HALIFAX, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2017

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:00 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Gordon Wilson

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I’ll call the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply to order. We will be dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Environment.

            Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $37,239,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: So we’ll begin with opening statements from the minister.

The honourable Minister of Environment.

            HON. IAIN RANKIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s an honour to present the details of this year’s Budget for the Department of Environment. Here today with me at the table we have Shawn McNutt, Manager of Financial Services for the department and we also have Lorrie Roberts, the Executive Director of the Policy Division in Nova Scotia Environment. I guess normally we’d have the deputy minister - she is behind us, I believe, Frances Martin, just fighting a bit of a cold so I guess she’s taking it easy on me by not being so close to me. Certainly if we need to switch to get some other information, we’ll do so. We have a number of other staff members behind us at the senior executive level. We have Paul Keats, Elizabeth Kennedy, Karen Wong-Petrie, Jason Hollett, Brittany White, Peter Labor, Adrian Fuller, Andrew Murphy and, as I said, the deputy is there as well.

Mr. Chairman, Environment’s role is to protect the environment, human health, and animal health, through regulatory excellence, conservation, partnership and promotion. Our work is informed by such legislation as the Environment Act, the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, the Wilderness Areas Protection Act, the Water Resources Protection Act, the Anti-idling Act, the Non-essential Pesticides Control Act, the Importation of Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Prohibition Act and the Health Protection Act, particularly as it relates to food safety. 

We also enforce the Acts of other departments and regulations that range from air pollution, abattoirs and animal welfare, to fish farms, food service and protected areas. Integrating the several ways that we protect the public, our environment and our natural resources is critical to us, to our success in delivering on the department’s mandate for Nova Scotians.

            Mr. Chairman, in the Spring of 2015 our government committed to separating the sector development goal from the province’s regulatory role. Since then more than 100 people have transferred into the Department of Environment from other departments. The consolidation has given us an opportunity to create a structure that improves services to the public.

            This year a new organizational structure was put in place and compliance, inspection and enforcement responsibilities were consolidated. The department’s conservation officers took on responsibility for enforcing the province’s new Aquaculture Regulations. In collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, they received extensive training on aquaculture and biosecurity, both in the classroom and on the water.

Nova Scotia Environment’s Aquaculture Compliance Guide was developed and a comprehensive compliance promotion and education outreach plan was completed. The roles of Fisheries and Aquaculture inspector duties have been combined with conservation officer duties to meet with the evolving regulatory demands associated with the aquaculture industry. Combining these roles ensures that our staff resources are deployed effectively across the province.

Conservation officers also work to conserve and protect the province’s natural resources through compliance promotion and enforcement of several pieces of legislation, a few of which include the Wildlife Act, the Off-highway Vehicles Act and the Forests Act. In this capacity they conduct patrols and investigate complaints focusing on hunters, anglers, wilderness areas and forestry operations that impact our resources.

            Fur industry inspection has been incorporated into the responsibilities of our environment inspectors to help address demands associated with new regulatory requirements. This ensures that there are staff throughout the province who can respond to a variety of inspection, compliance and enforcement issues.

            We combined Environmental Health and Food Safety Inspection into a single Public Health Officer role and provided staff training to improve consistency and effective coverage in these closely-related areas. District managers are now responsible for managing these new areas of compliance activities which reduces duplication and improves how resources are deployed.

A model for helping inspection staff determine the appropriate enforcement action - what we call a compliance model - was developed in 2016. The compliance model takes into consideration the level of risk associated with an activity and the willingness of a person or organization to comply. Together with our new structure, the compliance model is helping staff apply the law and regulations more consistently and effectively. Both enable staff to better access and share expertise and maximize training opportunities. They are also key to improving the quality of the department’s work in building public trust.

            A key priority for our government is to reform the province’s regulations and improve service to Nova Scotians. Mr. Chairman, consistent and fair enforcement and compliance across the province is a priority. That’s part of our work to transform the department. We need clear rules for businesses that effectively address environmental risk and reflect compliance history, and we need to make it easier for businesses to comply. We do this by streamlining processes and making good use of technology.

            In 2016-17, Nova Scotia Environment continued to update the province’s environmental regulations to ensure that our programs focused on areas of greatest impact to the environment and public health, to reduce the administrative burden for Nova Scotia businesses, and to use technology to better manage our programs and improve service delivery. Phase one of our system for processing notifications and approvals, what we call SNAP, was launched for use by Environment staff across the province. The new system brings consistency to the processing of applications and management of approvals. Phase two, which includes introducing online services for Nova Scotians, will be launched in this fiscal year.

            In 2016-17, the department completed a review of the watercourse alteration program, and the program’s implementation goals were achieved. As a result, the number of watercourse alteration approvals issued by the department has decreased. Many have been replaced by the notification process, which has removed unnecessary paperwork for both the department and Nova Scotians. Fewer approvals also result in less processing time for inspectors, allowing them more time to conduct inspections and audits. It also enables business to advance projects more quickly with fewer delays. During this past fiscal year, low-risk onsite sewage system installations in the province were also moved to a notification process.

            By reducing the amount of time needed on lower-risk activities, the department can now direct more attention to areas of higher environmental risk. We will continue to explore notifications as part of our efforts to modernize how activities are regulated and reduce regulatory burden.

            Regulatory changes were also introduced to better distinguish between incineration and thermal generational facilities known as waste-to-energy facilities. This distinction was made to ensure that the environmental assessment process required for both activities is appropriate to the level of environmental impact. Waste-to-energy projects using new technology now require a less onerous environmental assessment process, thereby reducing the administrative burden for potential applicants.

            As well, a significant fee reduction was implemented for approvals for small-scale dairy processing. Previously, all dairy processors required a similar industrial approval, meaning that smaller operations were required to remit the same fee as large-scale operations. The amendment significantly reduced the industrial approval application fee for dairy or dairy product plants that process less than 250,000 litres of milk per year. Now the fee is $484, versus the more than $3,300 previously required.

            As well, municipalities are no longer required to apply for approval on an extension or modification of an existing water distribution facility. This saves municipalities time and enables them to complete these activities without the necessary regulatory burden.

            In addition to reviewing our regulations, several other items were achieved in support of the department’s mandate, specifically our mandate to protect the health of Nova Scotians.

            The events of the last few months alone in Florida, Texas, and the Caribbean Islands are yet more sad reminders of the impacts that climate change is having in our world. Here at home, this past year, Nova Scotians battled flooding and drought simultaneously. As most of the world’s scientists have concluded, we can expect more frequent and more intense weather events such as these in the future.

            Thanks to the work of Nova Scotians, our province is the national leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, having already reached the federal government’s 2030 reduction target, one of the first in the country to do so. The province continues to see a steady decline in greenhouse gas emissions since targets were set in the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. Key to our ongoing success is a strong regulatory approach to reducing emissions from the electricity sector, including hard greenhouse gas caps, renewable energy targets, and energy efficiency programming. Our made-in-Nova Scotia approach to combatting climate change is working.

            Despite this success, we know that there is more work to be done to address the damaging effects of climate change on our province and our world. Jurisdictions around the globe are taking action. Europe, China, and progressive parts of the U.S. have implemented or are piloting cap-and-trade programs.

[3:15 p.m.]

            In December, Nova Scotia signed the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the development of a cap-and-trade program for Nova Scotia is now underway. Our cap-and-trade program will build on our success to date while protecting the pocketbooks of Nova Scotians.

            A discussion paper on the design of the program was released in March this year, followed by a consultation and public comment period. We will soon begin consultations on the first of two sets of regulations needed to implement the cap-and-trade program.

            As you know, a few weeks ago I introduced legislation in the House to create cap-and-trade programming. In another month I will attend the climate change conference, COP23, as part of Canada’s delegation. Yes, there is more work to do to address climate and we are doing it.

            Other departmental accomplishments this past year include improving our drinking water and food safety programs. The department continues to help develop, review and implement the Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. As a requirement of their operating approvals, municipal drinking water facilities must now develop and implement source water protection plans. We also initiated work to better define registered drinking water supplies so that it is clear what facilities will be regulated.

            We are also improving the boil water advisory process outlined in the guidelines for monitoring public drinking water supplies. We are making procedures simpler to follow and creating new options for system owners to avoid a boil advisory if certain risk criteria are absent. These improvements reduce the need for unnecessary boil water advisories, saving system owners effort and money.

            Preliminary work at incorporating a risk-based approach into our meat inspection program was completed. In the food safety program, work is currently underway to align inspection resources with areas of greatest public health impact using the existing risk-based tool.

            Other achievements linked to our mandate and core responsibilities are EGSPA - the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act in protected areas. In 2016-17 we initiated the five-year legislative review of the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. This work was led by the Minister’s Round Table on Environment and Sustainable Prosperity.

The 25 goals and overarching objectives are aimed at achieving sustainable prosperity. They range from cleaner energy and climate change to healthy air and water, leadership and sustainable practices, protection of biodiversity and sustainable management of natural assets. As of March 31, 2017, 13 goals have been achieved and 12 are currently work in progress.

The EGSPA review includes identifying opportunities for improvements to the Act and the role of government in advancing and integrating the green economy in the province. The department continues work towards achieving the goals and long term objectives set out in EGSPA and to support integration of the green economy in Nova Scotia. I am pleased to extend my thanks to the members of the round table for all their work on the review and in preparing the recommendations.

As members will recall, we met our land protection goal under the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. Under the Act, we were to designate at least 12 per cent of the province’s land by the end of 2015 calendar year. This past year we added to the province’s list of protected lands with the designation of three wilderness areas and 12 nature reserve sites. Combined, these lands cover more than 7,000 hectares and increased our provincial wilderness areas and nature resources to more than 500,000 hectares.

To date, 12.39 per cent of our province’s lands are legally protected, up from 12.26 in the previous year. These areas help to protect important wildlife habitat and intact natural forests, conserve scenic river, lake and coastal areas, and ensure that sensitive ecological sites can continue to support rare and endangered species. Some areas also help to protect drinking water supplies, and others provide ideal opportunities for outdoor recreation, education and research.

The significant expansion to Chignecto Isthmus Wilderness Area also increases the conservation of this critical natural connection to New Brunswick.

The Department of Environment staff and the staff of the Department of Natural Resources have worked to balance many interests over many years across departments and with community groups, industry, non-government organizations and individuals to ensure land protection process was transparent, accessible and fair. The selection of properties and boundaries was refined through feedback from interested residents, municipalities, Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, forestry, mining and energy interests and wilderness recreation, hunting, fishing, trapping, off-road vehicle and environmental groups.

            Nova Scotia’s extensive coastline, pristine lakes and parks make it one of the most beautiful places in the country. By reaching our land protection goal and keeping these lands natural, they, in turn, can protect biodiversity and provide places for all of us to enjoy now and into the future.

            We continue to build relationships with our partners - municipalities, Mi'kmaq communities, recreation, tourism and conservation groups, to help realize the benefits of these protected areas.

            Mr. Chairman, Nova Scotia’s wilderness areas provide exceptional opportunities for diversifying rural economies through nature-based tourism. Having lands legally protected gives businesses the confidence to develop tourism products that rely on long-term access to natural areas with access to trails, lakes and forests.

            Mr. Chairman, in other areas of progress Nova Scotia’s annual disposal rate per person is 50 per cent lower than the Canadian average. Curbside recycling and organics collection is available to most residents across our province and the sector alone accounts for more than 4,000 jobs. We initiated work with municipalities that will lead to a better understanding of how the solid waste system can be more cost effective. We also conducted a jurisdictional review analysis to support efforts to improve the way we manage construction and demolition debris waste.

This past year we supported the Food Waste Summit held by Divert Nova Scotia, to increase awareness about food waste and profile initiatives that retailers, institutions and community groups are undertaking to reduce food waste in Nova Scotia and across Canada.

            Mr. Chairman, too often, worn, stained or torn clothing ends up in the province’s landfills. If these items are placed in collection bins, they will produce Nova Scotian jobs, support charities, reduce municipal collection and disposal costs, provide Nova Scotians with low-cost, quality textiles and bring in export dollars to the province for textiles that can’t be used here. This past year the department provided support to the Association for Textiles Recycling, otherwise known as AFTeR, to increase public awareness about the reuse and recycling of textiles such as these. The department also funded projects such as the one in Pictou County, where cat litter and wallboard can now be added to composting organics. Initiatives such as these further reduce the waste going into the landfill.

            The Newspaper Stewardship Agreement was also renegotiated, which resulted in significantly increasing the in-kind value provided for publishers to municipalities for managing newsprint in the recycling stream. A group of provincial stewardship agencies and government officials was established to discuss opportunities to harmonize solid waste practices across Atlantic Canada. The department and Divert Nova Scotia are also organizing a Diversion Business Summit to determine what these businesses need to expand and hire more Nova Scotians.

            Environment staff work closely with the diversion industry to assist them with research, obtaining funding, networking and fostering their growth. This year we continue to build on our progress, as well as take on new challenges.

Mr. Chairman, Nova Scotia’s coastlines are a key natural asset that captivates visitors and provides a livelihood for our fishing communities and a vital environment for wildlife. Protecting our coastlines is a complex issue. Developing effective legislation will require us to consider the many dimensions of coastal management and a range of stakeholder interests. We look forward to beginning the work necessary to start consultations with Nova Scotians to inform the development of a Coastal Protection Act. This Act will legally protect our coastlines.

            Mr. Chairman, we also look forward to working with our colleagues at Natural Resources to support their plan on the province’s Biodiversity Act, an Act that will help us protect the many and varied plants and animals that make Nova Scotia home. Preserving this diversity is paramount. This work, coupled with other legislative initiatives such as cap and trade, makes for an ambitious agenda, an agenda focused appropriately on protecting our environment, public health and animal welfare.

            Mr. Chairman, I am pleased with the good progress the department made this past year. As I have noted, there is much more work to do. I look forward to advancing this good work and delivering on the department’s mandates for Nova Scotians. I am also pleased to extend my personal thanks to the staff of Nova Scotia Environment. I have been in my role for only a few months but their commitment to the department’s mandate is obvious and commendable. During my visit to the department’s regional offices this summer, I saw first-hand their determination to protect our environment, human health, and animal health. Department staff carry out important work on behalf of Nova Scotians, and on behalf of Nova Scotians, I want to thank them.

            Now I am pleased to take your questions.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Minister Rankin. We will begin with the Progressive Conservative Party.

Ms. Masland, the floor is yours for one hour.

            MS. KIM MASLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll start, minister, with some questions I have about cap and trade. I’m very much new to this position too, so we’re in this together. Last week, my colleague asked a question in Question Period. He said, who will benefit from the trading of emission allowances, and by extension, who will lose? In sports, if somebody wins, usually somebody loses.

            The government has put forward a very significant cap-and-trade system, but it has been put forward with no economic analysis and still claims that it won’t hurt anyone. They have gone on to say that people will have a reason to reduce their consumption. I guess my question is, will the end-user be penalized because they will be forced to reduce their consumption of home heating oil, gas, or electricity because they just may not be able to afford the purchase?

            MR. RANKIN: I appreciate that there would be questions on cap and trade today. There is a balance that we were trying to achieve with the program. As you said, it is a significant program. I believe it builds on some of the past success that the province has been able to achieve due to a lot of the work in the electricity sector, which as you probably know, is the largest part of our greenhouse gas emissions.

            As you know, there’s a pan-Canadian framework that we have signed on to, so there’s a legal obligation to put a price on carbon in Canada. We have chosen a program where we were able to negotiate the price of electricity that we have already paid. Under the prior government, electricity rates rose by roughly 30 per cent. We believed Nova Scotians paid a disproportionate amount when you compared to other provinces in that specific sector.

            If we were to do nothing, there is a stopgap measure where the federal government imposes a levy. That’s a carbon tax directly put on fuel that we believed was over and above what Nova Scotians were prepared to pay. There are three different options for provinces. One is a direct carbon tax, which B.C. has in place. One is a cap and trade, which we’re going for. Quebec and Ontario both have a cap and trade, and they’re linked. We’re proposing not to start off with a linked system. Then the other option is Alberta’s model, which is a combination of a carbon levy put on fuel and performance standards on other industries. They use performance standards for their oil sector. The stopgap measure that I referenced would impose that model that Alberta has.

            What I can say specific to the question of what a consumer has to take on is that this is the most cost-effective system possible for the consumers of Nova Scotia, especially because within the negotiations within our cap-and-trade system that has been recognized as meeting the Canadian benchmark system, they’ll recognize the hard cap that’s already in place for our electricity sector when we set the cap.

