HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:50 P.M.

CHAIR

Brendan Maguire

THE CHAIR: Good afternoon, everyone. I call the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply to order, and we are here to consider the Estimates of the Department of Environment.

Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $38,524,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

THE CHAIR: I will now invite the Minister of Environment to make some opening comments.

Ms. Miller.

HON. MARGARET MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to present the details of this year’s budget for the Department of Environment.

Here at the table with me are Frances Martin, my trusty Deputy Minister of the department; Melissa Kunovac, Manager of Financial Services - did I pronounce that correctly? Good. Remi MacDonell, Acting Director of Financial Services is also in the room along with our senior team: Lorrie Roberts, Executive Director of Policy; Jason Hollett, Executive Director of our Climate Change Unit; Andrew Murphy, Executive Director of Sustainability and Applied Science; Adrian Fuller, Executive Director of Inspection Compliance, and Enforcement; and John Somers, Executive Lead on the Coastal Protection Act. Together we will try to answer any questions you may have.

I do want to stress that these people, who are the supports of our team in our department, are so much more than that. They are the stewards of the environment of this province. They are the ones who are in these roles from one government to the next, and they have been filling the roles all the way through, guiding me in my decisions - and I can’t tell you how much I support this group of men and women and the work that they do.

Mr. Chair, our job at the Nova Scotia Department of Environment is to protect the environment, human health, and the welfare of farm animals. This is a very broad mandate.

We hold responsibility for 35 pieces of legislation and more than 80 sets of regulations that include air quality, public health, conservation of land and water, wetlands, wildlife, and aquaculture.

With the breadth of our mandate, we are a busy department. On any given day, our 355 staff are developing and enforcing legislation and regulations. They are working to ensure that the restaurants and cafeterias where Nova Scotians eat are serving safe food; they are inspecting abattoirs, aquaculture sites, and body art facilities; they are working to protect wildlife and protected areas; dealing with contaminated sites; and they are reviewing applications for environmental assessments or industrial approvals.

In the 2018-19 fiscal year our compliance staff performed more than 17,000 inspections and audits, and they issued more than 2,700 enforcement actions. These included directives, warnings, compliance orders, summary offence tickets, and court cases. Our staff are dedicated, highly experienced people located across the province and together we use science and expert opinion to make decisions with environmental and human health protection always at the forefront of our minds.

I’d like to take a moment to recognize the work, again, that our staff do each and every day to achieve our mandate.

One of the things we’re doing to help compliance staff perform their jobs even more effectively and efficiently is building our system for notification and approval process - we call it SNAP for short. It’s an IT system for processing notifications, approvals, licences, and registrations. The system also tracks the operational work of inspectors. We have been building the system and adding programs for over the last few years. It helps us better manage our inspectors work to deliver programs. It captures the full suite of work they do such as inspections, consultations, audits and other enforcement activities. As the capital plan notes, government allocated $1.1 million for this project, to be spent over two years, last fiscal and again this fiscal.

We started incorporating the Food Safety Program into SNAP last year, and we will finish it this year. We are also using existing resources to add to the contaminated sites program. This will ensure appropriate resources are deployed for the level of risk. This is the kind of behind-the-scenes work that helps our compliance staff do their jobs to protect our environment and our people.

Our inspection work is more visible, and this is the first full year with our new responsibility for inspecting body art facilities. The Safe Body Art Act and regulations came into effect in February. We are now issuing permits to facilities and public health officers have begun to inspect. Our main focus right now is working with the industry to raise awareness of what they need to do to be in compliance with the new regulations.

We are also headed into this fiscal year better equipped to inspect provincially licensed abattoirs and respond to complaints about farm animals in distress. We have reorganized our inspection staff so that we now have 15 highly trained inspectors in locations across the province who can respond to farm animal welfare complaints and to inspect the abattoirs in a timely fashion. In addition to our inspection compliance and enforcement staff we also have staff working at the policy and program levels to protect our environment and the health and safety of Nova Scotians. Much of their work supports one of the top priorities of my department, and that is tackling climate change.

Mr. Chair, we all know that climate change is real and it’s happening right now. It’s causing sea level rise, increasing the risk of coastal flooding and putting our coastlines at risk. It’s bringing warmer average temperatures, more extreme rainfalls and more frequent and extreme storms. Warmer temperatures can worsen air quality and exacerbate health conditions. It can also increase the incidents of diseases such as Lyme disease. Changing weather patterns also affect climate sensitive industries like agriculture and forestry. There are two things that we need to do in response - one is to prevent further climate change from happening by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and the other is to adapt to the impacts that we cannot prevent.

Mr. Chair, Nova Scotia is and will continue to be a national leader in fighting climate change. We met the national 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gases over three years ago. Now we have set one of the most ambitious targets in the country - we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 45 and 50 per cent below the 2005 levels by the year 2030. There are many government initiatives that will help us achieve that target. Our use of renewable energy in the electricity sector has almost tripled in the last 10 years. We are on track to exceed our legislated target of having 40 per cent of our electricity come from renewable sources by the year 2020. We have more wind power per capita than eight other provinces and we are global leaders in the development of tidal energy technology. The use of solar energy in this province has more than doubled in the last six months since government introduced the SolarHomes rebate program.

Using less energy and switching to greener forms of energy help us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I want to acknowledge the hard work of Nova Scotians who have helped us reduce energy use in the province by more than 11 per cent since 2008. Many Nova Scotians are making energy efficiency upgrades with the financial support from programs that the province funds. Some of them are run by Efficiency Nova Scotia and the Clean Foundation. Upgrades include things like insulation, heat pumps, windows, doors and more. There are now more than 120,000 homes in our province with heat pumps. This is a win-win because it saves families money and it helps the environment by using less energy. As a result of our energy-saving efforts, Nova Scotia avoids more than 1 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year.

[4:00 p.m.]

With our new cap-and-trade program in place, we will reduce even more. Mr. Chair, Ottawa required us to put our carbon price in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We chose the cap-and-trade program because it will lower emissions while protecting the pocketbooks of Nova Scotians.

This program began January 1^st this year. There are 21 companies that are mandatory participants. Our program will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions above and beyond the aggressive targets we’ve already been planning to achieve, and it will do this while protecting Nova Scotians as ratepayers and consumers. We believe this is the best solution that recognizes the significant investment and progress that I’ve just outlined in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This was an important step for Nova Scotia.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of our staff who have designed the program under very tight federal timelines.

Mr. Chair, I want to note that our work on protected areas also helps fight climate change. When we think of a protected area, we think of clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and opportunities for both adventure and quiet reflection. We think of conserving biodiversity and allowing animals and plants to thrive in their natural habitats. Those things are all true, of course, but it is also important to know the protected areas also play a direct role in responding to climate change. The trees and plants capture and store carbon dioxide, and they produce oxygen.

Our parks and wilderness areas also offer fantastic opportunities for recreation and for economic development. All around these areas are businesses that can thrive through nature tourism and serve outdoor adventure enthusiasts. This is a perfect example of the economy and the environment thriving together.

In November we designated three new protected areas - the Wentworth Valley Wilderness Area, the Chase Lake Wilderness Area, and the Steepbank Brook Nature Reserve. These new designations bring us to about 12.47 per cent, or 689,000 hectares of Nova Scotia’s land under protection. This includes Provincial Parks in protected areas, National Parks and National Wildlife Areas, and lands protected by land trusts.

We are looking at additional lands to protect, moving us towards our goal of 13 per cent. To designate new lands our staff worked closely with our partner departments and consulted with Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, municipalities, industry, community groups, non-government organizations and other interested Nova Scotians.

Mr. Chair, I noted that our protected areas support biodiversity in the province. That’s something we take very seriously as a government. It’s why my colleague at Lands and Forestry is establishing a Biodiversity Act. This makes Nova Scotia the first province in Canada to create a stand-alone legislation on biodiversity. It gives us regulatory authority to make it easier to conserve wild species, habitats, and ecosystems.

Environment will continue to work with Lands and Forestry to develop the regulations for this Act. Our conservation officers will have an enforcement role for those regulations and our continued work on protected areas will support the conservation of biodiversity in the province.

Mr. Chair, I said earlier that we needed to prevent as much climate change as possible and adapt to the impacts that we can’t prevent. I’d like to talk more about some of the things that we’re doing on the adaptation front. Through my department and the Department of Municipal Affairs the province is working with municipalities across the province to better understand the impacts of climate change and to identify strategies to adapt to these changes.

I’d like to note that the recent federal budget included an increase in gas tax funding which municipalities may be able to use for some aspects of adaptation. I’d like to take a moment to thank municipalities for their excellent work in this area. I also want to thank the youth of Nova Scotia for their passion to address climate change and protect the environment. Young people are driving change just as much as we are, and we applaud their work and stand with them in the fight against climate change.

Mr. Chair, since 1989, we’ve been supporting green jobs for young Nova Scotians through the Clean Leadership Program. It originated in the department and is now run by the Clean Foundation. The department provides $100,000 annually for this program to hire summer interns. Last year, and again this year, we are giving about $100,000 extra. With our funding and the $150,000 from the Department of Labour and Advanced Education, Clean is able to hire 73 interns this year. These inspiring young interns will pursue a variety of projects focused on protecting our environment. Some examples include renewable energy, urban design, and resource conservation. Last year, more than half of the projects were in emerging environmental businesses and industry; about 56 per cent were in rural communities.

The interns engaged nearly 15,000 Nova Scotians through public and community outreach. The interns worked for non-profits, non-government organizations, First Nations groups, government, research institutes, and small- and medium-sized enterprises. They learned technical field skills, public speaking, research skills, and more, that make them very employable in today’s job market. With their passion for the environment, many of them will go on to pursue careers in this field. We are proud to support this program which brings youthful energy, perspectives, and innovation to the environmental challenges of today and tomorrow.

We are also getting our own house in order and taking steps to anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces that has done a detailed government-wide assessment of the likely impacts and the severity of climate change. We are committed to reviewing that assessment study in 2019.

My department is also working with other departments and their respective sectors throughout the Climate Adaptation Leadership Program. This program helps provincial departments and the sectors they work with to be resilient in the face of climate change. Working closely with our staff, the department’s inner sectors assess their climate-related risks and implement action plans. For example, we’ve already started working with the Department of Agriculture and the agriculture industry that it supports. One of the things they did was a pilot project exploring the impact of climate change on the wine and grape sector. This project used predictions for extreme weather events, such as temperature and flooding, to help inform the industry’s production decisions.

This year we will expand to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, with that department, places of cultural importance with the Department of Communities, Culture and Heritage, and the risk to public health and wellness health infrastructure with the Department of Health and Wellness. We are investing $230,000 in new funding into this program in the years 2019-20.

We are also finalizing an agreement with Natural Resources Canada to secure a significant federal contribution to support this work, and I look forward to sharing more details about that soon.

