly indicates here that that area was purchased for the forestry sector. I won't read through this because I only have a minute left, but I will table that for the folks here.

 

            Regarding the treasure-hunting, basically when it comes to the laws that we want to create, we make sure that the laws ensure that there is a fair opportunity for proponents to go treasure-seeking and that there is fair return to Nova Scotians on their finds.

 

            What we're not going to do is develop laws in this province based on the actual legends that those proponents are going after. We're not going to let the legends dictate how the laws are developed in the province, but we will make sure that the principles of fairness for the proponent and for Nova Scotians are front and centre when it comes to development of those laws in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

            MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I do get the last word, minister. No, I'm going to be the nice Denise. I'm going to thank - I know how much work and how difficult it is for staff and I appreciate, when we were in government, all the work and the dedication that staff gives. One thing that does not change is the fact that the staff is there for whatever political Party that comes in. That just shows you their commitment and dedication to all of Nova Scotians.

 

            We'll just continue our conversations somewhere else at some other time, minister. Thank you very much.

 

            MR. CHURCHILL: Thank you. I would like to thank the member and all members who were able to engage in what I believe is a very productive conversation. It's important that ministers and members were able to discuss our budgets and their impacts, and the impacts of our policy development because it's important for Nova Scotians, and the fact that we're able to do this in such a manner, on the record, I think speaks great volumes to our democratic process here in the province.

 

            MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E17 stand?

 

            Resolution E17 stands.

 

            The meeting is adjourned.

 

            [The subcommittee adjourned at 7:04 p.m.]