            Cap and trade has been recognized all over the world as being one of the most cost-effective systems for a price mechanism. That, coupled with the negotiations - and I want to commend my predecessor, the now Minister of Natural Resources, and the Premier and the staff in the climate change division, who have worked very diligently on this file. Negotiations aren’t easy, so there were times when it wasn’t easy to stand up and say, no, we’re not going to have a carbon tax. It was clear from the Premier before the campaign and into the campaign that we weren’t prepared to impose a carbon tax. We found a solution that works for us. We found a price mechanism that works for us. This will be, I believe, a next step, a pivotal role for Nova Scotians to play as we continue to be part of the global movement into a greener, cleaner economy.

[3:30 p.m.]

We will be part of a pricing system, again the whole country will be. Every province will have a price on carbon. This is the most cost-effective way we can do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

            MS. MASLAND: I’ll ask the question - you do not expect a litre of gasoline to increase in price? Or a litre of furnace fuel to increase in price, because of this system?

            MR. RANKIN: What I can say is that with this system there won’t be as much of an impact on the consumer as there would be under a carbon tax system. The way the system works is it finds the most cost-effective reduction in greenhouse gas amongst the participants. Fuel suppliers will be part of the participants, natural gas providers will be part of the participants and any other large industry emitting more than 100,000 tons will be part of that system. If they cannot find a way to reduce their own emissions, they will be required to purchase allowance credits from other participants so at the end of the day this is the best system that protects the consumer in Nova Scotia.

            MS. MASLAND: The Minister of Agriculture stated that agriculture will be exempt from cap and trade. I’m curious as to how this will be administered.

            MR. RANKIN: The emissions included under this program are 90 per cent of our total emissions. The emissions that it doesn’t cover are from agriculture and landfills, which would be administratively challenging to try to quantify and verify and get reporting on.

            If they buy any kind of secondary material, if they are operating with fuel or anything, then indirectly they would be an indirect participant, as are all Nova Scotians, really. Part of the Pan-Canadian Framework has exempted agriculture so you’ll see that similarly across the country.

            MS. MASLAND: Are there any other sectors that will be exempt from cap and trade?

            MR. RANKIN: As I said, the solid waste, which is methane.

            MS. MASLAND: Obviously this is a very complex administrative system. How much does the department expect the cost to be to administer cap and trade?

            MR. RANKIN: We have a staffing complement of about six or seven FTEs and we are modelling our system based on existing systems we’ve learned from best practices, particularly WCI, which is the California-Quebec-Ontario system. We won’t know - in this budget there is no incremental extra costs than what we are already paying, so there may be service fees, in terms of joining the system to utilize their software but we don’t anticipate having to hire any further staff, as long as we proceed with what we believe is a good plan.

            There could be changes and the market might incentivize a pivot to a different direction, in terms of if we’re allowing specific offsets that need to be analyzed if we’re going to have to conduct further analyses if there is new, intensive emission trading-exposed industries that are entering the province, we may need to do further analyses in terms of those types of things but currently we don’t anticipate having to increase the budget any more than it is.

            MS. MASLAND: You mentioned in your press release that there are approximately 20 companies that would be involved in cap and trade and we do know some of them. I’m wondering if you could list for me those companies.

            MR. RANKIN: The first year is reporting so we are starting consultations currently with the participants that we’ve identified as being over 100,000 tons. The reporting will begin at the start of 2018 and we’re beginning to ask all emitters above 50,000 so that we have an idea across the board of what our emissions are looking like, and we can model based on that. 

As I have mentioned, we have identified the fossil fuel companies if they bring in more than 200 litres into the province. We’re talking about Irving, Imperial, Wilson’s, and you could probably guess the other ones - it’s any high volume of fuel distributors - and our natural gas provider, which is Heritage Gas. As far as industry, Lafarge is over the 100,000 tons. Those are the ones that I could name offhand, but we can certainly provide a more wholesome list once we get our reporting into the department.

            MS. MASLAND: As far as transparency of reporting to Nova Scotians, will that information all be accessible or readily available to Nova Scotians so that they know?

            MR. RANKIN: That’s one of the good parts of this program, I believe. Right in the legislation that’s before the House, there is an obligation for the minister to report directly to the House.

            MS. MASLAND: As far as Nova Scotia Power, we have had the Efficiency One levy, if that’s what you want to call it, attached to bills for Nova Scotians. Nova Scotians have done some very heavy lifting when it comes to electricity costs. Will the Efficiency One levy be adjusted or affected under the cap-and-trade system?

            MR. RANKIN: Nova Scotia Power is a participant, and the Efficiency utility has done some great work in Nova Scotia to reduce the demand side of electricity. It’s an important part of our overall envelope in terms of how we achieve overall greenhouse gas emission reduction, particularly helping lower-income Nova Scotians, which we believe is an important part. We have seen other provinces, like Alberta, emulate that model, actually. I see it more as a complement to a system than anything else.

            MS. MASLAND: I’ll switch gears a little bit here and look at Goal 1, the education, compliance, inspection, and enforcement. My question is, what agreements are in place now with partnered departments to ensure seamless delivery of compliance, inspection, and enforcement services that were not here this time last year?

            MR. RANKIN: That was a good question. We have a memorandum of understanding with five different departments which look at the regulatory process and the compliance mechanisms. That would be us, DNR, Health and Wellness, Agriculture, and Fisheries and Aquaculture. We also have bilateral agreements with all of those as well to ensure streamlined processes.

            MS. MASLAND: How has the department changed the increased proportion of inspections based on high-risk activities in tandem with decreased time spent on low-risk activities, the combining of all of those?

            MR. RANKIN: That’s a big part of what the evolution has been in the department over the last two or three years, focusing on those industries and those instances when there is a high risk because there is a lot of volume of work, so we’ve moved things like watercourse alterations, to notification rather than going through the full approval process.

            I mentioned in opening comments in terms of onsite systems, so we will always look at finding efficiencies, in terms of how we’re processing applications and there’s probably other opportunities, too, but keeping the main goal in mind is protecting the environment and putting resources in the most appropriate way to address the high-risk areas and moving to more of a streamlined outcome, results-based, for some of the more lower-risk. Part of the challenges that I’ve learned pretty quickly in the department is that the public perception of risk doesn’t always align with the reality of the risk of a certain undertaking, whether it’s developing a quarry or developing something that people may perceive as being a higher-risk activity or have a higher adverse impact on the environment.

            Part of our role, and I would say as all legislators of all Parties, is to help educate the public in terms of the reality of what is a high-risk undertaking, what is a medium-risk and what is a lower-risk activity.

            MS. MASLAND: Are there areas that you feel the department should be spending more time on inspection processes?

            MR. RANKIN: Again, and I’ve only been in for a couple of months but I’ve always thought there are opportunities to help streamline processes for businesses that have been able to achieve outcomes that we want them to achieve, environmental outcomes, so we’re always looking at ways that we can ensure that the businesses that do have good environmental, social, corporate responsibility are not bogged down by unnecessarily repetitive and oftentimes costly undertakings to file, like for environmental assessment or for any other type of approval but also, at the same time, there are companies and there are industries that aren’t as well at going through that type of process, so we need to ensure that we strike the right balance so we ensure that we have a predictable process for businesses to ensure that they know what the process is and if they can achieve the outcomes that we want them to achieve, then we’re all for that.

            We have different initiatives underway, like the SNAP initiative that I referenced would be the online tools for them to use and the department to use. I think that we’ve done a significant amount of work in the last three to four years on that but is there more work to do? Certainly I think there is more work to do, particularly with the lower-risk activities, so that we can focus in on some of the major issues we have, like we have over 300-plus contaminated sites across the province, we have challenges with decisions made at the municipal levels, whether it’s where they choose to site different activities, land use challenges.

Yes, I see opportunities for improvement and as I’ve said, we’re doing a review of the EGSPA which your Party has brought and that all Parties supported. We’re at that five-year period now and we’re just looking at ways that maybe that is where there is an avenue to close some of the gaps or improve and turn the process for compliance or for approvals or anything else that supports the core mandate of the department, which is to protect the air, protect the water and protect the land.

            MS. MASLAND: I’ll move on now to program and risk management. How is the incorporation of programs into the activity tracking system going?

MR. RANKIN: That would be the SNAP system that I referenced. We’re still working towards bringing more into that system and aligning more programs with that and ensuring that we can do more so that it’s an efficient system.

[3:45 p.m.]

            MS. MASLAND: Has there been increased staff training to assist in the risk management programs?

            MR. RANKIN: Yes, there has.

            MS. MASLAND: How is your department ensuring audit frequency based on risk-based analysis?

            MR. RANKIN: We’re working on a brand new risk-based audit system and that will be implemented next year.

            MS. MASLAND: When will the goal of 13 per cent protected land in the province be accomplished? Do you have a rough time frame for that?

            MR. RANKIN: What I could say is that it is in my mandate letter. We’ve reached 12.39 per cent, so going back to EGSPA that was legislated to reach 12 per cent, so happy to say that our government in 2015 has reached that, and we have a new goal of 13 per cent.

            There is no specific time line - recognizing that there are a balance of considerations when we look at land protection, which is a legal protection, certainly there are groups impacted by that, recognizing that some of the consultation that was required to take place happened a number of years ago, and realizing that some of the land that has been protected already had come against some uncertainty for groups in terms of the off-road vehicles, the anglers and hunters, Mining Association.

            As the Minister of Environment I’ve heard equally from sides that are proposing for more protection, proposing for faster processes to protect land and balancing that with the groups that don’t want to see any more protection or asking for particular parts of land that are in the parks and management protected plan to be excluded from consideration. We’ve heard from municipalities that have had varying opinions on whether or not we should protect more land.

            The government remains committed to reaching 13 per cent. What I would say is that we need to make sure that when we are protecting land that we do take into consideration all the varying views. There are some pieces of land that I would say we need to update the consultation so that we’re not just putting up signs and saying it’s protected and catching groups off guard that have used the land for various uses.

            There are some that have mining rights that still need to expire before we move forward with official protection. There are some boundaries that we could always look at reviewing, and there is the legal part too. So there are a number of things that need to come into place until the government is comfortable unofficially protecting an area, and then there are also different levels of protection.

The wilderness areas have a little bit more flexibility. Often you see opportunities for pathways for ATVs to go right through a wilderness area. Nature reserves are another one that I referenced in the House when you brought forth Carters Beach, which is a lot less - there are less opportunities for recreational use on a nature reserve because the level of protection is higher. That’s the challenge, especially in a place like Carter’s Beach where folks are used to using it as a place to have human activity. So often human activity is contradictory to the principles and why we protect land, which is protecting the ecological value and the overall biodiversity of the areas. So a lot of these plots of land are identified for a very good reason, and to protect those values.

The federal government has moved forward with their agenda and they’re wanting to protect 17 per cent of the national land. With that - it’s called target one - there are different principles aligned with which land to protect. I believe there are six different principles so we’ll be looking at making sure that we’re moving forward with similar principles but not necessarily jumping to a higher percentage. Given that we have a low percentage of land that’s actually Crown land, it makes it challenging relative to other provinces. Not even 30 per cent of our land is Crown land. When you compare us to other provinces like British Columbia, which I believe is the only other province that has a greater percentage of protected land, they have a lot more land that’s Crown land, so it’s easier to achieve.

            These are the discussions that we have to have at a national level when there are national targets. It’s certainly a worthwhile endeavour to protect land for future generations, and it’s directly related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions because there are important filtration systems in capturing carbon and capturing water to prevent massive flooding. All these considerations are taken into play when we’re considering. It’s very important.

            Again, the 13 per cent is in the mandate letter. We will endeavour to achieve that. I won’t set an arbitrary timeline. I also need to discuss it with my colleagues. It eventually makes it to the Cabinet Table and needs an Order in Council whenever land is protected. But I would be comfortable saying that within the next year, we would be looking at another batch of land to protect.

            MS. MASLAND: I’m glad you brought up Carter’s Beach because that’s a huge issue in my constituency. I have been so frustrated about Carter’s Beach and how that has been handled. This has been going on for years, long before I became an MLA.

            I know the region of Queens really stepped up to the plate to protect the sand dunes that were there, because of social media. Like I said to you in the House today, 350 people are showing up there on a Saturday, and the infrastructure is not there to support that, so people are beating down the sand dunes to find a place to use the washroom. The region of Queens really stepped up to the plate and made sure that they put two privies there. Because of the style of them, they have to be pumped three times a week.

            In January, your department, in a discussion paper, I guess, within your department, said that there were going to be two vaulted privies put in there for the summer. Summer came and went. In July, thankfully, there was another great community meeting, and I thank the department for doing that. But it just seems like every year, it’s being pushed.

            We talked a lot about it, but nothing’s happening. I would really like to have a commitment that we are going to see infrastructure in there that is going to protect the environment at Carter’s Beach.

            MR. RANKIN: I believe that a local MLA such as yourself needs to be part of that discussion. This was one of the earlier briefings that I had, within a couple of weeks after becoming the minister. I asked that whenever there is a community meeting, they reach out to you.

            This goes back to the whole balance of protecting land and ensuring that there are reasonable ways that we can accommodate use, whether it’s accessing a beach or other types of activity. Again, this has been identified for a nature reserve. What I would commit to is working with you to garner your views when we move forward. I think you really need to understand that if we move forward with a nature reserve, that may limit some of the activity that’s already occurring at the site.

            You mentioned human waste, and that is a big issue there. When I said that in the House, some of my colleagues thought that I misspoke and that it was just normal waste. But it was indeed. So there are policy changes that could happen, but Nova Scotia Environment isn’t in the practice of operating outhouse systems. We have committed that we would put outhouse systems in the infrastructure, but there would have to be co-operation with the municipal unit to operate those.

            We have made that commitment, and I know there is a meeting scheduled for November with the community liaison committee. I’m interested to see how that goes. I believe there probably is a solution. It’s not limited to Carter’s Beach. I have a protected area in my area where you want to get more infrastructure there but then you’re incenting more use. So if you want to build parking lots and have garbage cans and everything set up then that’s asking for even higher use, so then you have to balance that high use with human impacts to the whole reason why the land was potentially made for protection, which is protecting the ecology value, the biodiversity, and if there’s endangered species in the area and all those types of considerations so it’s certainly a challenge across the province but I’m more than willing to work with you to find the right balance.

            MS. MASLAND: Sadly in this case it’s social media that’s really incenting the use of the beach. So it’s really hard to - I don’t know how we’re going to get away from that so I do believe that it’s important that whatever infrastructure we need is there. I hope that will be done before next season.

            My next switch is on client-focused service delivery. What is the percentage of clients using the new online system for notification approval processing?

            MR. RANKIN: The online part of SNAP is not actually implemented yet so we don’t have that number because they haven’t been able to access that portal just yet.

            MS. MASLAND: Do you feel there are going to be barriers for some clients?

            MR. RANKIN: Well certainly the world is changing and more and more activity is occurring online so we are modernizing the approach by being able to allow those companies that have that access to be able to do that. We’ll develop a plan that will implement - we’ll implement it gradually and ensure that the private sector is educated on how that works. We’ll keep open to other opportunities if online doesn’t work for them, there will still always be another mechanism for them to engage in the process.

            MS. MASLAND: Very good. How is the evaluation of onsite and watercourse alteration programs going to support further the use of notification as a regulatory tool?

            MR. RANKIN: The watercourse alteration change has been a couple of years now and the onsite has been a year so we’re currently in the process of evaluating that change and making sure that we look at the cost-benefit analysis in terms of the next area that we’ll be making similar changes on.

            MS. MASLAND: It is our understanding that Energy is the lead department on coastal protection. What legislation do you plan to bring forward if the department is not the lead department? Am I correct in saying that?

            MR. RANKIN: It’s actually in our mandate letter that we received recently that we’ll be the lead on coastal protection. So we’ll be the lead but I’m sure Energy will be engaged in that process, as well as the Department of Natural Resources of course and probably Agriculture. We’re at the initial stages, just got the mandate letter recently. Of course there will be consultation taking place to ensure that we meet that commitment.

            MS. MASLAND: You may have already answered this so my apologies if you have, when will the second five-year review of EGSPA be completed?

            MR. RANKIN: We’re at the stage now where I’ve met with the round table, which is a great group across areas of industry and environmental groups. I’ve met with them and I’ve received a letter back from them at the end of August to look at their views, in terms of what the next phase means. There are a number of ways we can approach that but given the fact that we have brought cap and trade forward, which is a significant system for this legislative system, we wouldn’t be bringing anything else forward in this session that would address an amendment from EGSPA but that is an opportunity in future sessions that we could look at.