One of the adaptation challenges that we are facing head-on this year is the need to protect our coasts. I had the honour of tabling the Coastal Protection Act in this House a few weeks ago. This legislation will set out clear rules for what can and can’t be done in coastal protection zones. It will help us protect our salt marshes, our dunes, and other coastal features. This means that they can continue to shelter birds and other sea life, to filter water and help our coastline adapt naturally to the impact of climate change.

It will also ensure that new development in our coastal protection zones takes climate change into account in the planning stages. We can’t change the past, but we can take action for the future. That’s why this legislation deals with future construction. It will ensure that new construction is built in safer places where it’s not at high risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

Through our consultation last summer, we heard that this was an important issue and strong support for addressing it through legislation. We will continue to work with municipalities and others over the next 12 to 18 months as we develop the regulations that will set out how this legislation will work.

Mr. Chair, there is another piece of legislation we will be working on this year. The Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act was originally passed in 2007. It set out 25 ambitious goals for our province, from solid waste to sustainable purchasing, renewable energy to water quality. A great deal of what we have accomplished can be traced back to the focus provided by this piece of legislation, particularly in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. It has been 12 years since the Act was passed and it’s time for an update.

We have worked with the Minister’s Round Table on Environment and Sustainable Prosperity to renew and refocus the Act and we will continue a review of the legislation this year. I would like to thank the members of the Round Table for their work on the renewal of this important piece of legislation. We look forward to the renewed legislation serving as a guide for our continued work to fight climate change, reduce waste, and take many other steps to protect our environment.

Mr. Chair, in addition to being leaders in fighting climate change, Nova Scotia is also a leader in solid waste reduction. Our disposal rate is half of the Canadian average. Nearly all households have curbside collections of recyclables and organic material. More than 20 materials are banned from landfills, including food, glass, plastics, paper, cardboard, and electronics.

We all have the same goal - to reduce waste in the province. In the coming fiscal year, we will start diverting even more from landfills. Nova Scotia currently has extended producer responsibility programs for paint and some electronics. That means the industry that produced the product is responsible for recycling them at the end of their lives.

It has been very successful, so we have taken it a step further. Starting in January 2020, Nova Scotians will be able to recycle even more electronics. They will also be able to recycle used oil, oil containers and oil filters, as well as glycol, which is a coolant, and glycol containers. We are requiring industry to take responsibility for these products and run recycling programs for them.

The used oil and glycol products will reduce costs for about 2,000 businesses because they will no longer have to pay for proper disposal of these products themselves. The estimated total savings to businesses is $1.2 million a year. Once those programs are in place, we’ll ban the following items from disposal in landfills as of March 2020. They will be: microwaves, e-book readers, GPS devices, video game systems and controllers, external hard drives, optical drives and modems, used oil, oil filters, oil containers, and glycol and glycol containers - the people around this table are looking at these devices and thinking that they were already banned, which a lot of people do, and don’t realize.

I’d like to note that Nova Scotia is the only province that has outright bans on disposing certain materials from landfills. While keeping these bans in place we have made changes to our regulation that create another innovative option for managing materials. Sometimes there are banned materials that cannot be recycled, and it is better to recover energy than bury them in a landfill. These changes allow waste-to-energy facilities to accept banned materials and use them to create energy. They are subject to environmental assessment approvals and industrial approvals from the department. Allowing these facilities to operate in Nova Scotia will help keep as much waste as possible out of our landfills and create green jobs in the province.

Mr. Chair, I’d like to switch gears for a moment and talk a little bit about Northern Pulp. As you know, I announced my decision on the environmental assessment of the effluent treatment plant last week. As Minister of Environment I am responsible to ensure that this project is reviewed based on science and evidence, and I take this role very seriously. I personally read the entire registration document and all 4,500 pages of government and public comments. I listened to the technical expertise of my staff. I concluded that there was not enough information in the package as submitted by Northern Pulp to properly assess the impacts on the environment, and that is why my decision is to require a focus report.

[4:15 p.m.]

My staff will prepare terms of reference for what the report may include. We will share them with the company before April 24^th, hopefully has soon as possible, and post them on our website. From that date Northern Pulp will have up to one year to submit the report. Once the report is submitted, we will put it on our website and the public will have 30 days to comment on it. Just as I have done with the registration document, I will consider the focus report and all the review and public comments. Then I will make a decision whether to accept the project, to reject it, or to require an environmental assessment report. Again, this decision will be made based on science and evidence.

Mr. Chair, that applies to all the decisions we make in this department. In the coming year we will continue to use this approach to ensure the best possible protection for our environment, the health and safety of Nova Scotians, and the welfare of farm animals. We will continue to be a leader in fighting climate changes as we implement our new cap- and-trade program; we will continue to strengthen our government’s and our province’s capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change that we cannot prevent; we will consult with Nova Scotians on regulations to support the new Coastal Protection Act and on the renewal of our sustainability legislation; and we’ll continue to reduce solid waste and make decisions that will advance our leadership position in this field.

Like us, Nova Scotians care about protecting our air, our land, and water, and we are optimistic about advancing this work in the year ahead. Mr. Chair, I would now be happy to take your questions.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Miller. We will now go to the Progressive Conservative caucus for one hour.

Mr. Johns.

BRAD JOHNS: I just wanted to confirm there are other members in my caucus that have some questions as well which will be coming forward later, but our intention is to hopefully have DOE here today as well as tomorrow and I’m just wanting to check - you’ll be here tomorrow as well, correct?

MARGARET MILLER: I hope so.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you. If you are not, if you could let me know because some of my colleagues, the questions I think would be more beneficial for them to check with you, so if you could just let me know when we have a break or whatever, that would be great.

Before I start asking some questions, I would just like to state that on a personal level I am really glad to see that you’re back in charge of this portfolio, Minister Miller. I certainly respect and have a lot of time for Minister Rankin, but I think this puts you in this portfolio now for over two years, almost two and half years and I think that that’s - I’ve just been given this portfolio recently as of December and had no real recollection of how large and encompassing and how much it had to deal with. Before I ask any questions, I certainly commend staff as well as yourself because it’s a huge department. I have no idea how everybody is dealing with all the different aspects of it, so I did want to say that.

Starting off, I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I could, in regard to the 13 per cent protected areas. Last year during Estimates, Minister Rankin mentioned that the Department of Environment was going to continue to work with Natural Resources and continue to push towards that 13 per cent of protected land across the province. There was a quote there that I thought was interesting, which said: “while ensuring a balance so that there are no negative recreational or economic effects.” I notice again that this year in the annual plan under the goals of the department, it states moving towards the 13 per cent and again it mentions without “negative recreational or economic effects.”

I’m kind of curious as to what those are. I know that the Mining Association of Nova Scotia has been somewhat critical of the province’s protected area policy and that they’ve suggested that the policy is actually stifling job creation and economic potential within the province. So, I’m kind of curious as to the potential negative recreation and economic effects that are mentioned, if you could just touch on that for me.

MARGARET MILLER: First of all, I’ll address your earlier comments. If I’m not here tomorrow, somebody will be. There will still be somebody here to answer your questions. There will be another minister in my role, but I expect to be here. We’ll just leave it at that.

As for the expansive role of my department, it’s the people behind me who do the very broad-based work that there is. This department is all-encompassing. It’s like the department of everything. I think we have over 40 different Acts that we look after. So, certainly, it is all-encompassing and that’s why the men and women who sit here to help me assist in some of these questions - they’re the ones who are on the front line every day making these judgment calls and advising me on different issues that come forward.

It’s funny, you find yourself at different stages of life and I never thought that at my age you walk into a department and your brain has to totally open just to be able to absorb all the material that you have to. It’s really wonderful. Although I’ve always been a voracious reader and learner, I have found that this is just a wonderful opportunity and I welcome coming back to Environment, and I often joke that it’s the only department that actually recycles its ministers. I do enjoy that as well, so it was nice to go back.

As for the 13 per cent and your comments on the recreational use of these properties, I think that’s one of the considerations that is taking place when we’re protecting them. Certainly, protected areas, there is the opportunity for ecotourism and things like that. We also have to look at all the other uses that could be, so we need to make sure that it’s not in an area that we know is going to impede expansions of different areas, whether it’s for business or recreation use or whatever.

Certainly, the mining considerations absolutely make sense, but we also need to take into account - I can’t think of an instance in particular to bring, but I’m just saying if there was something right in the middle of Truro or in the middle of Halifax, you wouldn’t be protecting that. Well, something like the Common, we know that’s an area that has a high recreational use or something like where we know that there may be a sports stadium in Shannon Park. That’s not an area that we would protect, knowing that there were interests of some kind of use there.

BRAD JOHNS: I do note that just gone by, in November the government designated Wentworth Valley - I think there was 2,000 hectares there; Chase Lake Wilderness area; and 203 hectares in Steepbank Brook Nature Reserve, which I think brings - and I just want to clarify this - that the total protected area currently in the province would be 689,000 hectares.

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, I believe that was in my beginning notes. It’s about that.

BRAD JOHNS: In December 2015, the total percentage of protected area was 9.4 per cent in the province, and here we are four years later we’re now at 12.3 per cent, which is only a marginal growth of .17. I looked back at 2015, at how quickly lands were added to bring that number - the number at 2015, I think, was at 9.4 or something and it shot right up there almost overnight, and now, within the last four years, we’ve only gone up 1.7, I’m sorry. I know Ecology Action and other environmental groups are all saying that they are anxious to reach that 13 per cent.

As the Party that championed and brought in the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, the Progressive Conservatives have been interested in reaching that goal and some are saying to me that it doesn’t seem that the current government is really pushing to reach that goal; they don’t seem to have a fire.

I know that in the minister’s opening remarks she said that she was going to be working with the Department of Lands and Forestry to look at identifying additional sites. My understanding is that there is an approved list with potential properties that could be moved forward whereby we could probably get to that 13 per cent number relatively quickly.

I would like to ask the minister: Are there approved sites that have already been surveyed and are kind of sitting there?

MARGARET MILLER: Certainly, when this program started, when we started protecting properties, designating these areas across the province, it was much easier in the early days to bring forward properties. We were looking at existing parklands and different properties that came forward. Part of that process was that we needed to make sure that there were no interests in the land from other parties and we needed to consult extensively in all those areas. So, in Wentworth there would have been extensive consultation and all of them would have had a very extensive consultation process, including with the Mi’Kmaq.

We had to look at the recreation things, like we had to work with the ATV clubs, snowmobile clubs, and hiking clubs and we had to designate trails in those areas or pathways through some of those areas. There had to be agreed-upon pathways and we wanted to make sure that they weren’t wide open totally, that you had vehicles going in to protected areas that shouldn’t be going in, and for some of that there was resistance in communities on that as well.