            In terms of where we are today, we’ve fulfilled 13 of the goals so we’ll be looking at finding where we’re at today, how we modernize and how we incorporate what other achievements were taking place like the cap and trade, like the Coastal Protection Act to ensure that we’re not getting into overlap in terms of what we’re achieving in other areas as well.

            We’ve met some of the goals. There are some outstanding. Some are going to be challenging to meet for various reasons, but in terms of our commitment to the goals that are actually in the Act and the whole principles behind it, we definitely see the value in that piece of legislation and moving forward with - how do we go from here, what are the modern new types of initiatives that other provinces and other countries are looking at. I’d be more than happy to hear the members’ thoughts on all sides of the House so that we can work together to improve the environment.

[4:00 p.m.]

            MS. MASLAND: What are the improvements in government’s efforts to advance the green economy?

            MR. RANKIN: Green economy - actually that came from a legislative perspective from the NDP Government in 2012, which emanated really from a review of EGSPA. There have been new, good initiatives in terms of the caps on different dioxins - sulphur dioxide, mercury and some of those types of things, which help to drive a cleaner growth strategy. We support those.

            We believe cap and trade also does that in terms of having an absolute cap on carbon emissions and trying to find the lowest cost reductions within the marketplace. So we see opportunities for companies.

One of the ones making national news is CarbonCure because they’re able to capture the carbon in the concrete industry. So I think there are a lot of other Nova Scotians and Nova Scotian companies stepping up. The green economy is really a reality now and it’s not just government that should be pushing for that, it’s citizens and businesses, and they actually reap the benefits when they show their corporate responsibility.

In terms of efficiency we can look at improving different ways that building standards are developed. We have partners like Nova Scotia Power that are looking to put in place electrical charging units for vehicles, which is becoming an evolving industry. Car manufacturing companies are responding correspondingly with increasing the volume of electric cars.

There are a whole wide spread of different things happening across the country and across the globe, and the world is shifting. It’s a green shift, and that’s why I believe cap and trade is a good system so that we become part of that discussion.

There is more work to do. We’re prepared to do it, but it’s not just government that should be moving in that direction - it’s the private sector and citizens.

MS. MASLAND: Does the department have a definition for high-volume hydraulic fracturing yet?

MR. RANKIN: That one actually is the Department of Energy. It’s within the regulations in the Department of Energy, but thanks for pointing that so I know.

MS. MASLAND: Just to wrap up my questions - back again on cap and trade because that seems to be the hot topic, especially for today. There are all kinds of people - Nova Scotia manufacturers are saying cap and trade is going to stunt our economy. There are people saying that businesses are not going to come to Nova Scotia. There are figures floating around - 9 cents more on a litre of home heating oil; another 7 cents on a litre of gas; another 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour on electricity bills.

Do you truly believe that Nova Scotians are not going to see these costs through cap and trade?

            MR. RANKIN: I think if you look at the evidence across the globe and the jurisdictions that have introduced a cap-and-trade system, that you see reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions simultaneous with economic growth. It is shifting the way that the growth is occurring and it’s cleaner growth but if you look at places like the European Union, over 30 countries have an emissions trading system.

If you look at the world’s largest emitter now - China - has co-piloted seven different cap-and-trade systems and are about to have a national cap-and-trade system in that massive economy, and you look at California, as a state they are the world’s sixth-largest economy and they are leading the country in economic growth in the United States. They are 12 per cent of the population there but they’ve achieved 25 per cent of the economic growth in the last year. If you look at two of our largest economies in Central Canada and Quebec and Ontario and they are seeing economic growth simultaneous with a hard cap that reduces the greenhouse gas emissions.

            I think if you look at the evidence, this price on carbon we’re supportive of when it works for Nova Scotians and recognizes the investment that has already been made. I think you can get both economic growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I think it has been proven and this is the best system, based on the benchmark that we are provided.

            MS. MASLAND: I’m now going to share my time with my colleague the member for Pictou West.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacFarlane, you have approximately 20 minutes.

            MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry if I repeat myself on anything that you may have mentioned in your opening remarks, I arrived late. The first thing I wanted to mention is I probably have over 20 email messages here right now extending thanks to you for your releasing the order today.

            People in Pictou just want transparency. As you mentioned earlier, we are evolving. We are in a green world now. Our children who are coming up are so much greener than us. As we transition to more knowledge-based industries from industrial industries that still have to exist, we still want them to exist, but at the same time we have to have understanding of what’s happening there, especially when there’s potential harm to our health because if you don’t have your health, you have nothing.

            I have, for the last four years, been trying to understand better what is happening at Northern Pulp and trying to educate myself. It’s hard work. There’s a lot of reading, there’s a lot of stuff I don’t understand and I, too, depend on the Department of Environment, as my constituents do. Right now what I’m trying to wrap my head around and trying to understand is how Northern Pulp has been fast-tracked to an environmental Level 1 assessment. I just need someone to help me understand how that can be.

            MR. RANKIN: I’ll just preface, I’ll answer that question, but I would commend the member for her work as well in bringing the Clean the Mill group in to meet with me. I believe that was the right way to approach the situation and ensure that I hear directly from the residents that it impacts.

            I believe, looking at the history and the advice from legal, that we’re at the juncture where a directive may not have been strong enough, given the range of options that we have before us. We’ve had four directives on that specific boiler, the power boiler, where there were exceedances. They’ve complied with the directives so they’ve shown that they’re willing to co-operate and we’ve seen improved compliance. It was my belief that an order was warranted, as well as - and this came directly from the Clean the Mill group, which I thought was a salient point, that they didn’t know what the testing results were. They had to find out through other means so the transparency piece is big for me.

            Community liaison committees do great work, but if they’re not able to get the information out to the wider community, I thought that that was an option for us, to try to instill some confidence in the community that the levels that are being achieved are actually there. This is a journey that has been going on for a long time that predates our government. We’re certainly always willing to look at the process in front of us, and try to improve the process itself.

            The goal really is to achieve greater compliance. I think that there is a value in industry in Nova Scotia, and if they are compliant, then they should be able to operate as they have been. But certainly there have been challenges at that mill. There’s really the air and the water.

            To address your actual question on the effluent water, for so many years, that water has been going adjacent into the First Nations community there. I think everyone can recognize that that has been a historical injustice in the Province of Nova Scotia. I am proud to be part of a government that has said no to that and has put in legislation that we would ensure that that would be cleaned up.

            Because of that, there is a requirement for a new effluent treatment facility. Northern Pulp is an existing industrial site, and they’re asking for a modification. We’re not talking about a new pulp and paper mill. We’re not talking about a new industrial site. We’re talking about a modification to that existing pulp and paper mill. In the regulations, a modification to that undertaking fits within the Class 1 environmental assessment.

            Again, as I said in the House, that still leaves a wide range of options for the minister to ask for more time, and I have done that. I have exercised my rights as minister in the past to ask for more information or even actually to suspend the environmental process, which I have done when there was non-compliance with an operator. I take those decisions very seriously, so when the evidence is brought to my attention, I have that range of options. I understand we have more flexibility with a Class 1 than a Class 2. I will be asking for more information if I think I need more information.

            There is work ongoing continuously now. It’s not like the process starts on the day that they register for the environmental assessment. That’s when the 30-day period is triggered for information coming into the department. I believe 30 days is sufficient time for the public to provide information for me to go through. I go through every piece of information through the public submission phase. Leading up to that time, I’ll be learning more, as I said in the meeting when you brought the Clean the Mill group in, about understanding the science behind what effluent treatment water looks like and the impacts on the surrounding communities, the different thresholds for different parameters. That is going to happen in the permit. Some of it is at the environmental assessment level, and then some of the micro-details would be at the industrial approval level.

            I have met with staff who take this very seriously in the Pictou area, and they know what those impacts are. Again, it’s not a decision that I would take lightly. I believe that the environmental assessment process in Nova Scotia is a rigorous process for companies to go through.

            That’s the reason why some companies try to avoid environmental assessment. If they’re building something, and they’re under the threshold, they don’t want to have to go through the environmental assessment process.

            But there is a full range of analysis that takes place, and we get information from our federal partners. We will look at all the evidence and ensure that we do have an opportunity to get to a better place in a more modernized system for effluent that’s leaving the pulp mill there.

[4:15 p.m.]

            MS. MACFARLANE: I thank the minister for his answers. I guess for me living in Pictou County and realizing that I have to drive 10 miles from the current Boat Harbour facility, which is going to be cleaned up by 2020, thanks to your government - that’s fabulous. However, the new facility - and everyone calls it a new facility, it’s not a modification, it’s a brand new facility that is being built elsewhere - but what I will put trust and faith in is that if you are articulating that the environmental assessment Class 1 will actually bring you more options and more flexibility than the Class 2 assessment, I will relay that back to my constituents and to those who are concerned that, you know, 110 days under Class 2 assessment is actually not as great as 30 days and what we can achieve or what the minister can achieve.

            I guess what I want to say is in that we are aware that you can name or appoint a panel to oversee some of this 30-day assessment, I think that’s a fabulous option, I really hope that you will perhaps take that option. But with regard to that, can you explain to me what will be the process in appointing people? How will we ensure the public that there will be people sitting on there who are unbiased. With explaining that process, can you also let me know if perhaps, in all fairness, if we would have someone maybe - not necessarily from the group that you met the other day - would they be able to recommend or appoint someone who could sit on that panel as well?

            MR. RANKIN: At this juncture it is deemed a Class 1, which does not include that panel. We do have options to ask for more info and I also have the option to ask for a more fulsome environmental assessment, which would be a longer period of time, if we think that’s appropriate. It’s premature to say that we would need to go down that path.

            It is a new effluent treatment facility but it’s based on a change to the operation of an existing pulp mill. They are not building a new pulp mill, they are changing the way they operate an effluent and they are building a new pipe and they’re actually improving the mechanisms of how that water is being treated when it leaves the mill.

            I have confidence - in my short term in Environment - in the technical overall expertise and I believe it’s incumbent on us, as government, to treat all operators equally. This would be the same decision, whether it’s Northern Pulp or any other pulp mill or any other industrial activity, they need to be treated the same way. That’s what we’re prepared to do at this time, move forward. It is a rigorous process, the environmental assessment, so there will be a lot of options on the table for me and I will choose the most appropriate option, as the evidence and information comes onto my desk.

            MS. MACFARLANE: So with this process are we able to confirm to the public, though, that there will be public consultations, public meetings for them to attend?

            MR. RANKIN: It’s not a requirement for public consultation. That might be a misconception for some when they look at environmental assessment, there’s 30 days for public submissions. I’ve gone out of my way to go to Pictou Landing twice and to meet with the Clean the Mill group so I do have some background information leading into this.

            The company can choose to meet with groups, and I understand they have. All that activity informs the application when it comes in but it’s not a requirement to have two-way public consultation for the environmental assessment.

            MS. MACFARLANE: So for clarity, I will be able to go back to Pictou and tell everyone that there will be no face-to-face public meetings with regard to the environmental assessment Class 1. So with that, there will be grave concerns that people have not been heard but I will definitely recommend to everyone to send in their written submissions. I always find that a little harder, people just don’t seem to take the time.

            Do you have the authority, however, to hold a public meeting if your department felt that was necessary?

            MR. RANKIN: There are broad opportunities for the minister to choose something along those lines if the minister believed it was warranted. That would be going down the lines of saying there is not enough information here, I require a more fulsome process so that technically is something we could look at.

            The challenge again is I think that we need to stay focused on what the science and evidence is - not the fact which company it is, and we need to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process for both the proponent and the community.

            MS. MACFARLANE: Perhaps maybe we could though - I know that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has agreed to come to Pictou to meet with the fishers with regard to the potential effluent pipe that will be going out into Northumberland Strait. Would you perhaps consider coming with him to that meeting?

            MR. RANKIN: As long as it is before the registration of the environmental assessment, because it’s not appropriate for the minister to go out and meet with stakeholders during that process, but if it’s before that registration then I would commit to that.

            MS. MACFARLANE: Thank you, I appreciate that. I understand it can only happen before Northern Pulp actually registers the 30-day project submission.

            With regard to emissions, we know that a lot of people in the Town of Pictou have been complaining about the recent emissions. We realize that the power boiler is probably the cause of a lot of this because there is no doubt with the new precipitator it definitely has improved over the years. With any industry you’re going to have bad days, let’s just face it. There are going to be some days that things aren’t going to run perfectly 100 per cent all the time, but there were a lot of bad days this summer. Not like the summer of 2013, that’s for sure, but definitely a lot of bad days.

            Is there any flexibility or leverage within your department or within the EIA that we can ensure that there would be more ambient air quality machines put in the Town of Pictou?

            MR. RANKIN: I actually asked this after you brought this to my attention. I understand that there actually is an ambient air in an appropriate place near the mill, and then there is one in Pictou Landing. That was deemed based on the federal guidelines of where to actually site the ambient air measurement mechanism.

            The expert advice that I’ve been given is that they are in the appropriate place and I’ve seen the graph, and the emissions went significantly lower since the precipitator, as you noted, has been installed. So there has been progress. The power boiler has had its challenges, and that’s the reason why we’ve taken enforcement action today. I believed it was the right thing to do. I believe we can try to achieve better transparency, which would be a good incentive for the mill to comply. They have complied with four directives on this particular piece at the power boiler. Hopefully this continues that transition into better air emission quality from the mill.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I hope that I’ll be able to return after my colleague from the NDP goes, but just to give you a quick analogy. The other day my daughter’s friend attending university at St. F.X. sadly crossed the street - shouldn’t have, jaywalked, got a $400 fine. We realize that if the bill that we passed here in the Legislature goes through, you jaywalk in Halifax it will be $750. I’m just wondering - do you feel that the penalties for air pollution are severe enough?

            MR. RANKIN: The one thing to consider on that is that those fines are the same whether you’re a company or you’re a person. I would commit to looking at and reviewing those fines.

            The next piece of enforcement has to do with long form prosecution. That’s where in the Act, you can give a fine up to $1 million. That’s based on the court system. The judge can decide, and we don’t have the ability to say what we believe the fine should be. This fine was based on a level that takes into account the historical performance of the mill . . .

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Time has expired for the Progressive Conservatives. We will now have the NDP. Ms. Zann, you have one hour.

            MS. LENORE ZANN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, all. First of all, I would like to talk about and ask you about compliance and enforcement officers. On July 1, 2015, conservation officers from Natural Resources and inspectors from Health and Wellness, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Agriculture were consolidated into the Environment Department. At the time, people were concerned that this was the first step towards creating general enforcement officers. Could you please comment on whether this has been the case?

            MR. RANKIN: Sorry. Can you repeat that?

            MS. ZANN: I know you weren’t the minister at the time, but in 2015, conservation officers from Natural Resources and inspectors from Health and Wellness, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Agriculture were consolidated into the Environment Department. At the time, people were concerned that this was the first step towards creating general enforcement officers. Could you please comment now, two years later, on whether this has actually been the case?

            MR. RANKIN: The direct answer would be no. They are still specialized in each of their competencies. We have public health officers who concentrate on that. We have conservation officers who concentrate on enforcing ATVs and all the other parts of the Act that they were responsible for. I will say that because now they’re under one department, they have more opportunities to work together because sometimes files overlap.

            I mentioned in my opening remarks that we have trained conservation officers in enforcement of aquaculture and those types of endeavours. That actually led to an opportunity to justify a full-time position for conservation officers. Some of them were considered seasonal for various reasons, one of them being that there frankly isn’t the volume of activity for a conservation officer in the winter months. We were actually able to achieve, I believe, a good scenario whereby the extensions of roles and responsibilities for that position in particular has justified a full-time position for those individuals.

            The economies of scale have worked in that regard. But also, it is important, as I think you’re intimating, that those who have those specialized skills can remain practising what they do best.

            MS. ZANN: People were also concerned at the time that the changes in 2015 would result in job losses. Last year, your department budgeted for 252.9 enforcement officers but only funded 217.5. That’s 35.4 less staff than you had budgeted for. Can you explain why this is the case?

            MR. RANKIN: Vacancies take time to fill. That is just a reality of those corresponding numbers. The actual amount of FTEs is always, as I understand, less than the amount budgeted for, because of the rotation in vacancies.

            MS. ZANN: Could you please give me a rough estimate of how much the department saved by not funding those 35.4 positions?

            MR. RANKIN: According to my expert advice, $2 million.

            MS. ZANN: So $2 million was saved by not funding those. This year you are budgeting for 232.8 full-time positions in Inspection, Compliance and Enforcement, which is roughly 20 less staff than you budgeted for last year, so could you explain why?

            MR. RANKIN: This is not an easy answer. Once we made the transformation in terms of where compliance was held, the staff were all moved into the ICE Division - Inspection, Compliance, Enforcement. Then they subsequently had to be moved in the following budget year to where they’re actually appropriately having to work out of, which is the SAS Division - Sustainability and Applied Science - as well as Policy. So there are a total of 19 FTEs from the ICE Division, 14 of them went to Sustainability and Applied Science and five of them went to Policy. The reason was there are two different computer systems that were tracking where these individuals had to go and that’s an accounting exercise to figure out exactly where they would end up.

            MS. ZANN: So you are telling me that although this year you are budgeting for 232.8 FTEs in Inspection, Compliance and Enforcement, which shows that it’s less staff by 20 than you budgeted for last year, what is happening with those 20 that are missing?

            MR. RANKIN: Those are the numbers I referenced, because they are not inspectors so they weren’t supposed to be in ICE. Some of them were program or policy people so those numbers don’t reflect that they moved to a different division.

            Just to get to the point there because they’ve moved divisions, if you look at the overall macro level of FTEs, they are virtually the same. So 2016-17 was 354.8 FTEs and 2017-18 was 355, so it was just a change of the appropriate department that they were in.

            MS. ZANN: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. When asked about your decision to allow the burning of tires, you’ve consistently argued that you simply based your decision on scientific evidence. Could you elaborate on what scientific evidence you reviewed and if your review only looked at the narrow scope of the greenhouse gas emissions.

            MR. RANKIN: In the application there was a study done by Dr. Gibson and the engineering team at Dalhousie from 2015 that had lab results that reflected reductions in major gas emissions, namely carbon and nitrogen. But if you look at that and you also include the expert review from our staff in Environment and in Public Health and you look at the way that that practice has been operating in similar jurisdictions which have the same or comparable air emission standards, we expect that the lab results will correspond with the reality in practice as they have in other jurisdictions. We’re taking a cautious approach by allowing a pilot project through the environmental assessment period and then they will need to have industrial approval for that pilot project.

            There’s more confidence in that because of the monitoring that will take place at the cement kiln but through our research and looking at jurisdictions such as Quebec or B.C., you do see reductions and you see the standards of air quality well below what is acceptable. That’s why I say we have to look clearly and consider the science and expert review and just base our decision on that and not emotion. When I say “emotion” I mean if we don’t like the sound of something, if we don’t like the optics of the way something may appear - burning tires, it’s not burning tires on a beach. This is a controlled environment which has been proven in practice in Quebec and B.C. and these are known as being fairly progressive jurisdictions. California is known as being probably the most progressive jurisdiction in the United States, along with New York and Pennsylvania, where there are cement kilns used as technology. So five provinces actually in Canada, that’s where their tires go, if they don’t have the cement kiln in their province they export it. Our sister province New Brunswick exports to Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador exports to Quebec. It’s called tire-derived fuel.

            The important piece to that, as I mentioned, is that the operational practices in terms of the tire, the amount of time that it goes into the kiln, which they call residency time, is appropriate as well as the temperature of the kiln itself because it’s not burning on the beach. They are turned into fuel and they have a high caloric value that helps the company use that, as opposed to coal, which as we all know is a high-carbon fossil fuel that has high mercury value and high sulphur value.

            In the balance of considerations, some criticisms could say, why don’t you use a clean source of technology but as a regulator, and I know that sometimes you don’t like to hear that but that is indeed our role when we look at applications is to look at the evidence in that application and there is no option A, B, C or D, it’s an approval.

            MS. ZANN: Thank you very much, I appreciate that answer.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the minister has a right to finish . . .

            MS. ZANN: Actually he answered the question already. Thank you.

            You said you reviewed the Dalhousie study, now at the recent press conference here at the Legislature opposing tire burning, two representatives from the Ecology Action Centre noted there were at least 21 studies indicating increased highly toxic pollutants associated with tire burning. Are you familiar with these studies? Were they part of the review? If not, why not?

            MR. RANKIN : If the Ecology Centre felt seriously that they should have been part of that review then they could have supplied that during the public submissions. I did read their review, which I took very seriously. They mentioned the substance that you are referring to, which is dioxins and furans, so nanoparticles. That’s why I insist on a rigorous process and at the staff level when they look at the industrial approval to ensure that we are looking at best practices. Staff has since engaged with other jurisdictions to ensure that we do have good operational parameters at the cement kiln to avoid what they call upsets. That’s where you can see that there could be challenges with the nanoparticles.

            We believe that by looking at the monitoring - and this is minute-by-minute monitoring, it’s not just every couple of weeks or every month or so, we will know exactly what’s happening at that kiln over the span of that one-year pilot project overall. There are benefits from using tires and the analyses that I’ve read - sure, you’ll be able to find people that are pro and against like any other industrial application, but the overall analysis that I’ve been privy to has shown that probably the best use of tires in terms of a circular economy or trying to benefit from a high value product is when they’re turned into a crumb rubber. That would be your most beneficial application.

            Ontario is able to do that because they have the volume that satisfies that product. You’re looking at 2 million-plus tires to be able to achieve the right economies of scale to provide that type of product to the marketplace, but directly after, that tire-derived fuel becomes one of the most environmental beneficial applications for scrap tires. So we’re prepared to see what the outcome is of that pilot study to see if it aligns properly with the lab testing that has been undertaken independently and ensure that we see those results in the application.

            MS. ZANN: Did you say you actually reviewed particulate matter risks?

            MR. RANKIN: I reviewed all the information that was submitted and then I’ve done my own review. I’ve looked up various applications and talked to people I know from industry, and learned more about how tires are being managed in other provinces?

            MS. ZANN: So it didn’t bother you at all - you’re not concerned at all about the particulate matter and that it may, in fact, cause health damage for the people living in the area?

            MR. RANKIN: As I said, in the overall balance, emissions go down. It’s serious in terms of what health outcomes can be impacted when we burn coal. Coal has a high amount of things like mercury and sulphur. Those are some contaminants that I believe have a huge impact on health and safety. Again, if there is evidence suggesting that if you have a certain percentage of scrap material, and you take coal out of the equation, that it actually would have an overall beneficial outcome in terms of emissions, then I don’t see any justification for not proceeding with a pilot project where you can verify that.

            MS. ZANN: What about coupling interactions though with the various chemicals that make up tires? Fuel coupling interactions - was this considered and included as part of your review? If not, why not?

            MR. RANKIN: I would look at the overall outcome of what the tire is because tires are all different, but so are all different pieces of coal. So in the balance of all considerations, if they show in a lab test that’s independent that there are reductions in the most major types of gases, which carbon is identified as being one of the most major, which is why this discussion on pricing carbon all over the world is happening, then we believe that it’s incumbent on us to approve an application that shows that kind of evidence.

We’ve also had the medical officer of health contribute to the review, which is another bit of information that we take seriously. If that expert review and advice has said that there aren’t any adverse impacts that he believes that would happen then that should be considered as well. This is the same that we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, that if it’s within air quality standards, then we believe that it’s our duty to approve the application.

MS. ZANN: You also have to do an industrial approval. Is that coming from your department as well?

MR. RANKIN: It is. It would be a staff level approval, but I have asked to be engaged in the discussion.

MS. ZANN: When will that decision be made?

[4:45 p.m.]

            MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind people that this is an extension of the main Chamber and truly we’re supposed to be questions and answers and not conversations. Thank you.

            MR. RANKIN: My apologies. The industrial approval has not been applied for yet so until that happens, I can’t speculate on when our staff would be able to grant the approval.

            MS. ZANN: Some people are concerned that the five-year project is already a done deal, that it’s going to be going on and that the company has said they are going to be spending $2 million to get the 52-year old plant ready for a one-year pilot project but Lafarge is confident that it’s going to turn into a permanent arrangement.

            First of all, I’d like to know what are they spending $2 million on to bring up to speed and into the 21^st century the 52-year old plant? Also, how would you respond to people like Mark Butler of the Ecology Action Centre and others who believe that the permanent arrangement is a done deal, that this is just phase one and not a pilot?

            MR. RANKIN: What I would say, Mr. Chairman, through you is that it is certainly not a done deal. I think it reflects that if they’re willing to spend this kind of scale of investment that they are confident that the numbers presented in the lab testing and the scientific assessment will align with what will happen at their cement kiln relative to exactly what they are doing, is they are accommodating the actual tire being able to be used to go into the cement kiln as the whole tire.

It is a big investment, I’m certain they have calculations to figure out when their payback period would be to justify what their bid was on the request for proposal which, by the way, was awarded by Divert NS, not the Department of Environment but Divert NS, which manages the tire management program, as well as the bottle deposits, which I’m sure you know the intention behind this option was to help diversify the tire management program so that we don’t have challenges that have been presented in the past, in terms of where tires end up going. The whole reason why tire-derived aggregate became an option is because the stockpiling of tires was an outcome that we were trying to mitigate against.

            I’m sure the member could appreciate that when you have one sole entity dealing with tires that there are risks associated with having only one user of the tire management program, so I could see the impetus behind a tender going out. That was their decision made before I was in the department, an application came to my desk and I took the time that I felt I needed to, to be comfortable with the approval. Because it was a pilot project and I was interested and am interested in what those results will be, I believe it was the right decision. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

            MS. ZANN: So you would say this isn’t a foregone conclusion then. I still don’t understand why they would be spending a couple of million dollars if they are not sure that it is going to be going ahead for longer than a one-year pilot project. Is there perhaps anybody working for Lafarge who is close with government, who has been in talks with government behind closed doors, who might have come up with some kind of deal that we’re not aware of?

            MR. RANKIN: Again, I believe that they are probably confident in their application. The one-year pilot project will either show that they are right or they are wrong. To my knowledge there haven’t been any discussions with Lafarge. I certainly haven’t discussed anything with them, as the minister. In fact the company that is most opposed to this application is a company in my riding and provides employment to people in my riding, C&D Recycling. There has been no lobbying. It’s an application that provides an independent study from a leading university in our province. I believe that if the company wanted to take a risk for a multi-million dollar investment, they probably believe in the merits of it.

            That’s not a consideration that I would undertake as the Minister of Environment. My sole consideration is what’s in the application from a scientific viewpoint. In terms of what they believe their chances of success are, that would be a question best posed to the proponent.

            MS. ZANN: Has anybody been working for the Liberal Party who has worked for Lafarge as well?

            MR. RANKIN: Not to my knowledge, no.

            MS. ZANN: So nobody has been working for the Party in any of the elections or anything like that who has direct connections to Lafarge?

            MR. RANKIN: I will say very clearly, I am not aware of any connection with Lafarge in the Liberal Party.

            MS. ZANN: Divert NS’s primary goal is to divert waste from landfill in a sustainable manner, balancing both the environment and the economy. Tire-derived fuel is used in several provinces, as we know, and five provinces send all or part of their used tires to TDF.

            But in this case, the company that takes the tires and turns them into the aggregate says - Mr. Chassie says that this private company, Lafarge, will now be getting paid money to burn a fuel whereas every other business in this province has to pay money for a fuel. So we’re actually looking at a huge subsidy for this private company. That subsidy, paid for by the consumer, through the $4.50 per tire fee when buying a new tire, will amount to about $315,000 per year for Lafarge, and that’s in addition to the money that the company will save by replacing some of the coal that it has to purchase for its kiln fuel. Does that concern you in any way, that you’re going to be subsidizing a large, private corporation?

            MR. RANKIN: The fact is that is no more a subsidy than the dollars paid to the current proponent, which has a monopoly, and that is the gentleman that you referenced in the quote. We pay over $200 a ton for tires to go to that company to help his business generate revenue.

            Lafarge, because this is a competitive tender, bid a value that they thought was appropriate. Again, the endeavour was to diversify the tire management program so that we’re not ever in a scenario where we have an instance where there’s tires being stockpiled.

            Up until the tender was put out to market, there have been significantly more tires left on the current C&D site. Their own land was being used for those tires. After the tender was awarded, you could see markets being found by that entity. That competitive pressure has shown that there is actually action on behalf of the gentleman who does use the tire-derived aggregate.

            So no, I’m not concerned about paying a lower price to another person who can deal with tires and divert them from the landfills. It’s consistent with other jurisdictions that charge to take tires. It is incumbent on government to do something with tires.

            The goal of Divert NS is to keep them from the landfill. Their portfolio in this system is more diversified. If this system of tire-derived fuel works at the cement kiln, which again, it’s a pilot study so we’ll be monitoring to make sure that it does from an environmental perspective and if it doesn’t then it won’t proceed to the next stage after that one-year pilot study. There are public funds already being given to one company to deal with tires, so this is not a subsidy unless you consider what we give currently to C&D Recycling as a subsidy.

            MS. ZANN: So you’re not concerned that you’re giving a huge subsidy to this multi-million dollar company, Lafarge, then?

            MR. RANKIN: I believe I answered that question. The company that currently receives tires receives significantly more per ton to operate his site. The province collects funding and we have to manage a program and find ways to safely dispose of tires or find ways that we can ensure that the best interests of Nova Scotians are looked after. Same with the bottle deposits that we charge, and for the overall sustainability of the program, Divert NS understandably wants to ensure that all options are on the table, and as a regulator we will ensure that if those options are moved on, through an RFP or otherwise, that there is a permitting process - so that has gone through the environmental assessment.

            MS. ZANN: Again, I would like to point out that that subsidy, which is being paid for by the consumer through the $4.50 per tire fee when buying a new tire will amount to about $315,000 a year for Lafarge. That’s in addition to the money the company is going to save from replacing the coal that it has to purchase for kiln fuel.

            So until this Spring, all the tires in the province were being sent to Halifax C&D Recycling, which I believe is a Nova Scotian company, for shredding and use as aggregate in construction projects, but now 30 per cent of the approximately 1 million tires a year will go to Lafarge. That means when you pay the $4.50 environmental handling fee that’s added to the cost of each new tire that would be $13.50 for a tire that’s between 7 and 24.5 inches, then that money is used to fund the diversion program, meaning that C&D and Lafarge are being paid for taking and processing the tires, but since Lafarge is being paid half of what C&D is getting, there are a lot of people who are complaining.

            I’ve received a lot of phone calls, emails, Facebook messages saying that they don’t feel like paying that $4.50 anymore if it’s going to go towards subsidizing the fuel costs of one of the largest multi-corporations in the world. For instance, Mark Butler, again, the Policy Director of Ecology Action Centre - and others have said, it’s better to recycle than have fuel recovery. That’s what this government should be prioritizing.

            Was your decision simply a financial decision that it’s just going to cost you half to send them over to this place that’s going to burn them up rather than recycle them and turn them into aggregate?

[5:00 p.m.]

            MR. RANKIN: To clarify the process, Divert NS, which has an independent board, they chose the policy decision in a competitive RFP that any company could bid on if they had any mechanism to deal with used tires. My role as Minister of Environment is not to consider any economics of whether the funding goes to a company - if it’s a large company or a small company - I look strictly at that application and the expert review that happens with our own Department of Environment and any of the public submissions, which Mr. Butler has had the opportunity to provide a public submission.

            So again, the dollar figure that you reference for Lafarge is significantly lower. That’s probably why they were able to be entertained in a combination RFP that went out that allows them to take in 30 per cent of the tires.

            Our objective, as Department of Environment, is to ensure that the application has sufficient merit to proceed, based on the air emission guidelines that we have in the Province of Nova Scotia. You see in other provinces where the proponent, C&D has entered into Newfoundland and Labrador. They are bringing machinery over there to deal with a proportion of the used tires that Newfoundland has. When their officials in that government were asked, if this is successful would you look at using all of your tires, 100 per cent of your tires and they said no. They are going to basically do a similar model - in different percentages - but a similar model to us, where part of it goes into the tire-derived aggregate and then part of it goes to tire-derived fuel, by way of export to Quebec so they have seen value in opening up the competition within the market and not relying on one place to put tires.

            I do value what the Ecology Action Centre and other groups have said but I do think my role is clear in not listening to what dollar figures are at play but only the science that is provided there in the application and the application as it works around the world.

            MS. ZANN: Well a few things stand out there. First of all, you mentioned originally that there was nothing wrong with sending tires to this private company that is now going to save money from this, the government is going to save money from this yet you don’t pay attention to who saves money, that has nothing to do with you.

            I would suggest that the Department of Environment, the bottom line really should be what is best for the environment, what is best for the air, what is best for the water, what is best for the people who live in the area who are going to be affected by this.

            Many people have spoken out against this, in fact there has been outrage in the last number of months. Did you consult with community members? If not, why not?