We had to look at the business of mining and development, so we had to look at the mining interests and on many of those lands there were still mining claims in effect and we had to wait until they were released. In the broader context, more of these properties could be protected earlier in larger groups.

As the list finalizes and gets to that end of the list it is more difficult to do that. You have different claims, you have different interests, and actually in the original parks and protected area plans I believe it was up to 13.8 per cent - it would have been if all of those properties had been taken in. So, we are narrowing it down.

There is a list to bring it to 13 per cent, but there are so many i’s to dot and t’s to cross that we have to make sure that we are getting the right properties and that we are protecting what we want to. We are looking at the biodiversity interests in all of those areas. We need to know that we are protecting the right properties and that we are not protecting a property that may be similar to something else that we already have when we know that there is a different property that can actually be more beneficial to be protected. We are looking at the wetlands, and to see where there are more interests.

The goal is still, of course, to move to that 13 per cent and at that time we will know there are properties that will not be included in the 13 per cent. We are starting to look at those properties as well, and if possibly some of those should be released prior to reaching that, and that’s always a possibility as well.

BRAD JOHNS: Mr. Chair, I would certainly encourage you - as I said, from people I’ve talked with, with Ecology Action and other different groups, there is that push to reach that 13 per cent. There is actually a push now to, of course, reach 14 per cent, which I am sure you’ve heard of from a number of these groups, but I think it would be absolutely wonderful if you, as the minister, were able to get this done this term and this year. I think that would be a great thing.

[4:30 p.m.]

I realize how large an area - I think 1 per cent is almost half the size of Keji, I think I read. I recognize the size of .17 per cent; I think it would be so great to see us get there.

I wanted to move on and talk a little bit in regard to Divert NS. That falls under the Department of Environment, correct? The annual operating budget for Divert NS, I looked on their website and it said it was over $57 million total budget in 2018, which really surprised me because the entire budget for the Department of Environment is coming in at $38.5 million, so Divert has a relatively significantly larger budget right now than the department does.

Of that $57 million I just wanted to confirm - does Divert only give the Department of Environment annually $1.6 million?

MARGARET MILLER: First of all, I want to talk a little bit about - if you don’t mind me going back to the 13 per cent. The 13 per cent goal actually is a very high goal for Nova Scotia, considering that only one-third of our land base is Crown land, so when we’re looking at protecting 13 per cent of our province, that’s looking at more than one-third of our Crown land in the province. When the national goal is 17 per cent at the federal round tables but a lot of other provinces have a Crown land base of much more than Nova Scotia has.

I think the last meeting I was at, Quebec admitted they were at only 9 per cent because they have so much Crown land. It was much more difficult for them or they felt it was much more difficult. I think for Nova Scotia this is very commendable that we’re reaching 13 per cent and I share the goal. I mean we’d like to see it done as quickly as possible, but we have to make sure we’ve got the right lands and the right properties in that 13 per cent, so we’re moving forward very cautiously now.

As for your comment about Divert NS, Divert is a wonderful organization, I always enjoy so much talking to them. Under Jeff MacCallum they’ve been doing a wonderful job. They have a great panel that is really working very hard.

The answer to your question is yes, they do fund municipalities and they have innovation programs. If you go out to the site at Milford it’s really interesting, the recycling that’s going on there. It’s not the Divert site, sorry, it’s the Halifax C&D site that’s there in Milford, and they have actually taken construction waste and they are making cattle bedding which, as a former dairy farmer, I found really interesting that they could do this without being a risk to cows, which are very susceptible to the bacteria. They are making it work and just an example of some of the funding they do on innovations. Also, they support education to encourage innovation. Divert is one of these organizations that if somebody has a really good idea and wants to bring it forward, they have that opportunity through Divert to be able to move that forward. I think it’s such a good news story for Nova Scotia.

When we look at our solid waste, certainly what’s happening there, and we’ve seen in Nova Scotia how they have embraced recycling, that we’ve reduced our disposal rate to 423 kilograms per person when the Canadian average was 688 - it’s certainly a really good news story.

BRAD JOHNS: Actually, when I looked at the website, I saw the breakdown. They had their 2018 Operating Budget Annual Report there, so I did go through that, saw how it broke down to the number of the percentages where they contributed all the money. I guess I go back to asking the question - and I recognize that there are operational costs, some of their program expenditures at $10 million and what they do with the municipalities and all that, even the Adopt-A-Highway program, but at the end of it all, I really was kind of questioning as to whether or not there might not be an opportunity for the province and the department to receive more than, I think, it’s more than the $1.6 million.

The reason I’m asking that is I note, I brought up last year to then Minister Rankin, in regard to an environmental trust, which I want to discuss in a few minutes. I know that there’s about $400,000 there. The recycling company in New Brunswick, I think it’s New Brunswick Bottle Recycling, which has almost a similar responsibility to what Divert NS has, actually a percentage of their funding goes back, I think it says at $6 million to 60 different groups. It goes back to groups in the province to help environmental groups to be able to operate. Not so much here in Halifax. I think that we’re fortunate. I have Sackville Rivers Association, but I mean we have some of the larger organizations here in HRM, but in more rural parts of Nova Scotia they don’t necessarily, the smaller ones like Sackville Rivers, smaller environmentalist groups that are really doing grassroots work and trying to strengthen our province environmentally, they don’t have any money.

I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but I think that a number of different groups like the Nova Scotia Environmental Network, I think a lot of them really had some hope in regard to that environmental trust, that part of that money was going to help to offset operating and help them to be able to operate that. I’m not quite sure whether or not that has or hasn’t happened, but I want to know if there’s a way to actually increase or redirect part of that $1.6 million or see that $1.6 million increased so that some of that revenue that Divert NS is having can go directly to those environmental bodies.

MARGARET MILLER: You know, I can see where you’re coming from and I think that different provinces have different ways of doing things. I think it has been long standing in Nova Scotia, certainly something I agree with, that we want Divert NS to take the money that they’re earning, they do make a profit and some of that comes back to the province, but we would rather have them invest in municipalities.

We had a situation in round one when we were looking for efficiencies in our solid waste management and we asked Divert NS to help with that as well. They were able to help supply funds to municipalities to look for efficiencies in their system and different ways to reduce their own costs because we had so many, I’m thinking there are seven different areas - I’m losing my train of thought here - there were seven different areas and each had their own system working, so we needed to find some kind of balance, or they had to work in those areas to see where they could actually find efficiencies in there.

So, we want them to continue with that. You know, we have new green companies starting all the time, we want Divert NS to be investing in some of those companies so that we have innovation like the cow bedding, so that we have other things. We have a company like Halifax C&D that Divert can work with to promote this. Also, they do a lot with schools and education programs. They are going to the schools and talking about recycling programs, dealing with plastics, and dealing with different issues in recycling. We want that to continue.

They also help fund the Youth Conservation Corps and the Clean Foundation. That is their investment in communities. You see them doing tree planting programs, working with associations that clean streams; I saw where some of the jobs were going that were listed a little while ago and they work very hard on these.

They are also working with First Nations youth. I was very blessed to be able to go to Sipekne'katik a couple of years ago with the Premier where they were actually planting trees by a stream. It was in an area that had been all cleared and they wanted to plant several species of trees that would benefit the community; with the increased funding this year, it is certainly predominant, as well.

BRAD JOHNS: Minister, I guess, going back, is there an opportunity - I assume there is an MOU with Divert NS and there is some type of MOU where the province - is there an MOU with Divert NS? And, is that money that the Department of Environment receives from Divert NS, is that a flat rate or is it on a scaled rate based on how much money they bring in?

MARGARET MILLER: There is the regulations agreement as the 20 per cent of the net revenue does go back into the province.

BRAD JOHNS. I’m sorry, that was 20 per cent of their net revenue comes to the province.

MARGARET MILLER: Yes - up to 20 per cent - and that is in the regulatory agreement with the province.

BRAD JOHNS: Now, I have the numbers for their 2018 budget which I said is $57 million. So, the question is: Do we know that their total budget has increased every year over the last couple of years, like, has that been reviewed to see?

MARGARET MILLER: The amount of money they get from the province doesn’t change. They haven’t had an increase there, but their numbers go up based on the sale of their commodities. So, whether they are selling their plastic products, or they are selling aluminum or metal products, that would fluctuate.

BRAD JOHNS: Are their bottom line revenues increasing year after year?

MARGARET MILLER: The number is staying about the same. It depends on the commodities and whether they can get rid of them or not. If they can, then you are going to see an increase in their bottom line; if they can’t, and they are holding or storing more, then you are going to see a little bit less. It also depends on how many of their recyclables are going through and what people are claiming back - like when they bring their recyclables back - if there’s a lot that are left, the money then goes to Divert NS.

BRAD JOHNS: I would like to ask the minister: Can you confirm how much money the Department of Environment actually sets aside to fund environmental grassroots groups across the province similar to the Nova Scotia Environmental Network, Clean Foundation, Ecology Action Centre? Does the department set aside money to give to those groups every year?

[4:45 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: We do fund some groups. I can tell you that we don’t give core funding to groups - like EAC certainly wouldn’t get core funding but they could apply for funding for special projects - and so most groups, I think, would get their funding through any kind of a special project allocation. Determination would be made based on the worth of those projects but we don’t have a dedicated budget to fund projects.

BRAD JOHNS: So, I guess it’s just a general observation but, to me, when I look at the overall budget that Divert NS currently has of $57 million - which I had pointed out is greater than what DOE’s budget is of $38.5 million this year - there must be some opportunity to increase that $1.6 million that the department receives from Divert NS; even if it was 10 per cent. Then, thereby be able to take that small amount of revenue and transfer that to some of these environmental groups that are grassroots and really trying to help with environment.

I’ve been personally in political life now for going on 19 years and I recognize sometimes we can be at odds with different groups but when I look at what some of these environmentalist groups are doing, I think that overall, they are helping. They are stewards of the environment and I do think that they contribute far more than they ever cost. So, it would be really nice to be able to see some way to see additional funding or some type of funding actually go there.

I know you did say that we don’t core fund but some of these groups, especially some of the more longstanding ones, I really feel that they need that support. I’ve seen what Sackville Rivers Association has been able to do in the Sackville area over my 16 years as a municipal councillor. I know that there are many others all across the province that I think would be able to do quite a bit as well, if they were able to receive some of that funding.

Now, on that point, what I’d like to talk about is in regard to the Nova Scotia Environmental Trust fund which my understanding is there’s approximately $400,000 that is presently sitting in that account. Can somebody clarify for me how much money is in the account in that fund?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, I can clarify there’s $438,000 in that account.

BRAD JOHNS: How long has the $438,000 been sitting in the fund?

MARGARET MILLER: That fund has been accumulated over approximately the last 10 years.

BRAD JOHNS: The initial amount in the fund was?