            MR. RANKIN: In the environmental assessment, that’s what the 30-day period is for, so that it’s an organized volume of submissions that clearly lay out the opinions of, whether it be an NGO or whether it be individuals that live around the community or any other person who feels they want the minister to take into consideration any information on the application.

            Again, I want to ensure the member realizes that the policy decision was made at the Divert NS level and that’s where community members could have lobbied, if they had a challenge against the actual policy shift, they could have gone that route. The application itself is analyzing whether or not the impact to the environment could be mitigated with terms and conditions.

            We do have strict terms and conditions on the environmental assessment side and I expect there to be strict terms and conditions on the actual industrial approval as well, to ensure that it works. We have been engaged in talking with other jurisdictions and seeing how the tires, in terms of the application, and in cement kilns specifically, what outcomes they are seeing in terms of the percentage of tires that are used and the volume and the temperature and the kiln itself.

There are a lot of things to consider, in terms of both permits and the environmental assessment industrial approval but the economics were compelling for Divert NS to act through an open RFP. We made the decision that just like provinces such as Quebec and B.C. have, that it is safe, but we’re going above and beyond by saying it’s a pilot project and there will be a monitoring system that will be watching very closely.

            MS. ZANN: Who did you actually consult with when you were trying to decide whether or not to accept this application?

            MR. RANKIN: I looked at all the information through the public submissions. There’s no requirement for me to go and talk to people who have a vested stake in the process. Indeed that’s why ministers, after a project is registered for environmental assessment, do not do that. There is an opportunity for the public and NGOs to provide all the public submissions that they want, and I have read all of them. I made a choice that I believe was in the best interests of Nova Scotians based on that scientific evidence.

            MS. ZANN: Was this decision already made before you became the new minister?

            MR. RANKIN: The decision was not made. The decision was made when I signed on that environmental assessment, which I believe was about a month after I was sworn in - I believe around that time.

            MS. ZANN: So you weren’t advised by your department, then, to sign on the dotted line?

            MR. RANKIN: The process, from an internal viewpoint, is that the policy team brings forward what they believe is the decision based on the evidence. They will give a recommendation. Then I look at the evidence that they point to and then also look at the public submissions and really look at everything holistically to ensure that the right decision is made. So yes, the staff do make recommendations during that process.

            MS. ZANN: I’m sorry. Could you just repeat that? It was hard to hear.

            MR. RANKIN: The Nova Scotia Environment staff do make recommendations during the process for an environmental assessment.

            MS. ZANN: So they had already made recommendations which you then read and took under advisement when you made your decision.

            MR. RANKIN: Yes.

            MS. ZANN: Your colleague Mr. Keith Colwell, who is sitting across the table, had introduced a bill which was passed. It was amendments to the Environment Act which banned the burning of tires in Nova Scotia.

            Lydia Sorflaten actually helped to work on that with Mr. Keith Colwell, advising. She lives right there around Shortts Lake, and many in the Shortts Lake community are suddenly now very concerned that that bill was never proclaimed. They said, we worked as citizens to get this law in place, so how can it be disregarded now? Where is the democracy here? That is a quote from Lydia Sorflaten.

            A spokesperson for the Environment Department said that the Environment Act doesn’t need to be amended to allow tires to be burned, that if Lafarge is granted the industrial approval, which is the last step before the project can begin, that will serve as the permit.

            Is there any particular reason why you don’t want to support your colleague’s bill now?

            MR. RANKIN: As the member knows, I wasn’t in the Legislature when that bill was brought forward . . .

            MS. ZANN: No, but you are now.

            MR. RANKIN: There are political statements on the left and the right all the time that aren’t part of the evidence in any application. I take my role very seriously as someone who looks at applications. I think that in this case, the evidence was compelling. Certainly in other jurisdictions, other Environment Ministers have felt the same. The extra caution in this application is that it is a pilot project over a year that will have minute-by-minute monitoring. As you said, that particular bill wasn’t proclaimed, so there was no conflict in legislation in the Province of Nova Scotia for the decision that was made at the department level. Again, I make my decision based on the evidence, not on politics.

            MS. ZANN: I have one last question regarding Lafarge. As I understand it, Lafarge made a similar proposal in Ontario which was rejected. What’s different about the situation here in Nova Scotia?

            MR. RANKIN: I would say from what I read, there were certainly some political pressures in Ontario, although I’m not privy to what was provided in that application, so I can’t do a full juxtaposition on what that minister would have had in front of him and what I had in front of me at the time. Some provinces chose, for reasons that only they would be able to convey more appropriately than I would, whether they felt it was within the guidelines of the province that their jurisdiction is in.

            If you look at places like California, New York, Pennsylvania - and in Europe this is a pretty common practice for tires. They have pretty strict environmental standards from an air perspective and from a disposal perspective.

            I do believe that tire-derived fuel, when it’s operated in a way that looks at the cement industry itself and ensuring that the residency time the tire is in the kiln and the temperature that is in the kiln, there are a lot of details that go into that - the quality of the precipitator itself. Those are the things that need to be in place to give confidence.

            I take what the member says about community members being concerned and I would just remind them that it is a pilot study and that there will be coal removed at the proportionate percentage in terms of what the tires are going in. It’s serious, 30 per cent reduction in carbon I believe is significant, and if you can reduce coal then why not have a look at the pilot study and see what comes from that.

            MS. ZANN: I would say the people who live there who are going to be breathing this in would not feel that this is just a little study and that one year is going to actually make a huge difference in their lives and in their lungs and in their children’s lungs who are going out there trying to have fun playing, on the lake, swimming, walking, everything else.

            One of my friends who lives out there said the last time they burned tires they came out on a winter’s day and everything was black. So apparently, that’s what helped end it that time.

            Another issue where residents feel that they’re not being heard is on the issue of quarries. Quarries seem to be a large problem here in Nova Scotia. Again, the Ecology Action Centre folks feel that things like burning tires mean that we’re actually not going to be able to use them for tire-derived aggregate, which means that we’re actually going to have to mine more aggregate, which also pushes up the greenhouse emissions and creates more quarries.

            The people that I’ve been talking to recently - and they’re all over the province - in particular lately it was the Little Dyke folks whose quarry has gone from 3.9 hectares - and you approved it, I think, the second day you were in office - to being a 75-acre quarry right beside their pristine Little Dyke lake on a watershed area, and there is going to be a lot of noise and dust. A lot of these people have moved there to try to get away from noise and to be out in the beautiful nature. There are 11 species at risk there in that area and one endangered species. So they are very upset that you have already approved this quarry to enlarge.

            Could you tell me how many quarry applications you’ve received for quarries 3.9 hectares and under since 2014 - you and your predecessors - and could you please provide a breakdown of how many of those applications have been accepted or rejected?

            MR. RANKIN: For the purposes of Budget Estimates we didn’t come with a tally of approvals for quarries since 2014, but we can certainly get that information back to the member. I will correct the member in terms of the timing of when I made an approval for the Osco quarry which she is referring to. It was, in fact, not within a couple of days of taking office. I actually insisted on - I suspended the environmental assessment process when that file came to my desk because it was brought to my attention that there were a couple of compliance orders that needed to be looked after.

[5:15 p.m.]

            So the good staff at Department of Environment found that it was well within my authority in the Environment Act to suspend that. It hasn’t happened in recent memory where a minister has done that but I felt that in order to give confidence to the community surrounding the quarry that the company ought to comply before I even considered the application.

            Subsequent to that - it was probably a month later - it came to my desk and I looked thoroughly through all the public submissions and deemed that it was appropriate to proceed with terms and conditions that mitigate anything, any adverse impact to the environment. But in terms of quarries generally, I do believe there are, in terms of risk level and I spoke to this to a prior question, it doesn’t necessarily align with what the perception of the risk is in some of these communities, when you compare it to other industrial applications, the outcome of dust and even blasting within the concentrated area can be mitigated with good operational practices and, in fact, can be quite benign to the community, in terms of the impacts and the overall air quality.

            Again, I take it seriously whenever I have an application. There have been a few since I became the minister. For that specific quarry I did suspend the process and then it came back to me and there were sufficient grounds to approve the expansion. The member for that area has brought that to my attention, the now Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. She has met with the Little Dyke community in the past and actually brought the proponent into one of the homes of the individual who lives around the community to hear the concerns. That member brought it to my attention and I’ve looked through all the evidence and it was more than warranted to proceed with the approval at that juncture.

            MS. ZANN: So you are saying that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, who is the MLA for that area, feels there’s no problems there whatsoever in enlarging this quarry to 75 acres?

            MR. RANKIN: The MLA did a good job in bringing the concerns forward from the community. She met with them before I became minister. She is a very astute MLA and understands processes. She just wanted to make sure that the process was followed and that all the considerations were taken into account and that’s what happened.

            MS. ZANN: So the MLA didn’t request you or the previous Environment Minister to halt and to not allow this to go through then?

            MR. RANKIN: No, Mr. Chairman.

            MS. ZANN: Okay, thank you. Were you aware that there are 11 species at risk in that very area that’s going to be expanded and also one endangered species?

            MR. RANKIN: I’d have to go back and look in my files. I have a number of files that come forward for different quarries so I don’t want to speculate in terms of accepting that specific number. There are endangered species across the province and it doesn’t surprise me with a land mass that large that there would be some but we always request - I do remember we did request a bird migratory pattern study be undertaken there. I could certainly get back to you and look at that list and if you have concerns about a specific species, that there’s not an appropriate plan put in place, then we can take that into consideration.

            MS. ZANN: Thank you, I appreciate that. Do you take that into consideration, any kind of endangered species or species at risk when these quarry applications cross your desk?

            MR. RANKIN: We certainly do and that’s the value of having a Department of Natural Resources provide their expert review of any environmental assessment which they did and they would identify species that were at risk. I could use as an example the proposed Highway No. 107 by Burnside where it was brought to my attention that the whitefish could be still in Anderson Lake there, so they are asking for a certain setback, if that was the case. We didn’t have baseline information that I was comfortable with from our own department, Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.

            I think on balance, you’ll see, if you look carefully at the decisions that the department has made, it’s a rigorous process. It does consider the expert review from the Department of Health and Wellness, the Department of Natural Resources, outside expert advice, and all of the public submissions that come through.

MS. ZANN: Can you explain the difference between quarries under and over 3.9 hectares when it comes to having to get an environmental assessment?

            MR. RANKIN: I guess the answer is kind of in your question. It’s the size, the footprint of where the quarry activity is taking place, which is actually four hectares. Anything below four hectares, which I think she’s getting to, so it could be 3.99 hectares, would not trigger an environmental assessment. It would still need an industrial approval. It’s the size.

            There are varying ways to deal with that in other jurisdictions. There has been some time that has passed since this particular policy has been in place. I am learning more about how those other jurisdictions operate and look through their approvals. It could be a volume-based system in terms of how much aggregate they’re pulling away or a combination thereof.

            Certainly the environmental assessment process is one that does have an impact on the private sector and how much attention they have to pay and how many resources have to be redirected in terms of complying with registering for the environmental assessment and all of the different aspects that come with that. We recognize that there has to be some consideration to the appropriate analysis that needs to be done. In the Province of Nova Scotia, it’s based on the sheer size, the footprint that the quarry will have.

            MS. ZANN: Do you or your department have any concerns about the 3.9-hectare loophole that is being used by companies that want to avoid a more stringent environmental process? Has there been any discussion in your department about closing that loophole?

            MR. RANKIN: I wouldn’t consider it a loophole. It’s a policy piece that has been around for quite a significant amount of time. If we made a change, there probably would be pros and cons in terms of environmental impact.

            If we reduced it to two hectares, what does that mean for other impacts? If roads are included - we have had discussions about whether or not the access road to go into the area is included. The industrial approval looks at some of the elements that are of concern to the environment. We believe that we need to strike the right balance in terms of predictability and certainty for businesses when they apply for an endeavour such as a quarry.

            I’ll go back to what I have said about quarries and pits and these types of endeavours. Often communities think that they need an environmental assessment to justify what they believe the risk is on air quality and so on down the line. That doesn’t necessarily align with the level of risk that the experts have looked at in terms of the impact on the water and groundwater and such. There are parameters in the industrial approval as well that capture a lot of what I think people are concerned about.

            The environmental assessment happens when it goes over four hectares. Sometimes, oftentimes, most times, they start on a smaller footprint, and then once they enlarge past that four hectares, that’s what triggers the environmental assessment, so that’s . . .

            MS. ZANN: Could I just interject?

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Let the minister finish answering the question.

            MS. ZANN: No, I wanted to ask him a further (Interruption) Please be quiet.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s the minister’s floor, please.

            MS. ZANN: What’s that?

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you finished?

            MS. ZANN: I just wanted to ask him something along those same lines. I have, like, 30 seconds.

            MR. RANKIN: Okay. That’s fine.

            MS. ZANN: You said that you have concerns that yes, they can then trigger the next part of it but aren’t you concerned about the baseline, that it’s difficult to tell baseline . . .

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Time has expired.

We will now revert to the Progressive Conservative Party. You have one hour. Ms. Masland.

            MS. KIM MASLAND: I just want to go back to cap and trade - just a couple more questions. I’ve already alluded to this - Nova Scotians have done their bit to clean up the environment and meet our emission targets. We did that starting 10 years ago with the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. Through that, Nova Scotians did pay dearly to reduce our emissions.

            With these strong regulations that we have in place now, we’ve met and exceeded those goals set out, what are the emissions targets you are expecting to meet under the cap and trade?

            MR. RANKIN: Specific to the emission targets, there is a federal target of 30 per cent below 2005 levels for 2030. Nova Scotia is one of the provinces that has achieved that already. With this legislation we will be looking at within the regulations setting a specific target for Nova Scotia. So I could say that we’ll achieve at least 30 per cent.

There are other considerations. We’ve committed with the northeastern governors - the Premier has committed to collectively as an aggregate achieving between 35 and 45 per cent reductions. We would obviously consider some of those discussions with some of our counterparts and neighbours. If we’re able to continue down the path we’re going, I think we’re trending around 45 per cent reduction.

The marketplace is not static. It changes frequently. There could be a new energy intensive trade exposed – you know, a new entrant into our market, which may have an impact on greenhouse gases overall.

We believe that this system will compliment the existing system we have for the hard cap on the electricity sector. You have identified that Nova Scotians have paid significantly to achieve those greenhouse gas reductions. Power rates rose by 30 per cent under the NDP Government and I believe upwards of 40 per cent under the PC Government.

Those investments are important. They emanate from an investment in green energy, particularly with wind in Nova Scotia, but in the balance of the considerations of what other provinces are doing, keeping in mind our strategic competitiveness. We just believe that other provinces need to step up in terms of the amount of investment to where we are. That’s where the whole discussion became - why not do a carbon tax? Some people would suggest that there is already a carbon tax on the electricity sector, so we weren’t comfortable with saying, you subsidize that much of a level of cost in your power rates and then to ask Nova Scotians to pay another broad-based carbon tax on top of that.

What other options do we have? What other options fit the pan-Canadian framework - because that’s a legal obligation we have. So we found a price mechanism that works for us under cap and trade, which is not surprising given that the majority of carbon pricing systems in the world are cap and trade - because it incentivizes where the lowest cost reductions are in the market.

On top of that, we’ve been able to achieve where the cap goes is reflective of some of those costs that Nova Scotians have already incurred in the electricity sector. It’s hard to get into details without having the regulations in place because we don’t know exactly where that cap is going to be. We don’t know exactly what the regulations are because we still have to do a little more work. We have to talk to Nova Scotians.

We’re currently speaking to a targeted audience - the main participants for the reporting. The reporting will begin and then we’ll be having a broader discussion with Nova Scotians in the Spring so that we’re confident that we get the regulations right. We will have a target set in place and we will set that target with the investments in mind and with remaining a leader in mind because I think Nova Scotians want to continue to be a leader in the country. So again, I think I answered your question in terms of the target.

[5:30 p.m.]

MS. MASLAND: Is there an ability to bank credits under the system?

            MR. RANKIN: We are beginning with allowances similar to other jurisdictions that have chosen cap and trade. I think what the member is getting at is there is a compliance period and our compliance period will be three years, which lines up well with other jurisdictions.

            We don’t know exactly which allowances will go where yet and that will be informed by more of our consultation and where the historical omissions are and the intensity of those omissions in each industry. Technically they could use allowances over that three-year compliance period.

            MS. MASLAND: My last question for you, Mr. Minister. On October 3, 2016, the former Nova Scotia Environment Minister walked out of the National Carbon Pricing meeting after Trudeau delivered the ultimatum. The minister’s statement on that day was that we’re struggling to understand where the Prime Minister’s message came from today and what is going to happen moving forward.

            My question to you is, if we had not received the ultimatum, would this government be introducing a cap and trade system today?

            MR. RANKIN: This is a negotiation and as I’ve said, negotiations often aren’t easy. We found a mechanism under the price signal that is mandatory in all provinces that works for us. At that time when the minister walked out we didn’t believe it was fair to impose a system that didn’t reflect the work that has already been undertaken in Nova Scotia, particularly with our electricity sector.

            I think it was in November of 2016 last year, or around that time, that the deal was made and so we had an agreement in principle with the federal government that basically allowed us to create a made-in-Nova Scotia system. We are starting with allowances that will give businesses the time to transition, but as a new Minister of Environment, I am excited about going in the direction that the federal government is and the rest of the world is, on our own terms, recognizing the work that has already been made.

            I think it’s important, especially as a small province in the Atlantic Region, that those investments are taken into consideration. So, we will continue to be a leader but we will do it on our own terms.

            MS. MASLAND: Thank you, and I’ll now share my time with my colleague, Mr. Lohr.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lohr.

            MR. JOHN LOHR: Thank you. Mr. Rankin, it’s a pleasure to be here and ask a few questions. I guess the first series of questions I’m interested in is probably for me, a local interest, and that is that in March 2016 there was a C&D site fire in South Kentville and my fire department, the Kentville Fire Department, was very involved in that.

            I guess I’m just wondering if you are aware of that and if you have any comment on it. I guess my main interest is, the Kentville Fire Department incurred quite a few costs fighting that fire, was there ever any reimbursement to the Kentville Fire Department?

            MR. RANKIN: To the point on the actual question, there has been no reimbursement to the fire department. For the Department of Environment there really is no legal mechanism for us to be able to provide that funding.

            I am aware, member, of it happening. It predates me in the department but certainly there are challenges with some of our C&D sites. We’ve endeavoured to take on a full audit across the province, not only with that one, but other C&D sites, to ensure that they are operating and if we need to make a change in terms of compliance or policy or approvals, we will do so.

            MR. LOHR: So, C&D sites were required to have a security deposit essentially with your department, I understand. What was the purpose of that security deposit or is that true, they have money on deposit with your department for a performance bond or something like that?

            MR. RANKIN: Yes, there is a bond through our department but that’s for environmental concerns and we’re not able to access that for payment to a fire department.

            MR. LOHR: So they have a bond and are they also required to have liability insurance?

            MR. RANKIN: Yes, they are required to have liability insurance so that would be up to the fire department to deal with the insurance company itself.

.           MR. LOHR: So, your department, what is the amount of liability insurance that you require a C&D site to have and what type of proof of insurance do you have that they have that - like, to you require proof of that?

MR. RANKIN: It’s not a broad-based level. It’s a term and condition within the industrial approval, so we will have to check what it is on that specific approval and get back to you.

            MR. LOHR: So, the deposit - how much was that deposit that they were required to have with the Department of Environment and what is the purpose of that?

            MR. RANKIN: We’ll have to get back to you on the number, but, again, this is a number that is a deposit for environmental considerations but don’t necessarily align with like a health and safety, I guess. With a fire - if there was an environmental cleanup or something like that, that’s when that would be triggered because it’s clearly on the environment side, but a fire would not, the way I understand it.

            MR. LOHR: So, what was the amount of the deposit?

            MR. RANKIN: We don’t have that information on us right here, but we’ll get that. I’m sure we can get it by the end of this hour. We’ll do our best to get that information.

MR. LOHR: Adrian should have that information.

MR. RANKIN: Well, I mean, it’s Estimates. We weren’t prepared for getting into the details of some of the permits.

MR. LOHR: Okay. I guess if I can go ahead, it seems to me that you’re the Department of Environment; you’re managing these C&D sites. I understand there was some lack of oversight on this one and, possibly, there were materials in that C&D site that should not have been there; the fire was much worse because of that. It seems to me that the Department of Environment owes some responsibility to my fire department which had to put out quite a bit of energy and time to fight that fire in terms of - like this was an environmental – small scale maybe - but an environmental disaster. What recourse is there for the Kentville Fire Department in getting some of its costs back? This was a four-or five-day event which really taxed our volunteers, right? This was a big event; it wasn’t a two-hour fire, you know.

            MR. RANKIN: Obviously, there are some challenges with C&D sites across the province and that’s why we’re in an audit currently to see how they’re operating. You have identified one of those challenges, but in terms of what we would provide to a fire department, it’s, you know, some of the onus has to be given to other levels of government like the municipality that would have zoned a site there, and we don’t have any mechanism to trigger any of our funding based on an event such as a fire. We can hold them under compliance; we can offer the continuum of either a summary offence ticket or a directive or a ministerial order. Really, we are in a box in terms of what we can do. It’s trying to bring a proponent or a company back into compliance is what we’re limited on doing. We don’t have funds that we can disburse to deal with occurrences such as a fire.

            MR. LOHR: So, this was March 2016. It has been a year and a half maybe - can you update me on what’s happening with this site and where it’s at and what your department is doing?

            MR. RANKIN: The gentleman who is the operator is currently in court under a long-form prosecution. There’s a lengthy list of charges, over a dozen charges. This is where it leaves the legislative branch and it’s into the judicial, which is more independent, so it’s hard for us to speculate what the outcome of that trial will be. It will be up to the Public Prosecution and where they go with that. The judge will ultimately decide what level of fine or action will take place from there.

            MR. LOHR: I understand that things are before the courts in terms of with the owner, but meanwhile the site is sitting there - is there anything that your department is doing with the site or is it just sitting there waiting for the court judgment, or is there activity there?

            MR. RANKIN: The site is no longer in operation, similar to when there are occurrences across the province when there are operators who walk away from a site. Often people come to the Department of Environment for help but the onus - it isn’t our responsibility, it’s the responsibility of the operator. So, we can assist in terms of getting compliance action and, ultimately, bring these individuals to the court and to the judicial system but we are limited in terms of what we can do to actually work on a site that may be contaminated or may have an incident like a fire.

            MR. LOHR: I’m just trying to grasp - so you’re telling me that nothing is happening to the site right now and that’s the answer, it’s just sitting there waiting for this to be resolved.

            MR. RANKIN: Correct.

            MR. LOHR: What was the deposit for then? You had a deposit that the owner put in and presumably liability insurance. Who is going to clean up the site? That’s my question.

            MR. RANKIN: There is a process. It goes through the courts, similar to a number of files that are before the courts. We can’t set a precedent where we’ll take one case and start to act and clean up and not in the 300-plus other contaminated sites across the province or past C&D sites that were zoned by a municipality in an area that probably shouldn’t have been.

            I think there’s a shared responsibility, but it’s important that the process takes place, especially when there’s an individual who has charges levied against them and the court would order him to comply, and if there are any other things that the court deems appropriate it would be up to them as an independent body, not the department.

            MR. LOHR: Okay, I don’t quite know what to say about that. I’ll switch the topic.

I do want to ask a couple of questions about a quarry situation. I understand the four hectare, 10-acre - that was 10 acres, right? Four hectares, 10 acres, the same thing. One of the issues I understand in Fall River was that the site was more than 10 acres, but it was separated into a couple of different limited companies applying - is that correct? The actual site that was going to be a quarry was about 25 acres but it was broken into two or three different 10-acre blocks - is that correct?

            MR. RANKIN: I’m not aware and I guess I should state that I actually know the proponent of that quarry, if it’s the one that I believe you are talking about, Scotian Materials. So as soon as that operator was made aware that there was an application I had asked that I not be included in any discussion on any level with that operator, just because I’ve worked with them on a personal level. So, we can get the information on the specifics of that number and get that to you, but I don’t have those numbers on the top of my head and the staff doesn’t either.

[5:45 p.m.]

MR. LOHR: I know you became minister in June and a few days after you became minister that site was approved, right? The Scotian Materials site - you excused yourself from that discussion totally?

            MR. RANKIN: Correct. It was an industrial approval so it is a staff level decision but the staff had delegating authority through me, as the minister. I just asked that I not be included. So, the next stage, if there is an appeal and I believe there is, that would ordinarily be me who would look at that, but I wasn’t comfortable so the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage is the minister who is looking at that appeal, I believe.

            MR. LOHR: I believe the overall site, there are several different quarry applications there at the four-hectare, 10-acre scale - you can’t even comment on that?

            MR. RANKIN: I can comment if you want to speak about policy broadly and the way that it works, but not specific to the site because I don’t have background knowledge on that site.

            MR. LOHR: I know one of the concerns of the people in the area was that there was acidic rock, which I had never heard of but I’ve come to understand that that occurs in a number of different areas - can you comment on anything on the acidic rock issue in that area?

            MR. RANKIN: Just to assure the member about the concerns about acidic rock, there are, in the environmental assessment and also in the industrial approval, considerations given to what that means and the impact on the overall environment.

            MR. LOHR: So, what I understand acidic rock is - and maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong - is that when this rock is exposed to the weather, dug up, it releases some sort of acid. Maybe you can just let me know if that’s correct, and how do you remediate that?

            I know you can remediate it, it will eventually just leach out. Apparently, there’s acidic rock right around here or in the north end of Halifax, can you tell me what the process is to deal with that then?

            MR. RANKIN: I believe the assumption is correct. If you want more information on how that works we can provide that to you, as a member, if it’s interest for that specific. But as you, I think, realize that there’s rock across certain sections of the province that have naturally occurring compounds like uranium and arsenic and things like that that happen and there are processes to deal with that.   

MR. LOHR: I’m just trying to get my head around this. I think you just told me that if I wanted to ask questions about this that I’d have to ask the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage - is that right?

            MR. RANKIN: If you want to have a specific conversation about the Scotian Materials application then you can have it with the minister at another date. I just didn’t come prepared to talk about an application that I have no dealings with.           

MR. LOHR: I wasn’t expecting to hear that. Just to review that, that’s the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage who is responsible for this part of the file?

            MR. RANKIN: Based on if a minister wants to recuse themselves from an appeal, the next minister in line, similar to if I am on vacation it happens to be the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage who replaces me. That’s the same process if there’s an appeal, which I believe is pretty standard if someone doesn’t feel comfortable assessing an application, that another minister would come in and look at that application.

            MR. LOHR: Okay, I’m sure there’s 100,000 more questions on this but . . .

            MR. RANKIN: If you want to give them in writing we can certainly go through all of them, or you can come into the department and meet with department staff.

            MR. LOHR: Right.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: I’d just like to remind the members to direct their comments through the Chair and not directly to one another. Thank you.

            MR. LOHR: Okay. I want to ask about cap and trade. It’s my understanding that one of the companies that will be affected by cap and trade is Heritage Gas - is that correct?

            MR. RANKIN: Yes, they’re the natural gas provider in the province so they would be a mandatory participant, correct.

            MR. LOHR: So, the greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, or I assume that’s all-natural gas and not propane. Maybe propane is not part of that even though to me they are interchangeable, or maybe I should ask that - is that just natural gas or also propane?

            MR. RANKIN: Heritage Gas just deals with natural gas. So relative to what that company’s participation would be, it would be solely on natural gas, but propane is part of it, because it is a fossil fuel it will be part of the cap-and-trade system.

            MR. LOHR: So effectively we’re capping the amount of emissions, in theory, from propane and natural gas at a certain level and looking to see those emissions go down - is that correct?

            MR. RANKIN: What we’re hoping to see is as an aggregate of all greenhouse gas emissions, that there will be reductions. Further to the reductions that we are achieving through the electricity sector, through this cap and trade it will encompass 90 per cent of all emissions, whereas the electricity sector is about 40-something per cent of our overall emissions. So, it just brings in more sectors in terms of where the reductions will be, but certainly Heritage Gas - I’ve met with them, I’ve met with many of the different implicated participants and they are part of the targeted consultation because they are a mandatory participant and they have their concerns and they all vary in terms of whether we should be allowing allowances, or linking, or offsets.

There are a lot of different things that will come out in the regulations. This is enabling legislation that’s flexible to deal with changes in the marketplace and natural gas will be an important part of how we develop those regulations.

            MR. LOHR: So it’s my understanding about natural gas, and I think I would say the same thing about propane, but in the Heritage Gas situation in fact if they have a product - natural gas - which is less energy dense or less greenhouse gas emissions dense than, say, furnace oil or coal, so in effect if everybody in the province switched from furnace oil to natural gas, just doing that would reduce our - even if everybody was burning the same amount, creating the same amount of energy or heat, that just alone would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, so why would Heritage Gas be - natural gas should not necessarily be wrapped up in this; in fact they would ultimately benefit us if there was more natural gas being burned rather than those other fuels.

            MR. RANKIN: The member makes a pretty astute comment. I would say it is correct, the natural gas and propane have lower greenhouse gas emissions than fuels, but they do still have greenhouse gas emissions through the cap-and-trade system. It incentivises where the lowest cost emission reductions would take place. The demand for these types of products that are lower intensity would presumably grow because the marketplace will look for any option they can find to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

            The reality is, though, to make that change, as the member suggests, in terms of transitioning from coal to natural gas would necessitate pretty huge capital investments in terms of where we have coal-fired generation plants. We’re talking about billions of dollars, and also the supply of gas getting to this jurisdiction, there are some challenges there as well.

            To the point, natural gas is an important part. It is part of the pan-Canadian framework in terms of what emissions we are required to capture and that’s one of them, but also all fossil fuels, really when they’re delivered in the Province of Nova Scotia, will become part of that whole system.

            We also have to take into consideration that we’re starting with allowances. So, the discussion we have with companies, like natural gas companies, like other companies, is what allowances you get, how does that impact your business in terms of trading allowances with other companies that are in the same system? That’s what we’ll have to take into consideration in terms of the modelling over that three-year compliance period - how does it work to ensure that we’re driving down the greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously with strong economic growth?

            MR. LOHR: So, what I understand is that at some point in the future someone is going to want to convert their household furnace from oil, which is a dirty fuel, to propane or natural gas which is a relatively simple conversion, you just change the burner out, right? They’ll be paying a penalty because a tax, that conversion, they’ll be exposed to a higher level of tax because Heritage Gas or maybe it’s Irving Oil, whoever is providing the propane, will have come to the point where they need to acquire more. If our economy grows they are going to be paying a carbon tax, this is cap and trade, they will be near their limit so in a sense we’re effectively discouraging a lower greenhouse gas-emitting fuel from our sort of fuel mix by this cap and trade system.

            I think it’s going to have a negative effect on where we would like to go because I think clearly if you are burning oil or we’re burning coal, ultimately the natural gas is a far, far cleaner fuel.

            MR. RANKIN: Yes, and thank you to the member. Notwithstanding the challenges of actually getting natural gas to market in Nova Scotia, the system is designed and will be designed through regulations to benefit where those lower cost GHG reductions are going to be achieved. The incentive will be, as you suggest, if there are consumers who want to change to oil or a more intensive fuel to natural gas, the market should allow for that transition to take place, notwithstanding some of the challenges that we have in the fuel sector where the pipelines are actually getting natural gas to certain facilities. Heritage Gas has had success getting them to large-scale operations like the schools and hospitals and such and they haven’t had as much success delivering that product to residential communities.

There are different variables in that equation that need to be considered. That’s why the reporting is very important right off the start, that we know what the emissions are and how we deliver the allowances will be where they’ll be paying close attention and how the methodology is used in terms of what their historical production of the fossil fuel that they are using is and then the intensity of the actual fuel that they are using, so that we’re fair and equitable and the member should know that this is all going to be transparent and the minister has a legal obligation to bring all that work forward to the House.

            MR. LOHR: Okay, to change the subject. I know that your department has the responsibility for a fair bit of enforcement, right, of a whole different host of issues. I know that one of my interests of course is food safety and there’s a fair bit of enforcement around regulations in agriculture and in fisheries that your department is responsible for.

[6:00 p.m.]

I believe I heard one of your ministers say earlier this week that your government is leading sort of the red tape reduction charge across the country - I believe that something was quoted. I’m just wondering if you could give me an example of red tape reduction that your department has achieved in all of these various regulatory responsibilities that you have.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: I’d just remind the member to direct his comments through the Chair.

            MR. LOHR: The natural responsibility.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Address your comments through the Chair, please.

MR. LOHR: Please address the Chair?

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Your comments are to be addressed through the Chair.

            MR. LOHR: We don’t do it here as much.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: The same Rules as apply in the House.