MARGARET MILLER: In the 1990s there was nothing in the fund and now it is at $438,000, and that has accumulated over the last 10 years.

BRAD JOHNS: Are there deposits and withdrawals from it, and when have the last drawdowns been on the account?

MARGARET MILLER: There have only been deposits in the account and they are a result of court fines. So sometimes you will see different businesses or whatever that are being fined on different issues and that money goes into the fund.

BRAD JOHNS: So, the funds that are there are a direct result from court fines and it has accumulated over 10 years to be at a point now that there’s $438,000 in the account. When was the last time there was a drawdown on it or anything given out?

MARGARET MILLER: No, there hasn’t been any drawdowns on that account; the money has all been left there accumulating. At this point the department is working on a plan of where to best use that.

BRAD JOHNS: So, I’m assuming it’s like a reserve fund or a trust. So, was there terms of reference that was set up initially to establish the fund?

MARGARET MILLER: There were regulations set up when that fund began, and those regulations are still in place.

BRAD JOHNS: Those regulations were established by the department were they?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, they were.

BRAD JOHNS: So, going back to this point in regard to different organizations across the province that are looking for funding to help offset some of their core expenses and staffing and things, is this an opportunity to look at funding some of those groups through the Environmental Trust?

MARGARET MILLER: You know, that is a possibility. We’re looking at that now to see where best that money can be used and where it could serve to benefit the province on environmental issues. Also, I know that your concern is about having these environmental groups, to be able to provide them with some kind of funding, not necessarily core funding, but project funding and that may be somewhere where we’re going to be able to take some of those funds to some of those projects.

But also, we have coming up in the near future, the cap-and-trade program; there’s going to be a Green Fund. We’re still looking at the options for that as well and if that can be used; that’s not money that will go to general revenues. It will be going specifically to green projects around the province and we’re going to be looking at other uses for that as well, to see about mitigation factors for the mitigation of greenhouse gases.

We’re also thinking about the people on social assistance that are being impacted by the cap-and-trade system - the increased cost - to see if there can be mitigation for them as well; maybe some funding to supplement them, because of the additional costs of climate change.

BRAD JOHNS: I don’t want to get into cap-and-trade right now because I told you, I think the department is huge. I commend you as well as all the staff that are in the department because the mandate is just so large. Sometimes it seems more like a platter than a plate to me, for sure.

I don’t want to get into the cap-and-trade yet, although what I would suggest is, I had always thought that the cap-and-trade generated through that system that was being brought forward, that it generated money to help offset people with lower income, that people did receive benefit or money back through that.

In regard to this, though, what I really think is that we have an opportunity through Divert NS, to look at generating some ongoing revenue that can then be deposited into the Trust, in addition to other monies that are coming in. Those monies could then provide an opportunity - and I recognize what you are saying in regard to core funding, you’d certainly know more than I do - but even project-specific funds, to have those monies come back out.

What I find really disheartening is that it seems those monies have been sitting there for a really long time. I know in the big picture of an $11 billion budget, I know they are really insignificant but to the community groups, especially in the rural areas of the province, I think they would be significant to some of those.

Just to clarify, you do know this isn’t the first time I brought this up. I did bring this up in the House in October 6, 2017, then with Minister Rankin, to try to bring it to the attention of the department. I think it would be something, I think it would be fair to say that on a go forward basis it’s probably going to be something I keep asking about. Just so staff are aware, as well as yourself, that’s probably going to be something I keep asking about, to see whether or not there’s opportunities to access some of that.

MARGARET MILLER: To address some of your issues here that you were talking about, I do remember from my time in Natural Resources, which now of course is Lands and Forestry, that there was also some funding there for different projects for different issues. I don’t want to say just environmental issues but there was also trail funding, there was group funding, there were just different things. They do have a little more budget for that kind of thing than we do.

If I remember correctly, there were quite a few groups involved with funding that were coming from there, things like the Shubenacadie Canal Waterway. I’m not sure that the Sackville Rivers Association may have been - don’t quote me on this although it’s hard to say that on the record - I’m not sure that they weren’t getting some funding there on projects as well.

Also, if you are interested, we can provide you with the details of exactly what Divert NS spends their money on in the community, if you are interested in the details on that. I know they are very active as well with different projects.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you very much, Minister Miller. As I said, I did look at the Divert NS Annual Report and did highlight some of the things they do contribute to. To me I see an opportunity there, and I hear from local environmental community groups that they require some additional funding. I put those things together and say that it makes sense. It’s not like you are asking a totally different department that has nothing to do; I think you can connect the dots there.

I do recognize that the Sackville Rivers Association of course has in the past, I think, got grants in different project funding from Fisheries and Aquaculture as well. I know they have done that in the past.

I wanted to ask a couple of quick questions regarding the SolarHomes program. When I was on Halifax Regional Council, I was a strong advocate for a program they had, which was called Solar City. I do support very strongly the concept of solar homes and that type of program.

[5:00 p.m.]

I believe the province that it’s to a maximum of $10,000. I’m curious to know what the - I know you said something regarding the uptake had actually doubled. What is the current number of people who are now involved in that program?

MARGARET MILLER: A lot of that information is available to the Department of Energy and Mines. It really isn’t as much with the Department of Environment. Any solar programs could actually be serviced through the Green Fund as well.

BRAD JOHNS: I’m just curious to know, there is a community buildings program side of that, which they’ve identified - and you may or may not know - as a three-year pilot program that side. The SolarHomes program, I didn’t really see if there was a cut-off date for that program. Would your staff know that?

MARGARET MILLER: That is something that you’ll have to take up with the Department of Energy and Mines. I think he’s already done, so you may have to ask that question in the House or outside of the Chamber.

BRAD JOHNS: Going on to the Safe Body Art Act. I know this just came into effect on February 1^st. I’m curious to know how compliance has been regarding the Act, the implementation of the Act, and if there have been any initial issues that have really popped out of that Act.

MARGARET MILLER: I’m not aware of any real issues. These are fairly new days. As you saw from my beginning remarks, the department is actually working with all of these facilities to make sure their standards are up to what at what point will be determined to be a provincial standard.

We are currently out there inspecting, but at this point it’s just more education. Once we’ve determined all the facilities have had that opportunity to either upgrade their level of service or come into compliance with the Department of Health and Wellness regulations, we will be able to then enforce any compliance issues.

BRAD JOHNS: I did recognize one of the goals last year in the annual plan was to ensure that the standards and guidelines were online. I did see those for businesses, so I was happy to see that as well.

Last year, there was a discussion regarding the department hiring a prosecutor who would actually specialize in environmental legislation that would enforce compliance of the Department of Environment’s mandate. Has the department hired a solicitor that’s specific to the department?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, we have. It was under discussion with my round one as well, so I was really happy to see that come forward in this last time with the Department of Environment. It has been very beneficial.

What was happening previously is our enforcement officers, or enforcement team, were going out and attempting to prosecute for different violations, and then the Crown dismissed it. It’s up to the Crown to move forward on a lot of these issues, and certainly it was frustrating for our conservation officers to know they’re doing the right thing in charging different individuals on different issues and not move forward.

We’re finding that this is very beneficial. I do have to qualify that by saying the public prosecutor is not our employee of the department. They’re certainly specializing in the Department of Environment. They’re more aware of what the needs of the department are and the Environment Acts and what their role is in that, but they are independent.

BRAD JOHNS: I’m sorry, I kind of missed what you just said at the end there. They’re independent of the department but they’re hired by the department to enforce the regulations. Is that it?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, they are paid by the department, but they are part of the Public Prosecution Service, which is independent.

BRAD JOHNS: Is their workload shared with other departments?

MARGARET MILLER: Their workload is dedicated to Nova Scotia Environment.

BRAD JOHNS: What has caseload been like within the last year? I assume they’re enforcing fines that the department is passing out. Is there a revenue source there? Is the revenue coming in generated by the fines offsetting the cost of the solicitor?

MARGARET MILLER: There are many options to our enforcement fight. One of them is a fine process where they can actually issue tickets and there are fines. That money doesn’t come back to the department. It goes into the general revenues of the province.

BRAD JOHNS: So, the cost of the solicitor comes from the department? The solicitor is there to enforce regulations from the department, but any fines that are generated by the solicitor go back into general coffers?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, that is true.

BRAD JOHNS: Are the cases posted online?

MARGARET MILLER: I’m sorry, I didn’t get the question.

BRAD JOHNS: Prosecution, I’m sorry, are the prosecution cases posted online on the government site?

MARGARET MILLER: They aren’t posted online until after they’ve been to court and we have a verdict. Any guilty prosecutions are posted online. We’re not going to assume that we can post online when a decision hasn’t been made. That’s not really fair to the person who has been charged.

BRAD JOHNS: I totally understand that. The fine that’s levied is also posted then is it?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, it is.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you. What am I like for time, Mr. Chair?

THE CHAIR: You are at nine minutes.

BRAD JOHNS: Okay. I noticed during your opening remarks you discussed the system notification and approval processing. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? This was the first time I actually heard anything about it. Is that something that’s used by other departments within the province? I know you have mentioned contaminated sites are going to start being tracked there but I’m not familiar with that. Could you just tell me a little bit about that?

MARGARET MILLER: This is something that we’re very happy with. I can’t say if it is what other departments are really doing. I mean, it certainly is the goal of government to be as transparent as humanly possible and we’re all working towards that but, you know, any kind of online anything is sometimes hard to get going but this has been a real good-news story. It’s an IT system for processing notifications, approvals, licences, and registrations, so people can go online and do all of those without dealing with people specifically. You’re sending them in by mail. The system also tracks the operational work of inspectors. If you have a restaurant that you want to go to, you can actually check out all the inspection reports from those restaurants or abattoirs or any other facilities.

We issue approvals also through SNAP. The terms and conditions of each approval are in the system, so we can easily look them up and track deadlines that the approval holder must meet, as well as when an inspection is due based on the risk model.

The risk model means if you are looking at a restaurant and you are not sure, or they are looking at the restaurant and seeing if it’s scheduled to be inspected, it would be based on the risk. What I mean by that is if they have gone there six times already and every time it has been perfect, the risk level would drop. Whereas if they’d gone there six times and four out of the six there were issues that the inspectors had to deal with, that’s a facility they will be going to see more, just to make sure it remains in compliance.

The system tracks everything our inspectors do. They log on their inspection reports and compliance actions in it, so it is very transparent. We have never had a time in the history of Nova Scotia where people have had access to the information they now do through the Department of Environment.

We can also pull our reports from the SNAP system to analyze compliance trends, so you can see how different organizations and businesses - how their compliances are, whether it’s increasing that there is more compliance or are they working to make sure they are compliant.

We are expanding the SNAP process in phases. There are 150 environmental activities already in the system. It’s pretty amazing.

We already have some programs in SNAP: the Tobacco Access Act, the Snow Sport Helmet Act, the Fur Industry Act, and the Safe Body Art Act. We are also working on food safety, contaminated sites, farm animal welfare, and meat inspections. They are all on that, as well.

Currently, we are investing another $1.1 million in the two-year phase. Of that, $530,000 was spent in the last fiscal year and we are going to be spending another $584,000 in this current budget year.

We are expected to have the contaminated sites component operational by the fall and food safety by March 20^th. Also, the outside, online portion of SNAP is not operational yet, but it is coming. All in all, I think it’s a great standard for the public to be able to see. It’s a great standard of transparency, I believe, in government.

BRAD JOHNS: It sounds like it’s a good tool. It sounds like a pretty good tool and that was the first I’d heard of it, so thank you for explaining that.

I think I have about four minutes left. I did have some questions regarding EGSPA. I know that it first passed in 2007, 12 years ago. It was supposed to come up for review, I think, in 2018.

I would like to ask the minister if she knows when the next - I know you mentioned some of it in the opening remarks, but when is the scheduled review for EGSPA due to occur?

MARGARET MILLER: We are working on the EGSPA and first I want to be able to thank the panel members - the expert group. I met with them a couple of times and they are all very enthusiastic and they are all very representative of the different groups on that panel. We have people there from agriculture, forestry, environmental groups - you know there are a lot of different groups that take part in that and we take the advice from them very seriously.

As you said, they are about to be renewed, so we are working with stakeholders to renew our sustainable legislation and we are working with a round table to renew legislation but in the meantime, we are still working to take action. It’s very much in the spirit of EGSPA, things like the Coastal Protection Act, but we do hope to have something. I’m hoping by this fiscal year to have the new EGSPA legislation ready to go.

[5:15 p.m.]

BRAD JOHNS: Yes, that’s great. I think that’s wonderful and I am glad to hear that. In my last two minutes I’ll give you this quick question, you may or may not be able to answer it right away. Maybe I’ll be back after the NDP caucus has an opportunity, maybe I can come back at that time; you might have some answer to this.

I’m curious to know how much money the department spends on helicopters. I’m assuming we don’t own a helicopter, that the department rents a helicopter. I noted that at one of the meetings of the Legislature, Minister Colwell had mentioned something regarding utilizing helicopters for enforcing fishing, fish farms and that, for doing enforcement. It would be specifically referring to the Jordan Bay site. I’m curious to know how much money and how often the department utilizes helicopters?

I’m also curious to know how much the government has set aside in the budget considering Cooke Aquaculture is looking to expand on the coastal waters to ensure the operators are working within the environmental laws and regulations.

MARGARET MILLER: The helicopters fall under the purview of the Department of Lands and Forestry.

THE CHAIR: Time.

Time has expired.

We will now go to the NDP. Ms. Zann, for one hour.

LENORE ZANN: Thank you, is that all? Thank you minister for all your time so far; it’s been very interesting. I do have to say though in answer to Mr. Johns’ question, you didn’t mention that in fact the time for doing the EGSPA renewal was two years ago, so you’ve actually missed that date, the department has missed that date. It was supposed to be a public consultation and a renewal but that hasn’t happened. Really a big public consultation on renewing it could create a green new deal. You know, a green jobs plan and transition to a much cleaner and green economy. I know the minister has just recently committed to renewing it, but again it is actually two years overdue.

I’d like to go back to some other issues, too, that have been on my mind. I’d like to note that a study by the federal government that was leaked yesterday does show that Canada’s temperatures are going up twice as fast as the global average and in northern Canada temperatures are going up three times as fast. This is terrifying. I am getting messages from constituents, from people all across the province, who see this as a climate change crisis. They feel this government, and all of us really, are not acting quickly enough and we’re not taking it seriously enough, but this is the reality we’re facing. I feel and others feel that the government is making totally inadequate investments in shifting to a green economy and has set totally inadequate emission reduction targets for 2030.

The report that came out yesterday confirms what we’ve all experienced: that we’re experiencing more extreme weather. They say that warming is going to make more heat waves, which we’ve had, more droughts, more wildfires and floods. Anybody who saw Al Gore’s movie, which I saw several years ago now, we saw this coming. Many people, including Dr. David Suzuki, have tried to warn governments, but to no avail. So, if everyone thinks of Hurricane Juan and realizes that in this report it says we’re going to be experiencing weather and storms like that one now every two years. That is the future we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren. That’s what they’re going to inherit. We have to look them in the faces and tell them, why? What did we do? What was our part? What do we do to try and mitigate this?

I don’t understand why the decision just to rest on our laurels, to basically tread water, so to speak, when it comes to our targets here in Nova Scotia for greenhouse gas emission reduction. I know your staff has a number of things that show projections of the damage that will be done. I know there are videos available that tell municipalities what they can expect but there is absolutely no reason we can’t take real action, other than a lack of political will.

Economists around the world are saying we can make the investments we need to transition to a totally green economy, yet at the same time we can make everyday people’s lives better at the same time. To reconsider the economic assumptions that they have that are stopping them from taking real action on climate change, and by “them” I mean this government, other governments, the American President. Addressing climate change is not about personal sacrifices; it’s about a public investment that will create better jobs and healthier communities for all of us.

With that, I just want to ask you about the 2030 emissions target your government set last summer. I’ve got a quick question. There was a FOIPOP by our Party, by the NDP . . .

THE CHAIR: Order. Are we allowing Minister Miller to answer the question?

LENORE ZANN: No, this is the question. That was my preamble. A FOIPOP by our Party shows that the government chose a weaker emissions reduction target than the one that was suggested by the staff of the department. Documents show that in April 2018 staff made a presentation proposing a 2030 emissions target of 50 per cent below 2005 levels. Then in June 2018 staff made another presentation, this time with a softer option 2 added of 45 per cent to 50 per cent below 2005 levels.

Then through the rest of the paper trail, the weaker target never appears as option 1, it is always option 2, and yet government opted for the weaker target. Can you please explain why government opted for that weaker 2030 target?

MARGARET MILLER: Interesting comments. I agree that the comments that came out yesterday about the trends and where we’re going are certainly very concerning. I think Nova Scotians have been on that page for a long time. It shows we are the leaders already in greenhouse gas reduction, I’ve said that many times in the House; 30 per cent below the 2005 levels. Our commitment is 45 per cent to 50 per cent and, as you are saying, staff did suggest a range. They suggested the 50 per cent. We decided to go 45 to 50 per cent. The plan is to actually exceed those goals and I would not be surprised to see us exceed those goals by 2030. We’re already seeing changes now.

We know we are a leader in greenhouse gas reduction, and we’ll continue to be. The solid waste diversion, we’re also a leader there, the Coastal Protection Act. All these things are going to be helping. Our cap-and-trade legislation, with declining caps and greenhouse gas emissions levels, with the Green Fund that’s going to actually help advance other, you know, we don’t know what’s coming in the future.

We’ve got great companies like CarbonCure, that are capturing carbon in concrete. That’s something we wouldn’t have even thought of five years ago, but it may become the norm in building in the future. We’ve got more people who are looking at electric cars. Five years ago, when I had another Environment Minister tell me that he had bought an electric car but there were a few things he was concerned about - it was an Environment Minister from a different area. But now we’re seeing electric cars that have ranges of 500 kilometres or more, we’re seeing stations all around the province, charging stations, being erected. Even my own Scotia Square parkade has parking spots for charging electric cars.

I know in Elmsdale we have an electric charging station at Tim Hortons. We’re seeing that happen more and more in rural areas, so people can take these things personally. They can look at their own climate change and how it affects their own daily life and make those personal changes themselves. I think Nova Scotians will continue to do that.

We can set goals through our cap-and-trade program, but Nova Scotians are also setting their own personal goals, and I think we will all benefit. When we’re looking at a 45 to 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by the year 2030, I think that we are going to do better than that because I think Nova Scotians will want to do better than that.

We’re looking at our protected areas, and we’re looking at the protection of all the wetlands across the province. We know that those wetlands are all carbon sinks. They are also helping to eliminate a lot of greenhouse gases. When you start looking at the green economy and where it is in the province and the jobs in the green industry, we are looking at things like Efficiency Nova Scotia, we are looking at all of these . . .

LENORE ZANN: Okay, thank you, I have another question.

THE CHAIR: Order. The minister is speaking. It is her turn to answer the question.

LENORE ZANN: She is not answering the question, she is filibustering.

THE CHAIR: Minister Miller, you can continue.

MARGARET MILLER: We have a lot of things that Nova Scotians are doing to address climate change, and I think that we have a lot of things that are very positive and will continue. I agree that we have - I won’t say a crisis. I think it’s what we’re seeing happen all around the world. The fact is that Nova Scotia is doing its part. I think we are doing more than our part, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t willing to do more.

LENORE ZANN: As I said, I have a lot of questions here that I would like to ask, and a lot of people would like to hear real answers, not just filibustering and going on a tangent to talk about a million different things.

THE CHAIR: Order. As per rules of the committee, when a question is asked, the questioner has as long as they want to relay the question, and the minister has as long as they want to relay the answer.

Ms. Zann.

LENORE ZANN: Well, I could ask a question and keep going forever too, if I wanted to, but I’m not going to because I actually have real questions.

On that note, more than 30 groups in Nova Scotia, including all the major environmental organizations, businesses, and labour unions, have signed the 2030 Declaration, which calls for us to limit our emissions to 50 per cent below 1990 levels - not 2005 levels, 1990 levels - by 2030. That’s significantly more ambitious than the target that was chosen last year by your government. These groups say that 50 per cent below the 1990 levels is what we need to reach in order to be in line with the Paris Agreement commitments that Canada has made. It’s where we need to be to be on track to reach net zero by 2050, which is where the IPCC report says that we all need to get.

First of all, do you believe that these targets of yours are in line with the Paris Agreement commitments? Can you explain what exactly happened between April 2018 and June 2018 that caused your staff to introduce the weaker option?

MARGARET MILLER: What we chose to announce as our option, 45 per cent to 50 per cent, is a realistic goal still with the expectation that we are going to exceed that goal. We know that Nova Scotia is out-performing other jurisdictions.

We also must consider the pocketbooks of Nova Scotians. We saw a previous government that had no concern about the pocketbooks of Nova Scotians, Mr. Chair. I can remember those days, before I got involved with government. We saw increasing power costs on a regular basis, and it seemed like it was for no reason at all. Now I know that it was part of reducing emissions at that time, but it was still very hard on Nova Scotians.

We made a promise that any program that came forward was not going to impact the pocketbooks of Nova Scotians to the degree that we’re seeing now with the new carbon tax that has been implemented. It was very important for us, as a government, to come up with a program that would recognize the sacrifices that Nova Scotians had already made over many years with our high energy costs.