            MR. RANKIN: What I would say to that particular question is for the red tape reduction regulatory burden we have moved a number of processes away from approvals to notification and that work can be monetized whether it’s the water alteration on the onsite sewage. It’s early days to identify where we’re going to achieve similar reductions in red tape with the food industry, which we need to make sure we’re all cognizant of the safety issues around it, so we’ve undertaken an audit across different parts of that and I think we’re partway through completing that to find out really where the baseline is in the industry.

We’ve had this under the Department of Environment for the last year and a half or so. So, we’ve done an audit of the red meat and poultry, I believe. Don’t quote me on that, but we’re going to each different cohort of where food and abattoirs and all the rest of it, but we won’t sacrifice the safety part with trying to streamline the process, so that’s the balance that we have to achieve. I don’t think I can identify today where we’ve reduced any burden for an actual company in that particular sector as of yet.

            MR. LOHR: So, I would just be happy with an actual example of red tape reduction of anything at all - so, just an actual red tape reduction of anything at all.

MR. RANKIN: So, red tape reduction, we have probably from a government perspective there’s a phone number now that people can call to set up a business so they don’t have to go through different departments and try to figure out which department deals with certain permits. There’s a line that they can call and that business person will get all the information that that person needs to streamline the process in terms of opening up a new business. We, in the Department of Environment, have SNAP, which I’ve referenced in my opening comments, that’s not ready yet for launch online but that’s going to be a process that will reduce the burden in terms of going through different levels of government and contacting different people in different departments because it’s online.

 So, that, and since I’ve been in the department we’ve looked at not making it mandatory for an environmental assessment on storage of products like batteries and asbestos because it’s in an area where it’s controlled, usually in a business park, and it doesn’t vary in terms of which department it is, and so they’ve saved a significant amount of money. It might not seem large from the broad economy, but for those companies it’s an important reduction on the investment that they have to make. But we do have a target. I think it’s $20-something million to reduce that burden all across the province and I think the Department of Environment will be a big part of where those savings will be because we are the regulatory body that moves permits through and we’ve endeavoured in the last year to two years to look at the different industries that may have a lower risk.

So, if the risk is low, why would they have to still go through the same process of another industry that has a much higher risk on the odour environment? So, that’s kind of the core purpose to streamline the process for those companies that may be lower risk and that’s how we’re going to identify where savings will take place.

            MR. LOHR: One of the areas of concern for me that we saw in Kings County is when we have a municipal inspector and an inspector from your department at odds with each other on the interpretation of the rules. I could give you a concrete example, literally concrete cement where - and I don’t remember which one was on which side of this argument - a business in Kings South that has a mobile food kitchen was forced to put a concrete outhouse in next to their mobile food kitchen, mobile food wagon, even though there were multiple outhouses with handwashing stations, the portable ones, there.

            This is all water under the bridge, it’s all built, this is a couple of years ago, but it’s all still there. I’m just wondering about how do you see your department solving some of these issues where there’s this conflict between provincial and municipal - are you working on that at all? Are you trying to solve those problems? Are you aware of it?

            MR. RANKIN: I’m not aware of that specific scenario that the member referenced and since I’ve been in the department I haven’t heard of conflict with the municipality, but certainly in terms of making improvements, it requires collaboration, it requires members of the House here to bring forward those types of scenarios that could take place.

            We have to strike that balance where if there is no area for someone who is dealing with raw meat, if there is no appropriate area for washing of hands or if staff are dealing with this, people are eating, that has to be number one with any type of red tape reduction strategy; we can’t sacrifice the health and safety of people. That’s where the audit is taking place right now, in that important sector, but also moving from approvals to notifications will probably be where the Department of Environment is able to achieve more of the red tape reduction, in my view.

            I’m from a business background and I think all business owners have experienced a kind of frustration with duplication and with approvals and unnecessary paperwork. I hear that more on the municipal level than I hear on the provincial level, but we are certainly willing to improve in how we achieve those reductions.

MR. LOHR: I guess what I would like to suggest to you, minister, is that the goal should be that one or the other has jurisdiction and you don’t both have jurisdiction over the same issue - at least that would reduce red tape.

            Anyway, I would like to turn it over to my colleague the member for Pictou West.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. MacFarlane.

            MS. KARLA MACFARLANE: Thank you. I just want to follow up a little bit on where we left off the last time. We’re all aware, with regard to the environmental assessment, it’s provincial because it’s on land, and anything to do with the water would be under federal jurisdiction, my understanding is.

But when I spoke in a meeting about a month and a half ago with Northern Pulp they said it was more complicated than that, that it wasn’t land is provincial, water is federal - I’m wondering, perhaps you could share with me what those complexities are and if I could just better understand what role does provincial play, what role does federal play, and if you’ve actually had the opportunity to meet and discuss.

            MR. RANKIN: It’s a good question and not an easy question. There are a lot of legal constitutional areas in terms of fleshing out exactly what, whether it’s provincial or federal. In terms of the general scope, rivers and things within the province would be provincial, but the ocean would be federal, although we are taking on the responsibility of the Bay of Fundy. So even though that’s on the ocean, we’re taking responsibility in terms of how we develop tidal energy. That is the discussion that we have.

            There is a list for both the province and the federal in terms of what their EAs have under their auspices, and often they overlap and there has to be a discussion with legal from the province and the federal government to figure out which level of government is the most appropriate to take that on.

            MS. MACFARLANE: So, have you received the actual design from - I’m sorry, I forget the name of the company in Montreal that is designing the new facility. I know it’s mostly through TIR and Nova Scotia Lands, but have they provided a copy of the new plans for you?

            MR. RANKIN: I haven’t seen any plans yet. There has been some preliminary discussion on terms at a high level on what a design may look like. There’s a scoping meeting that takes place with the proponent and the department. I wasn’t in that meeting but there has been discussion in terms of what type of design it would be.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I just want to clarify - I believe the actual design of the plans were over $600,000 and that the province cost-shared that at $300,000. Was the money - and maybe you don’t know this, but if it was from your department you would, but I understand, I think all of it came from TIR but was there any of that funding for those plans that came from the Department of Environment?

            MR. RANKIN: No, the Department of Environment doesn’t have funds for that. That would have been TIR - and I believe the member is correct, that’s the dollar figure I recall for the receding water study, I think that’s what you are referencing.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I feel like I am yelling in here - am I yelling? It sounds loud.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in my ear.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I guess I’m going to go back to the fishers in my area with regard to the pipe being extended out into the Northumberland Strait. The sooner I can arrange a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture it would be great, to address their concerns. This is a very rich fishing ground, as you can imagine. These fishers, as we all know - I think it’s $1.3 billion for the province and, overall, it’s a $3 billion industry in Canada. I might be a little off with my numbers, but needless to say, it’s a very important industry and it’s our number one export here in the province. It’s growing and growing, as it should.

            I really hope that when the opportunity comes to have a meeting that you will be able to attend. My question would be, though, is there any way that you guys could work with your federal counterparts, with the Department of Environment, to have someone come from federal as well, to address, so we go as a team, that we’re not just putting the onus on the one department or the one government, that we’re all there as a team to understand it? I think it’s such a huge federal issue and that we’re more likely to have, if the request comes from the minister provincially, I would think that maybe someone from Ottawa out of the Department of Environment would come and help us understand what actually is going to happen there.

            MR. RANKIN: That is common practice when there is an environmental assessment provincially, especially if it has anything to do with the ocean we certainly collaborate with Environment, Climate Change Canada, and the Department of Fisheries, so I think that is going to be a big part of where we do get evidence and look at the receding water study because obviously if they are identifying a specific area and comparing it to other areas, they have reasons for that, so we have to analyze the efficacy of what has been provided in terms of the study itself, from their consultants and then get expert review from our department and from both federal departments. That’s part of the process. We do think it’s very serious. It’s an important industry, which is why there will be both an environmental assessment and an industrial approval at the end of the day.

[6:15 p.m.]

So the terms and conditions will reflect what all that evidence is. That’s on the environmental assessment. Then we get into all the different parameters in terms of BOD and COD and TPP - all of those things will be addressed through the industrial approval.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I’m going to actually take a new direction here, which I’m sure you’ll be happy with. If I missed it, I apologize, but I’m just wondering if you can provide me with an update - has there been any coastal protection planning, investments or initiatives made recently, for coastal protection?

            MR. RANKIN: No. Up until I received the mandate letter, which was probably a month or less ago, I wasn’t exactly sure where the Coastal Protection Act was going to land for the lead. Now we know the Department of Environment is the lead and we obviously have a list of priorities - cap and trade being the pressing one that’s before the House. It’s a very important part of legislation. I represent a coastal area as well in Prospect.

I think it’s going to be very important to get the consultation period right, so I don’t know - we haven’t decided how that is going to work, but consultation will need to be part of formulating a good body of evidence of what we can do to ensure that our coast is protected for generations to come. I would welcome the comments from the member if any ideas or anything like that that could help inform the development of that important piece of legislation.

MS. MACFARLANE: That’s good to hear that there will be consultations. Has there been any financial investment set aside within this budget that would be related to those consultations?

MR. RANKIN: For purposes of this budget there is no incremental increase to address coastal protection. I guess that will be part of what informs the department from consultation - to figure out what is an appropriate budget and what we can achieve through our existing budget.

MS. MACFARLANE: I believe on the website - I think it was six or seven, or maybe more, different initiatives surrounding the coastal protection and moving forward. If you had to disclose basically what you felt were short-term plans compared to long-term plans - if you could just maybe clarify what any short-term plans would be to address this issue.

MR. RANKIN: I believe it’s early days. I would be purely speculating on that. I do value consultation, so I would want to consider what Nova Scotians across the province have to say, and the NGOs who have done good work to push us and became part of our platform commitment.

I know the Ecology Action Centre had it at one of their top items that they would like to see the government pursuing, but I don’t have a broad-based knowledge on what other jurisdictions have done in this regard, so I’d like to be more informed on that before I can speculate on how that will be - a short term, medium, or long term.

MS. MACFARLANE: It’s interesting, everyone’s pretty well surrounded by water here in Nova Scotia so we take great value in our coasts. This summer actually was probably the first summer that I started to receive calls from cottage people who are asking if there is anything out there to assist us or what are the plans? It sounds like you’re on the right track. I think we need to hold consultations fairly soon because I think all of us are going to start hearing more and more about that. I do know that the Ecology Action Centre has been able to help me in a few situations with regard to suggesting what type of plant life to plant to help with erosion.

            With that, I am going to move forward to one last thing - actually, I have two if I have time. We have been dealing with a lot of calls as well surrounding glyphosate - and I never know if I’m pronouncing it right - what is frustrating is to know that HRM has banned it and yet we still allow it in other areas of the province. I’m wondering if perhaps you can give me some feedback on what your department feels about this particular pesticide.

            MR. RANKIN: Thank you for the question. I was actually curious about this when I started at the department.

            What I have learned is that pesticides have to be registered through the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency. That is the regulatory body that deems whether or not a pesticide is safe for use. The Department of Environment relies specifically on that body, just like Departments of Environment across the whole country do. All 10 provinces look at this piece, and the approvals are based on what that body deems is safe. They have recently undertaken a scientific review, I understand, and the conclusion of that study was that it is safe for use.

            I know there are studies I have heard of - I think the member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River has identified international studies where they don’t allow it. They see it as a carcinogen. But the Province of Nova Scotia has to rely on what our federal regulatory body is saying to us.

            Consistent with what your question was when you were comparing to HRM, it is only banned for cosmetic use. They have banned it to say that you can’t use that if you just want to have nice-looking green grass.

            In this case, these approvals have to do with forestry practices, where they need our approval. Oftentimes, there are other industries that use it that don’t get the attention in the media, like the agriculture industry. It’s a widely used substance that they’re not criticized for using, but other industries are.

            I would suggest to NGOs like Ecology Action Centre that they focus their attention on the body, which is the federal body, the Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, that their lobbying focus on them because that’s the process that all provinces use. Again, all 10 provinces use that same process.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I guess what I want to say is, you’re correct - the World Health Organization has labelled it as a carcinogen, and I believe it is.

            I hope that perhaps we can look, at least somewhere down the road, at allowing municipalities to decide if they want spraying or not, that is what I hope, to put it into the hands of the taxpayers and let them decide if they want it or not.

            Can you just confirm, do we currently spray our Crown land?

            MR. RANKIN: No, I believe since 2010 - around that time, there was a decision made not to spray on Crown land anymore. Since this government has come in, we haven’t allowed spraying on our Crown land.

            MS. MACFARLANE: I think I’m finished.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will now revert to the NDP.

Ms. Zann, you have about half an hour. I believe you’re going to finish up with your questioning today, both Parties. I’ll just ask the minister, did you want time for a closing statement? Also you have to read your resolution - five minutes, or just time for your resolution?

            MR. RANKIN: I’m fine with just my resolution. I’ll give the members an opportunity to speak.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Full time, then.

Ms. Zann, the floor is yours.

            MS. LENORE ZANN: Thanks. It’s 30 minutes, correct?

            MR. CHAIRMAN: We have currently actually 38 minutes.

            MS. ZANN: Okay, thank you. There are so many things to talk about and ask questions about with this file. I know that the environment is so important to so many people here in Nova Scotia, so I’m sure you feel a large weight on your shoulders now that you are the minister, since we have, as you know, gone through four in four years and there are a lot of things going on in the province that people are very concerned about.

There are varying opinions about whether something is safe and even the word “safe” as opposed to will something make somebody sick or will they be healthy if something continues to be used, for instance like glyphosate, as we were just discussing with the last caucus member.

            I’m going to go back to where I left off, which was the quarry situation. Just to recap, in the last go-round I had asked if you could tell me how many applications the department has received for quarries of 3.99 hectares and under since 2014, and provide a breakdown of how many of those applications have been accepted and rejected. I believe you said you weren’t sure about that because you are new to the position.

            Can your department provide me with a list of those applications - how many were made, how many were accepted, and how many were rejected since 2014?

            MR. RANKIN: The answer is we can provide it but, unfortunately, we don’t have that information readily available. We’ll have to have staff go through the last couple of years to find out what the volume of that is.

            MS. ZANN: So you can provide it to me, though, just not right now?

,

            MR. RANKIN: Correct. We’ll do our best to provide that information.

            MS. ZANN: For the rejected applications, I’d like to know where those quarries were proposed and why they were rejected as well. If that could be sent to my caucus office, I’d very much appreciate that.

            MR. RANKIN: I would suggest that the member figure out exactly what she wants and go through the FOIPOP process.

            MS. ZANN: So now you’re saying I have to go through FOIPOP - I’ve asked if the department could provide it to me.

            MR. RANKIN: We’ll provide all the information that we can on that ask, but some of them will be subject to FOIPOP, that’s all.

            MS. ZANN: Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Do you have any statistics on how many quarries under 3.9 hectares eventually apply for expansion.

            MR. RANKIN: My understanding is that most of them do, from my brief time there. For quarries to be economical I believe they do generally want to grow in size and I think it could be - what you could say is that if a company was going to start at a smaller scale than a larger scale then there’s less risk involved. So, if a quarry starts at 3.99 and they are actually able to find aggregate there that’s economical to take to the marketplace then they will probably look to expand. If they don’t find something of enough scale in that environment then perhaps they wouldn’t move on to expanding in size. I think that’s why there is that threshold, so that we’re reasonable, so if it’s a quarry of an acre or so, that it doesn’t require the same process as a quarry that’s larger.

            There was a value, it’s 4 hectares, it’s not 3.9. It’s 4 hectares which is the threshold.

[6:30 p.m.]

MS. ZANN: Again, I had asked earlier in the last go-round if that doesn’t concern you that this is perhaps a loophole for companies so they can actually avoid more stringent environmental processes because they don’t need to get that in order to get the 3.99, whereas if they went larger, they would. Doesn’t this concern you?

            MR. RANKIN: What I can say is that no matter what size, they still require a permit and the industrial approval does consider groundwater and all these other considerations that are important for communities to know. If it is deemed over the 4 hectares, the environmental assessment is triggered, in part because it has a bigger impact on the whole landscape of the area. Environmental assessments are generally for identifying the actual environment that that undertaking is taking place in, so the impact on a large landscape would be where we look at things in the environmental assessment and it gets brought up to the ministerial level for the actual sign-off. Industrial approvals don’t typically go up to the minister for signing off.

            MS. ZANN: The concern of most environmentalists and the people living in these areas is that there’s no baseline once the 3.99 hectares has been dug out so it’s very difficult to then form a baseline when deciding how much environmental impact a larger one is going to actually make. That’s part of the argument about why it’s so difficult and why they call it “quarry creep.”