I want to thank my climate change division for the work that they have done with their federal counterparts to recognize Nova Scotians’ efforts and still allow us to work within that pan-Canadian framework. Nova Scotians right now, as of yesterday, are not paying the price that we’re seeing our partners across the border pay because of the work of this department, working with our federal counterparts to make sure that Nova Scotians were protected, that Nova Scotia taxpayers are protected.

[5:30 p.m.]

LENORE ZANN: Actually, the reason why the electricity prices went up under the last government was because coal went through the roof. That is also why we signed a deal with Muskrat Falls to have clean, green renewable electricity in the next, hopefully, 12 years is what we were thinking. It would bring the prices down and give a solid basis that, for 35 years, those prices would stay the same. We also introduced many different programs, like the COMFIT program and things like that, which our government has since, unfortunately, cancelled.

Another FOIPOP by our Party shows that when staff were expecting the Goldboro LNG to come online within the time frame of the cap-and-trade regulations, they were proposing to give the company 100 per cent of its carbon tax credits for free. Can you please confirm that?

MARGARET MILLER: The LNG plant, we know, if it moves forward, and hopefully it will, will not be on until after 2020. The LNG plants will not come in until after the year 2022 before it’s actually in production. Nothing has been decided on that yet. We’re still working on what the program will look like at that point.

LENORE ZANN: Is it still the intention then that if it is completed or other LNG projects are completed, they will all likely get that 100 per cent of their credits for free?

MARGARET MILLER: I don’t think any of those decisions are made yet. What we have said is that in any kind of a cap-and-trade program that we have in the future, in the next agreement, there could be hybrid plans that will still allow us to continue as we are.

LENORE ZANN: Another FOIPOP by our Party shows that in the six months following the Lahey report, there has been zero correspondence within the department about creating carbon credits for the ecological forestry. The Lahey report recommended carbon credits for forestry as a way to create revenue streams for woodlot owners to practise ecological forestry.

Do you have an answer as to why your department has not been considering that recommendation? Will the department be considering creating revenue streams to pay for the carbon sequestration provided by intact and ecologically harvested forests?

MARGARET MILLER: Right now, we have 21 mandatory participants in the program. We have set the program up such that we can judge what’s going to happen with the cap-and-trade system over the next time frame. That doesn’t mean we’re not still having conversations. We know that the forestry sector would like to have carbon credits for their practices, and we realize that that has been a suggestion. We do have our plans set up for a certain time frame, and we don’t know what the segment will look like. Those are all still considerations that we’ll look at in the future. For right now, cap and trade will be working in the premise that that has already been developed.

LENORE ZANN: The cap-and-trade program is expected to generate $25 million to $30 million for a Green Fund by 2020. Is that still the projected revenue for the Green Fund?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, it is.

LENORE ZANN: It’s quite important that the department consult with Nova Scotians on how that green fund should be spent. Can you update me on what consultation plans you have in place to be ready by 2020? When will consultations start? When will they close? Will you commit to public meetings, not just submissions by mail?

MARGARET MILLER: There is no money going into the Green Fund at this point yet. There will be. Right now, the money that is being collected with the minimum increase on gasoline and diesel fuel and home heating fuels is all going to those fuel suppliers at this point so that they can use that money to buy credits on the market when it’s going.

When some money starts going into the Green Fund, we’ll be able to determine where that needs to go. We haven’t yet determined exactly how it is. There are many suggestions as to where green funding can go, whether it supports environmental groups or whether it supports the clients of Community Services. There are many places that that money can go to green initiatives. It could be development of green initiatives, but those are all things that need to be determined.

Yes, I expect there will be an extensive consultation process. For that, we will have submissions from the public as well.

LENORE ZANN: I thought you mentioned earlier to Mr. Johns that there was $340,000 from the Environmental Trust fund that was going to be going into that Green Fund, is that correct? Or did I misunderstand you?

MARGARET MILLER: That is an option.

LENORE ZANN: I thought you had said earlier that that $340,000 - he asked you where that money was going, and you mentioned it was going into the Green Fund. Is it going into the Green Fund, then?

MARGARET MILLER: That could be an option. It hasn’t been decided yet.

LENORE ZANN: Going back to the greenhouse gas emissions and targets, do you actually believe that your targets are going to set us on track to reach net zero emissions by 2050?

MARGARET MILLER: I’m not sure whether we’re going to hit net zero as a province or not by 2050. I have already been talking to and met with different companies that actually have net zero in their own businesses, which is very admirable. We met with a company in Burnside, and their warehouses are all net zero. We have homes that are going net zero.

We know we are a leader. We know that innovation is all around us. People are concerned. They are hearing the figures, as you mentioned earlier. We’re hearing those figures. Businesses and individuals are taking a great lead on this. They are working with government to come up with options for reducing greenhouse gases, or they are working within their own businesses at net zero. I think it’s a wonderful goal. I think that Nova Scotians are up to the task, but we haven’t really specified yet where we’re going be when.

LENORE ZANN: I don’t understand why you can’t say. Shouldn’t you know where we are on track to be in 2050?

MARGARET MILLER: I expect that there are environmentalists who certainly are working towards looking at the future and where we will be. But 2050 is 31 years away. Look 31 years back at where we were then and the changes that have been made. We don’t know what technology is going to go forward. We don’t have projections out to 2050, and neither does Environment Canada. Our 2030 targets put us on a really good path towards that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Put it that way.

LENORE ZANN: While we are speaking about this, can you please update me on the status of the Lafarge tire-burning pilot project?

MARGARET MILLER: As Ms. Zann is aware, they did receive an industrial approval to use tires as a low-carbon fuel at the plant in Colchester County. They were given an approval with terms and conditions that include regular ground and surface water monitoring, along with air quality and air emissions monitoring.

We are monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions. We do know the company must give 30 days notice before burning any tire-derived fuel, and they haven’t yet given us that notice. I think they are working on building the facility at this point.

LENORE ZANN: Can you tell us what the emissions have been so far from burning those tires?

MARGARET MILLER: I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear. They cannot actually burn tires, so they are not using tires for fuel at this point. They can’t do it until after they notify us that they have a facility built and they are ready, and they have to give us 30 days notice. They have not done that yet.

LENORE ZANN: So, they haven’t burned any tires at all yet, okay. When did you say that you’re expecting them to have that ready to go - and then they have one year after that - is that correct?

MARGARET MILLER: We have no expectations of when they are. That’s certainly up to them. I don’t know how the building process is going at this point. We may find out tomorrow that we’re getting a 30 days notice or we may not hear from them for six months. That’s certainly up to the company. They haven’t notified us yet, but when they do, it will be within 30 days that they can even start burning.

LENORE ZANN: Once the pilot project is over, will there actually be a public consultation and an environmental assessment done before the decision is made whether to allow them to continue?

MARGARET MILLER: The Lafarge Canada industrial approval actually has terms and conditions. It will be monitored. Inspectors will be watching this very closely to make sure they meet the terms and conditions of their application, of their approval. If there are any violations outside of the terms and conditions, they will be dealt with. They will be penalized for that.

LENORE ZANN: Moving on, two years ago, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia made it clear that the minister needs to make a new decision on the Sipekne'katik First Nation’s appeal of the industrial approval for Alton Gas, but the minister still has not made a decision. I know that Sipekne’katik asked the minister to delay the decision for a year, but you’ve still had a whole year to make a decision and we haven’t heard what that decision is yet. In the meantime, Alton Gas is making attempts to proceed with the project, as we know, speaking to the federal government and trying to get approvals to dump brine in the river. What is delaying the minister’s decision?

MARGARET MILLER: I have to share a little bit about this. The Shubenacadie River is near and dear to my heart. When my family first moved to Nova Scotia, we farmed on the Shubenacadie River. We lived on it all our lives. My father - I can remember him fondly when he saw the fishing boats going out that he would go down to get a bass or get something for supper down at the edge of the river. My husband and I actually farmed on that same property for 25 years. So, that area is very near and dear to my heart.

Decisions are made based on science and evidence, and so when you don’t make a decision that is the popular decision or there are appeals on a decision and people take it personally, I have to go by the science. We go by the evidence that’s presented. That’s the same with every decision that’s made in the department, whether it’s personal or not. You have to follow the science and the evidence to be assured you’re making the right decision.

I do realize - and take it very seriously - that there is an appeal out there. We are working on that and we expect to have a response to that quite soon.

LENORE ZANN: Can you commit to a date when you will make your decision, and can you commit to making your decision before any work proceeds on the project?

[5:45 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: There will be a decision made fairly soon and I’m sure Ms. Zann will hear, there will be a release at that time and she will hear it when the rest of Nova Scotia does.

LENORE ZANN: Yes, there are many people who are hoping this does not go ahead. I know that there are some people who do wish that it goes ahead, but I know a lot of the people in your constituency are very concerned and are really worried about what this will do to the river and the future of fish and the striped sea bass, which is an endangered species and their last spawning ground is in that river near the Bay of Fundy. Yes, I hope you think very carefully before you make that decision and we’ll all be looking forward to that.

Moving on to gold mines. As I’m sure you’re aware, there are about 1,000 residents who have signed a petition opposing developing a gold mine on the Warwick Mountain in the French River Watershed and it does provide the sole source of water for the Town of Tatamagouche. Many rivers come from that, the French River, Salmon River, the North River. They come down into my area as well and residents are deeply concerned about the possible impacts that a gold mine would have on the watershed and the local ecology.

Residents of St. Mary’s are deeply concerned about a possible gold mine in their area as well on Cochrane Hill and these residents really don’t have confidence in the province to adequately enforce environmental standards to protect the watershed. There’s a long history of gold mines saying they will all meet the standards then significant ecological damage is done anyway. Goldenville has toxic and exposed tailings that occupy an area of 34 hectares for instance and years after that mine closed, site testing ended up still showing extremely dangerous levels of arsenic and the government had to shut down the area for safety reasons as a result. They say it’s just too poisonous to go there after all these years.

Is the minister able to say the new gold mines will cause any less damage than past gold mines?

MARGARET MILLER: Ms. Zann’s statement that people don’t have confidence in the Department of Environment I find disturbing, because I know the department gets it on both sides. They’re either told that they’re not doing enough or they’re too strict and they’re being too hard on business that things don’t get done. On the other hand, they’re being told they’re not doing enough and they’re not strict enough so, you know, polluters are getting away with that.

That’s why we have such a strict environmental assessment policy, Mr. Chair. We know that if any industrial businesses come into the province, whether it be mines, whether it be a pulp mill, whether it be anything, they are all subject to very strict environmental guidelines. We require a lot of information, scientific data from them to prove that when they are operating, they will be doing so with the protection of the environment in mind.

I take my role very seriously as do the specialists and the scientists in our department. We want to make sure, and it’s our duty to Nova Scotians to make sure, that if anybody comes into the province, any kind of industrial application, gold mines or whatever, that we know that if they’re operating that safeguards are in place there, that it’s not going to impact future generations of Nova Scotians. We have many hydrologists on staff who are certainly working with companies. I know, and I am very secure in my process, that our EA process is very stringent, there is a reason for it to be stringent and we will continue to enforce those regulations to make sure anybody that comes into this province will be meeting our guidelines.

LENORE ZANN: I asked the minister before during Question Period about the arsenic leak on Warwick Mountain that the Department of Energy and Mines had allowed to keep leaking for a year after they knew about it. Once there was media attention on it then they dealt with it. I’m sure stories like this are part of the reason why a number of residents in the area have contacted me saying they just don’t have confidence in the province to adequately enforce environmental standards to protect the watershed. That’s what I’m hearing. That leak, that particular leak on Warwick Mountain was only discovered by accident and there were 780 drill holes made last year and, provincially, there are 27,300 drill holes. It doesn’t seem like anyone in government can say with confidence that some of those aren’t also leaking.

We also learned recently that the Atlantic Gold mine in Moose River has had a major tailing spill just 18 months into operations and the only reason we got this information is because of a CBC report. In early January, there was a leak in the tailings pipeline just outside the plant, which allowed 380,000 litres of treated sludge, possibly containing cyanide and arsenic, to escape. With accidents like this already happening, it seems like it might just be a matter of time before there is a worse one. Can the minister again please tell me, is it worth the risk?

MARGARET MILLER: We know that our environmental assessment process, part of that process is to make sure these industrial applications, if there are any possibilities of any environmental damage, a leaking, they have to have plans for mitigation and we expect them to comply. With the situation with Atlantic Gold Corporation, we know that it is still under investigation, but we know when anything like this happens that they have to hire a site professional, then report it to us what’s going on, we send inspectors to the site, and we make sure all the mitigation measures are put into place. Can we expect there will never be a spill? We just need to know that if there is one there are measures in place to be able to capture any issues moving forward and that the environment is not damaged.

LENORE ZANN: I’ll tell you something that would make residents feel much more secure about this and that would be if, at minimum, a Class 2 environmental assessment was done. Could you, minister, commit that the environmental assessment for any new gold mine in the province will be at minimum a Class 2 environmental assessment?

MARGARET MILLER: There is a difference between a Level 1 and a Level 2 environmental assessment, but I can tell you that the rigour of the process is very much the same between the two and it’s based on regulations. So, we know that in the case of Northern Pulp Nova Scotia Corporation it was an effluent treatment plant that follows under a Level 1 assessment. Then we know if we’re looking at Boat Harbour and we know we’re dealing with a situation of toxins that have been left there through multiple governments and multiple generations it’s going to take a lot more in that case and, so, it’s more important then, to have the Level 2 assessment. The Level 2 also requires that there be a panel appointed and the process is also much longer. It’s a 275-day process versus the process we have now. So, I don’t believe there is a necessity at this point with the gold mines. I think that with the approval that they’re seeking it can be easily handled within our Level 1 assessment.

LENORE ZANN: I think the whole point is that it would be 275 days. It would be rigorous assessment and there would be a much longer time for public input into these gold mines according to these possibilities of gold mines and there are multiple proposals for new gold mines in the province. For instance, the residents of St. Mary’s say that their environmental impact should be assessed in total, not just one by one. Does the minister agree?

MARGARET MILLER: I can’t speak to proposals from certain areas. When a proponent has to submit an environmental assessment, we wait for that material to come in, and a determination is based on the actions of that kind of business, whether it’s a gold mine, or whether it’s some other proponent.

We look at them on an individual basis. Sometimes, the needs are only being met at the federal level, and we will work with our federal counterparts on federal EA in some situations.

LENORE ZANN: What the residents are suggesting is that instead of taking them one by one, the province, the department, or you look at all of them and see that there are a bunch of different proposals coming forward for gold mines. They want to know, will environmental assessments take into consideration all of the proposed and existing projects, instead of just considering them in isolation?

MARGARET MILLER: It is not up to the Department of Environment to tell businesses how to operate. We will consult. Our team, our staff, works with proponents, letting them know at what level the environmental assessment would have to be done, whether it would fall under a Level 1 or Level 2. We have regulations that specify what falls under Level 1 and what falls under Level 2. Then we have to judge those on an individual basis.

Looking at the cumulative effects, a part of that environmental assessment process actually looks at what is in the area, what other businesses are in the area, and what the impacts are. I’m just talking in particular about Northern Pulp because it’s so fresh in my mind. We looked at that, and we were looking at the effects on the Mi’kmaq population. We were looking at the health and safety of the population in the area. We looked at the other businesses in the area and the social impact on that. There were so many different areas of consideration that were taken into account.

This is standard. This is not a one-off. This talks about the rigour of the process that we have. I believe in this process. I think it’s working well for Nova Scotians, and I don’t see that needs to change.

LENORE ZANN: I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. I don’t think it is working well. If all of these different spots are leaking and having spills, then I would say we really need to look more closely. People really care about water these days. Water is going to be the most valued natural resource that we have, probably more valued than gold because you can’t drink gold. As the people in Tatamagouche and area say, #WaterNotGold.

Moving on to plastic bags and extended producer liability, I’m very curious about why the minister won’t support a province-wide plastic bag ban when municipalities, community groups, and even businesses are all asking for a province-wide ban to avoid a patchwork of regulations. Can the minister explain why she won’t support a province-wide ban?

MARGARET MILLER: In talking about plastics, I know that we all have the same goal, to reduce waste. That’s why it’s so important to acknowledge that Nova Scotians are the leaders in solid waste. We know that plastic bags are a small part of what is now going into solid waste. Actually, if you look at the solid waste now, it really shows where we can do better.

[6:00 p.m.]

We know that 40 per cent of the materials that are going into our solid waste stream are banned materials, and the same plastic bags that can be recycled are a part of that. That’s why it’s so important for Nova Scotians to look for other options. Certainly, a bag ban is something that has been discussed, and we are listening. I recently met with municipal leaders about this as well and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and heard their concerns. We wanted to see where they wanted to go with this, what their opinions were before the province makes a decision on it.

One of the things I found really telling, though, when you start looking at who has made the decision to go bagless, for lack of a better word, is that it was mostly municipalities. We were looking at cities, we were looking at municipalities, but we were not looking at provinces.

The only province that has gone forward with the bag ban is P.E.I. I understand, from what we heard from CFIB, I believe, that there were still a few things that they weren’t totally happy with in P.E.I. It looked like it was a fairly good regulation, so we’ll see how that goes. Moving forward, we’re not there yet. I’m not saying that Nova Scotians never will be, but I am seeing a real distinct reduction in the amount of plastic bags that are being used now.

Nova Scotians are shopping with their reusable bags, or they’re refusing bags. I ask that question a lot when I go shopping. If I’m in a little Avery’s somewhere, a little corner store and they’re offering me a bag, I’ll actually ask, how many bags do you go through? One day, I was at a gas station picking up a couple of things and didn’t want a bag. She said she only goes through about two a day. When you look at where that is from years gone by, it would be every other person walking out of the door would have a bag, and now people are refusing them.

I think that it’s an important issue. I think Nova Scotians recognize that it’s an important issue. They don’t want to be using any more plastic than they want. They’re actually turning down plastic. They’re not only looking at plastic bags, but they’re looking at all plastics and packaging. I heard a story a little while ago about somebody who had gone to Costco, and before they left, they actually removed all of the packaging of everything that they bought, because they wanted to make a statement about plastics, that they didn’t want the plastic packaging.

The EPR system, I know that that has been discussed as well and plastics in association with that. It’s something that we’re working with municipalities on at this point. I shouldn’t say we’re working with them on this point. We have advised them in looking at an EPR system. We have asked the municipalities or NSFM to come forward with a proposal on plastics and plastic bag use and what they would like to say, with some suggestions for government or a way forward for government. I am very interested to hear what that’s going to bring forward.

Also, the CCME is focused on plastics and plastic bags as well. It’s very easy to focus on plastic bags, but there’s so much plastic everywhere. Everything you buy is wrapped or multiple wrapped in plastic. I think we have to look outside of the broader package and the broader realization of plastics, how much we’re using, be aware of how much you’re using, seeing what the impacts are, and what our path forward is.

LENORE ZANN: What would make the minister support a province-wide ban? What would make you change your mind to get there? Have you considered being a leader on this, being ahead of the curve? If 80 per cent of Nova Scotians are in favour of a plastic bag ban, why not just do it?

MARGARET MILLER: Certainly, that is part of that discussion. It’s a discussion that we need to have because it doesn’t just affect the Department of Environment. It affects the province. It affects all Nova Scotians. It’s very easy to say, let’s just do it because Nova Scotians want it. When there are unintended consequences because of doing it, that may not be the best thing. Why not look at the whole problem and come up with a real solution for plastic use in our province and see where that goes? I think we have to look at the whole thing. We can’t just look at one thing. It needs to be the whole EPR system and where we are going forward.

Interestingly enough, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who sits next to me in the House, and I often have conversations about waste, about plastic, about diversion, about many things. I talk to him about things like beach cleanups and how much plastic material comes up on the beaches. The things that I have heard from the public is that when they are doing beach cleanups, a lot of this material is plastic that is coming from the fishing industry and what we need to do with this. For me, that’s exciting for us to have that conversation and start thinking about it. Is this some place where we can really make a difference? We are not only looking at EPR and dealing with plastic bags and plastic wrapping. We also are looking at the totality of it. That would include things like fishing gear, plastic ropes in that area being dropped, and all plastics in our oceans. We know it’s a problem. There’s no question that it’s a problem. It’s about finding the right answer for Nova Scotia this time.

LENORE ZANN: How much longer do I have?

THE CHAIR: You have 11 minutes.

LENORE ZANN: As I have said on the floor of the House, coming from Australia, you are made aware of the dangers of plastic in the ocean at an early age. As a kid, when you go to the aquarium, they’ll often pose you a question, what is the biggest killer in the sea? Of course, as a child you often think, it’s a shark. We get great white sharks and nurse sharks and hammerhead sharks and all kinds of sharks in Australia. The answer is actually plastic. Plastic is the biggest killer in the sea. It kills more marine animals, and now it really affects the oceans with miles and miles of dead zones that are full of plastics. They have found plastic bags as far up as in the Arctic.

What a number of jurisdictions, countries, provinces, and states are doing is, they start with the plastic bag ban, and then they move on to the rest of the plastic. As you mentioned, things are wrapped twice, three times, whatever.

I watched a very interesting program the other night about that on television. They were saying that even if enough people just ask their grocery stores to please stop using so much plastic, they will start to talk to the people who they get the product from, and they will stop using as much plastic.