            Right now, for instance, we have 22,000 kilometres of Nova Scotian roads and there are already 12,000 quarries, but only 3,500 of those quarries are actually in use at the moment. So what people ask is why can’t the companies go to these 3,500 quarries and use the aggregate that’s there. What the companies will oftentimes say is well it’s going to cost me money to send my truck driver 15 minutes down the road as opposed to just digging another one right there.

            Again, it’s called quarry creep and many Nova Scotians are concerned about that. So you don’t have any statistics right now on how many quarries actually applied for expansion, other than that it is most of them, is it?

            MR. RANKIN: Again, we will provide the information we can. Any company that applies for an environmental assessment - it’s public information but we will certainly go through the data and show. I just anecdotally believe that from what I’ve learned from the industry is that it is a way to start to see if there is potential in the area for aggregate, because of course all of them would want to be as large a size as they can get to access more material.

            The important part I want to convey that I don’t think the public understands is the risk associated from an environmental perspective - and this comes from officials and experts in the field - is very low in terms of quarry activity or pit activity. I don’t think that’s necessarily what some of the public believe when they see a quarry open up in a nearby community. They are a reality of building roads to connect communities. I’ve noticed that they can be contentious, particularly as you get closer to Halifax than they are in areas that you don’t hear from, in rural parts of the province, but in terms of the risk it’s a lower-risk activity relative to other applications. I would say that the department has to assess their approvals, based at the risk level.

            MS. ZANN: Actually in the countryside there are a number of quarries that are now expanding. I have met with residents along Little Dyke Road in Glenholme and they are opposing the quarry expansion by OSCO Aggregates Limited. It’s a watershed area and the media has reported that the company’s application says that the excavating is expected to occur between 12 and 14 hours a day, six days a week. It noted that there is a potential for “short periods of increased operations of 22 to 24 hours a day.” This is another concern that the people around Little Dyke and Glenhome are expressing and have expressed to me. What do you say to the residents who live along Little Dyke Road? They’re concerned about the hours. They’re concerned about property values, the disruption of the water table, the excessive noise, and children playing and biking along the road which now is going to be burdened with heavy truck traffic.

            MR. RANKIN: That’s the very reason why there’s a condition that I put in that EA to form a community liaison committee so that there is communication with the proponent and with the community. The terms and conditions are there to ensure that there’s monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and other important components. I will rely on my statement that there is a perception that they are higher-risk than the reality of operating quarries. They have submitted their application for the industrial approval, which does get into the more specific lower-level activity on the site. That has not been completed as of yet, but that’s where some of those concerns could possibly be addressed.

            MS. ZANN: I would hope that you would flag it as something that is potentially a major concern for these folks and also the residents of Fall River regarding Goffs Quarry. Was that the one that you said you have had to recuse yourself from?

            MR. RANKIN: Yes.

            MS. ZANN: Those folks are concerned as well about the countless time, effort, and money that they have poured into opposing it. Do you have any concerns about the resources that members of the public have had to expend to engage with that quarry application?

            MR. RANKIN: Again, it’s not something I would be comfortable talking about specific to that quarry. I would point out that the activity is generally a lower-risk activity in that the terms and conditions are there to ensure that there is mitigation of any impacts. I believe there would be a CLC set up, but again, I don’t know the specifics of that permit. There are always opportunities for the public to provide their submissions during an environmental assessment process. If that quarry goes beyond the 4-hectare trigger, then that’s when they have an opportunity to have their voice heard.

            MS. ZANN: I have asked for your support on a bill designed to examine the issue of environmental racism. All this bill is seeking to do is to establish an all-Party committee to examine the issue. Will you not commit to supporting this important piece of legislation?

            MR. RANKIN: That’s a good question. That’s an important topic for the province and Legislatures to look at. I did read the UN report that referenced the Province of Nova Scotia and the bill that the member for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook-Salmon River brought forward, and I think she should be commended for bringing forth something to address those important issues.

            Where this government I believe has made substantial progress, particularly with the environment but outside of environment, is the cleanup of Boat Harbour, which is a tangible amount, over $130 million, and it will probably end up being more, to clean up that site. That was a historic injustice levelled at a First Nations community.

            We have shown in other social justice areas where the pardon was given posthumously to Chief Sylliboy, treaty education in schools, and the apology for the Home for Colored Children.

            I have worked behind closed doors with the former Minister of Justice Diana Whalen to look at the criteria of putting Nova Scotians from different races and backgrounds behind the bench. We have since made adjustments to make it easier for folks to apply. We have seen a significant amount of more diverse candidates and subsequently diverse candidates are now being appointed to the bench so that Nova Scotians from all backgrounds can see themselves in the institutions that we have. So there has been progress over the last four years in that short time. It’s one of the reasons why I am proud to serve under the Premier, to be fully honest, because I believe that’s important to him.

            There is a lot more work to do, no question - all levels of government, the municipal, the provincial government and the federal government. There have been undue projects that have been placed adjacent to some of these communities and that should not have happened.

            We are, as the Department of Environment, it is our duty and it’s my sworn duty to make sure we are looking at the science and evidence in any application. If we do that, if we ensure that we are looking at the science and evidence, then that would ensure there is a fair and equitable process for all Nova Scotians, which I would submit hasn’t always been the case, especially as you go back further in our history, I think there were other considerations that were looked at when there was placement of first-generation landfills and different areas like that.

            It’s a sad history for Nova Scotia but it’s one that I think if you look at our record, we’ve achieved a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

            MS. ZANN: I agree that your government has done a number of things regarding trying to help bridge the gap between various different minority communities. However, all this bill is doing is seeking to establish an all-Party committee to examine and address the issue of environment racism. It wouldn’t cost very much and it would take a year. It would take members from each of the different Parties and some from several different departments, just as you and I and a Progressive Conservative member looked at the issue of sexual assault and violence within government and government departments and MLA offices, so it’s a very easy ask. It has been said that it’s the first bill of its kind in North America and it has been pointed to, as you said, by the UN report as something that this government should actually commit to and do.

            The disproportional amount of landfills, dumps, toxic waste sites and industrial activities in First Nations and African Nova Scotian communities in particular is something that has not been addressed yet. I think it would be a very easy fix for us to just agree to all look into it and come up with some kind of recommendation for the province moving forward.

            I would ask again that you, as Minister of Environment, seriously consider this bill. We’re going to be here for the next three or four years and I will continue to bring it to the floor until I hopefully get some kind of agreement.

            The other bill that our caucus wants to help people have a greater say in the environment and what happens around them is by introducing the Environmental Bill of Rights. I’ve asked you to support this legislation but you’ve not yet committed to do so either with that one. Could you please explain what objections you have with this proposal.

            MR. RANKIN: Again I have to rely on what evidence there is in the Department of Environment to justify moving forward with other types of legislation that may have an impact on current legislation. I started my comments today by listing probably at least 10 different types of legislation so I think there has to be a point where we analyze all of them and see where there is overlap. I do vaguely remember - I think this was on the floor before in the Legislature and I think a previous minister may have mentioned that there would be overlap in certain areas in terms of what is already in the Environment Act. In terms of the intent behind this bill and the previous bill mentioned, I see merits in wanting to go down this path.

[6:45 p.m.]

I commend the member for bringing these issues to the forefront of the House. I sincerely mean that. As the member knows, it’s more than just myself, but other members in the House that I would have to collaborate with and ensure that it doesn’t impact on maybe legislation that comes from other departments and to make sure that we are moving forward with something that will truly benefit the environment, which I believe all members of this House would like to see.

MS. ZANN: I appreciate that and the kind words. I hope that you do seriously consider both of those pieces of legislation and talk with your colleagues about them. Thank you.

I just want to refer back to the Boat Harbour situation, which was mentioned earlier. Some critics have suggested that replacing the Boat Harbour treatment facility will simply involve running an effluent pipe further out into the Northumberland Strait. So how will what’s coming out of that pipe be any different from what’s flowing into Boat Harbour?

MR. RANKIN: That’s an important question. What I could say is that the opportunity here in building a new effluent treatment facility presents, I believe, an opportunity to modernize what actually is coming out and recognizing that - as the member for Pictou West has mentioned - the world class fisher industry that we have to protect, but we will remain steadfast in our commitment to the Pictou Landing First Nation community in ensuring that it doesn’t go into Boat Harbour.

There will be new permits. There will be an environmental assessment that will be rigorous and we will take into consideration everything that folks at Environment Canada are going to say. It will be within their guidelines. It will be looked at by our team internally, and looking forward to what the public has to say. Then there is that extra step after that for the industrial approval where the thresholds in terms of what each parameter is will be stricter than they were in the previous permit for the treated water going into Boat Harbour. I’m learning about what the impact of all these parameters are - like I mentioned, BOD and COD, nitrogen - even the volume of water itself to ensure that they’re not flushing out the system, because there are bugs in the system that need to take out some of the bad stuff that we don’t want going into the water.

It really is about the integrity of the process and ensuring that the science is there and all the terms and conditions are strict enough that we’re comfortable that any adverse impacts can be mitigated with good operations and ensuring that we’re monitoring it after it’s actually put in place. It’s an important project for the Pictou area. It’s an important project, I would say, for all Nova Scotians to get right.

MS. ZANN: I would agree with that. I would agree that it has been an eyesore and a nose sore for those people living in that area, but it is a blight on Nova Scotia’s reputation. When we bring in tourists and they see what’s happening. They see that smoke. They smell the smell - and they usually don’t stay very long in Pictou.

I was there during the Tall Ships and it was quite sad to see the tall ships emerging through all that black smoke. The sailors on the ships were apparently quite concerned as well, and they don’t live there year-round. A lot of people that I know do, and their children have respiratory illnesses, and they have to use puffers. There have been many cases of cancer, both in Pictou itself and also near Boat Harbour.

            The beaches around there, too, have signs up saying that you can’t swim in the water. You can’t clam. You can’t eat any of the shellfish. Those used to be pristine beaches where people for thousands of years came with their families and picnicked and swam. They’re just destroyed.

            This makes me concerned about the idea that there’s just going to be another pipe going further out into the Northumberland Strait, where a number of us spend time and, as I said, many people live. I would hope that somehow or other there would be 100 per cent ironclad proof that the problem won’t just be sent further downstream, so to speak.

            Also, I wanted to ask you about - you had decided that replacing the Boat Harbour treatment facility will trigger a Class 1 assessment, which means that the public really only has 30 days to comment. Is that correct?

            MR. RANKIN: The decision was made that, because it’s not a new pulp and paper mill, and they’re asking for a modification to their mill by way of a new treatment facility, that triggers the environmental assessment Class 1, which does not include that independent panel. There’s the 30 days. That’s for public submissions.

            Obviously, there’s work always ongoing. I have already met with the Clean the Mill group, and the project isn’t even registered for. I have been to Pictou Landing a couple of times. I have spoken to the members who represent the Pictou area.

            At the end of the day, when the environmental assessment package is analyzed and it’s on my desk, there actually is more flexibility in terms of what decision I can make at the end of that process than there is at the end of the Class 2. I guess you could probably see pros and cons on both sides. I’m confident, especially being in the Department of Environment for a few months now, in the quality of the advice that I get and from the quality of advice that comes from the federal government. They are always part of that environmental assessment process.

            It’s up to me to make sure that I am asking the correct questions and fully understanding the implications of what comes out of the end of the pipe. I’m confident that that is the right process based on the current regulations that we have in the Environment Act. It is a modification, and it will be a rigorous and thoughtful process based on the advice that I get.

            MS. ZANN: Just finishing that particular issue, a number of people think that 30 days is not enough and not appropriate for a project of this scale for people to weigh in on the issue.

            I would just like to move on. I have about 15 minutes left?

            MR. CHAIRMAN: The total time is nine and a half minutes in the whole session, so about eight minutes.

            MS. ZANN: Thank you. Another issue where people in Nova Scotia feel that their voices are not being heard is of course the herbicide spraying which is now being called pesticide spraying. I know it’s a fine line, but it is actually herbicide spraying with the whole glyphosate issue. Does your department do any sort of testing of glyphosate or does it rely solely on the advice of Health Canada?

            MR. RANKIN: To my knowledge, it is under the auspices of Health Canada to deem whether or not a pesticide is safe for use. This is consistent across the board, which is why all 10 provinces rely on this. Once a pesticide is registered through that Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, then that agency determines whether or not that product is safe.

            I know sometimes we want to think about our emotions when we give a decision but the process, as I see it, my role is to ensure that I am following the process and that’s what it is currently. When we give approvals we will outlay specific terms and conditions, such as separation, distance from communities, notification to the public about when the spray times are, safe storage and handling of the actual product itself. Those are the important things that are under the auspices of our provincial department.

            MS. ZANN: Well this is not an emotional argument, this is a scientific argument and this is an argument based on a concern for people’s health and well-being, as well as the health and well-being of the animals of the forest and the foods they eat, like the berries and other fauna and flora of the forest.

            Opponents of glyphosate argue that scientific tests often only focus on glyphosate alone and don’t test the various formulations used by spray companies in which glyphosate is an active ingredient. Have the glyphosate formulations approved for use by your department in the last two years been tested?

            MR. RANKIN: I have to revert back to Health Canada’s role and I understand they have recently reviewed some of the science that has been pointed out by other organizations, such as the World Health Organization. Their conclusion is that this product is safe for use. It has been under scrutiny, I understand, since going back to the 1980s. To date Health Canada takes that position on it and that’s why all provinces in Canada actually approve this type of substance and Nova Scotia will continue along that same vein.

            MS. ZANN: Well over this summer CN was approved to spray along the rail line from Bedford to Brookfield but they later said they would not spray, due to public concern. So the company can cancel due to public concern but the department cannot?

            CN has also said that they will clear vegetation along the track manually. So why doesn’t the department ask the forestry companies and any of the other organizations and companies that ask for the glyphosate approvals to also use manual labour to do the work, instead of spending the money on something that could, in fact, be carcinogenic and dangerous for our health in the long run?

            MR. RANKIN: The question really revolves around the economics of how an application is delivered by a proponent and the Department of Environment doesn’t really consider whether or not a company should choose an alternate method of deploying what they have to use for certain applications. It’s based on the science and evidence and in this case it’s informed by the studies that Health Canada undertakes.

            For us we do take any applications seriously and we refer to whatever body is the regulator. In this case it’s the one I mentioned and that’s the practice in Nova Scotia and across the country.

            MS. ZANN: The same company, Monsanto, that created the glyphosate products that are used - Vision and Vision Max and Roundup - used to also create Agent Orange and people were told that that was safe as well. In fact people were told that smoking was safe, people were told that all kinds of things were safe that are now known not to be safe. In fact there have been studies that show that Monsanto is well aware that glyphosate is not safe and will actually cause cancer. Those have come to light just recently. Do you have any concerns at all personally about the end goal of herbicide spraying, both for the health of our people, but also to kill the hardwoods and create a monoculture of pulpwood in our forests?

            MR. RANKIN: Again, part of this is an economics question in terms of whether or not a company should be using another practice to suppress growth of another species. I don’t get into the economics of what’s good for an industry or not as a regulator.

            In terms of concern, at the risk of repeating myself, it is Health Canada that provides that, and there would have to be a legal change in terms of who is the appropriate regulatory body. I would suggest that the groups that have the passion that believe that we should not be allowing that pesticide to be deemed as safe is to concentrate their efforts on communicating with Health Canada and presenting any evidence that they believe contradicts their view on it, because at the end of the day, Health Canada has looked at evidence that was provided by some of these third parties and have concluded that it is safe. Until that changes, it’s incumbent on me to ensure that I just look at the science and evidence and the application and make terms and conditions that are appropriate for wherever the spraying takes place.

            MS. ZANN: Just quickly because I know we’re coming to an end, but I can’t see why somebody who is the Minister of Environment can’t lead the way and go to your colleagues in the Ottawa government and get them to look into it as well and say, why is Hawaii banning it? Why is France banning it? Why are all these different countries and also states banning something that people have great concerns about?

            I noticed your comment about the agriculture industry as well, and you’re right - many people have concerns about using Roundup and glyphosate in our cereals and everything else. It causes many different diseases, including obesity and diabetes. So perhaps it has something to do with the rise in those kinds of diseases in our world today too.

            I just want to say thank you to the minister for all your responses today. I look forward to continuing to work together and discuss things in the weeks and months and years to come.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that concludes the questioning.

            MR. RANKIN: I want to thank all members for the important questions today.

            MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E7 stand?

            The resolution stands.

            The time for Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply has elapsed.

Thank you, we will adjourn.

            [The committee adjourned at 7:03 p.m.]