That said, the reason why these EPRs are so important is because they’re extremely effective at reducing waste. The Federation of Nova Scotia Municipalities, the Ecology Action Centre, and others are also calling for extending producer liability for single-use plastics because it makes the product manufacturer responsible for the proper disposal of the product. There are all kinds of examples like beer and wine, tires, and electronics. I’m glad to hear you say that you are going to be introducing more things to deal with getting rid of electronics in a much more sustainable fashion.

Introducing EPR has put the incentive on companies to innovate, to reduce their waste, improve their recycling, and reduce waste management costs for the municipalities. Does the minister support extending producer liability laws for single-use plastics?

MARGARET MILLER: I think in my previous remarks I probably responded to that. Certainly, there is nobody, whether it’s in this room or in the city, who doesn’t realize that plastics are a problem. It’s about identifying exactly where we are going to go with that.

We know that we have to do due diligence. We have to talk to stakeholders. We have to talk to the public. The NSFM is coming up with a proposal. Before there’s any changes, we have to talk to the municipalities, big business, and small business. We have to see what the impact of this is going to be for the whole province. When we do feel secure that we’re making the right move at the right time, then I will be the first one to support that on the floor of this House.

LENORE ZANN: In that case, would the minister commit to consulting on EPR laws over the summer and introducing legislation in the Fall sitting?

MARGARET MILLER: Right now, we are still waiting for the report that comes from the NSFM. When that report comes in, we will be working on that within the department and then judging when the next steps are. I am certainly not going to put a timeline on this. I don’t know how long it’s going to take. Extensive consultation takes a while. Ms. Zann pointed out earlier, about the Level 2 EA process, that 275 days was better. We’re going to need some time to do that consultation with the public and see where we need to go forward. When we do have a clear path forward, when we know where we want to go and what we’re trying to achieve, then I will be happy to present that bill.

LENORE ZANN: The budget for conservation enforcement, I noticed, is being cut by $35,000. Can you explain what Acts the conservation enforcement officers are responsible for enforcing and why their budget is being cut?

MARGARET MILLER: While we’re waiting for those figures, I do want to mention that when I first got involved with the Department of Environment, we were moving all of the conservation officers over from what is now the Department of Lands and Forestry. What a great fit that has been because our enforcement officers have dual roles. We know that our conservation officers are now helping with the fisheries and other jurisdictions. We’re getting meat inspectors. They’re doing cross training basically, so that they are able to be more efficient in their roles. In Agriculture, I think there was one inspector. Now we know that our other compliance officers are able to work with that and have that same training to be more efficient.

I was surprised when you mentioned a reduction in the budget, because we certainly don’t have less compliance officers. They are too important to our department and what they do. This $37,000 is a staff training budget that was transferred to policy. It’s just a financial transfer instead of a personnel or services change.

LENORE ZANN: I just have one last question probably. When you were talking about Northern Pulp with Mr. Johns earlier, you said there are 4,500 pages of information that you had to go through from the public consultation and, I take it, also from the company. You said there was not enough information from Northern Pulp and that you’re going to give them a year to submit a report and then 30 days for the public to make their desires known.

I was a little confused. How will Northern Pulp meet the 2020 deadline to close Boat Harbour? Are you expecting that to happen all at the same time?

[6:15 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: My role as Environment Minister and our role within the department is to look at the EA process and make sure that it is more than adequate for the job, that we are putting the best result forward based on the science and evidence provided. It’s not my role to determine whether Northern Pulp has access to Boat Harbour or not or whether they are complete. We have a time frame of our process. We have to do our due diligence. We can only move forward as the material is submitted and move from there. My role is not to determine what the business case of Northern Pulp is, what their future actions will be. It is to determine that if any EA approval goes forward, it will make sure that it uses the soundest science and evidence moving forward.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Zann, you have about 30 seconds.

LENORE ZANN: Maybe just quickly then, has anybody had the discussion with them about using a closed-loop system?

MARGARET MILLER: Part of that process was, if the member had looked at the EA itself, early on in the EA process, they actually had to identify what their different options were and why they chose to follow the one they did. It’s not my role as the regulator to tell them what their business case should be or where I think they should move forward or what’s the best business plan. It’s our role to take the material that they provide us and determine whether it’s enough to make a decision, based on what their business case is. I can’t speak to what conversations have taken place about what their business case was.

THE CHAIR: Okay, we will now go to the Progressive Conservative caucus. Mr. Brad Johns, for one hour.

BRAD JOHNS: Mr. Chair, did the minister or any of the staff want to take a five-minute break? Is there an option for that if they wanted to?

THE CHAIR: Let’s take a five-minute break. You know I’m strict with the time. You better start running.

BRAD JOHNS: Mr. Chair, would it be okay to just start at 6:30?

THE CHAIR: Are we comfortable with 6:30? Five minutes. Five minutes it is.

[6:18 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[6:27 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: Okay, we’ll call the committee back to order. The time is now 6:27 p.m., and we are on to the PC caucus. I will pass the floor over to MLA Johns, and you have one hour. The floor is yours.

BRAD JOHNS: When we left off from some of my questions, we were asking about the helicopters and that kind of stuff for the enforcement around fish farms. Did we have an answer on that? Would you like me to re-ask that?

MARGARET MILLER: The department obviously doesn’t have its own helicopters. Lands and Forestry is the department that has the helicopters. The only time that we use them is for enforcement or inspections on fishing applications. There might be another one. The area of parks and protected areas is one where we need to have broader oversight. There isn’t a line item, per se, for a helicopter in the general expenditures of the department. It doesn’t happen that often.

BRAD JOHNS: A number of people in our caucus only had a couple of questions, and instead of wanting to come in, they asked if I would ask a few of them. We’re trying to get some of those out of the way.

The next thing was, how much has the government set aside this budget considering Cooke Aquaculture is looking to expand on the coastal waters to ensure operations are working within environmental laws and regulations? Has there been anything set aside specific to Cooke?

MARGARET MILLER: Not specifically. We have 50 conservation officers who are working, and they would all be part of that process of making sure that Cooke Aquaculture or any facility is compliant with the terms and the terms and conditions of their approvals. That would just be part of the cost of doing business in the Department of Environment.

[6:30 p.m.]

BRAD JOHNS: I had some questions in regard to Canso and the Canso rockets that are down there. I’m assuming that the environmental application for that has to come through you guys. Right? There would be an application for them. Have you received that?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, they have made an application for an EA. That was another case where we determined that we didn’t have enough information. We have asked them for more information, another focus report. They have submitted the focus report. It is in the process now, so I really can’t speak to specifics of that report. Part of the focus report, when it comes back, is also public engagement, or 30-day consultation on that material. When we have gone through the whole process, we’ll be making a decision on their environmental assessment approval.

BRAD JOHNS: I have a number of questions. I’m going to run through some of them, and they are kind of specific to that project. If you can answer them, great, and if you can’t, then we can certainly move on to something else.

What are the steps that a company similar to Canso rocket would have to go through in order to ensure that any environmental damage would be covered by them? Do they have to put down a retainer or anything like that when they open something that’s relatively new?

MARGARET MILLER: That’s not something that we have gotten to yet. The first process is to receive environmental assessment. Any other terms that would require financial consideration would be part of an industrial approval assessment. During the environmental assessment, there are many different factors. I can’t speak to specifics, but they’re even looking at things like the fuel and contingency plans. If there are problems with the fuel or if there is a spill, they’re looking at birds in the area, with consideration for the wind farm that is right there. There are many, many considerations in environmental assessments. All of those have been laid out to the company. We’re also looking at the wetlands and the wetland mitigation in that area. It’s a very broad scope, and all those things will be coming. All that information hopefully has now been part of that focus report, and we’ll be able to make a decision with the information provided.

BRAD JOHNS: It’s my understanding that the type of fuel they’re looking for is UDMH. It is recognized that it has toxicity to humans, fish, and aquatic life. It’s being phased out in the United States and things like that. Is that being looked at in conjunction with the EA that they have put forward, what kind of fuel that they’re using? Do we as a province and a government have the opportunity to actually restrict the type of fuel they use?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, we actually do look at the fuels and the toxicity of the fuels. As much as the department has the expertise on many, many levels, this is a new fuel to Nova Scotia, something that has never been used in Nova Scotia, I believe. We have actually hired outside expertise to be able to deal with those issues. I can’t speak to a lot of the details of this. They’re within the focus report document. The fuel they use, it’s like anything. It’s like the decision with Northern Pulp. It’s the decision of the business what fuels they use. We can’t suggest a different kind of fuel. What we can do is tell them whether the fuel they use and the safeguards they have put in place are satisfactory for the Nova Scotia Department of Environment.

BRAD JOHNS: My understanding is that this fuel - as I said, I believe they’re phasing it out down in the United States and in Russia and places like that. I was just speaking to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, telling her that we have a property down in Florida that’s right across from Cape Canaveral. When I’m down there, I’ll go over with the kids and look at the rockets and stuff like that. I’ve noticed that they are phasing it out. SpaceX is looking at other fuels other than that.

Isn’t it almost a step backwards to allow that fuel? It has never been used here. If there was a hazardous spill, the implications on the Canso coastal barrens and wilderness area that’s down there - it would have a very significant impact on all that environmentally. Do we have the ability to say no to that fuel?

MARGARET MILLER: As I’ve said earlier, we can’t judge the business. Not the right wording. We can’t tell a proponent what to bring forward. What we can do is look at what they do bring forward and see if there’s the ability or the conditions there that it can be used here or not. They are going to have to be able to show if their fuel is usable without impacting the environment of Nova Scotia.

They’re also going to have to be able to show, if there is a spill or an accident, what kind of plan they have and what the effects would be on things like the flora, the fauna, everything of the province. We can’t suggest another fuel or course of action. What we can do is judge what they submit to us.

BRAD JOHNS: I wanted to ask a couple of questions in regard to carbon taxing. I’m kind of confused. I believe there’s one cent now on gasoline for the carbon tax. When did the province start to charge that one cent? Was it on January 1^st or April 1^st?

MARGARET MILLER: There is a slight distinction here that is a little bit difficult to comprehend. We are not part of a carbon tax program. We are part of cap-and-trade program, so there is a distinction there. Certainly, I will offer to you the expertise from our staff because it is a complex file. We talk about it in simplistic terms and basics, but there is a lot of information there.

I would certainly make available to you our offer for you to meet with our Director of Climate Change to explain the programs. I would offer that to both caucuses if they would like, because I think there are a lot of intricacies there that are very important to know.

It took me a little while to be able to wrap my head around it, certainly. So, it is different. The money they collected, less than one cent, began on January 1^st.

BRAD JOHNS: So, that was January 1^st?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes.

BRAD JOHNS: Slip of the tongue; I wrote carbon tax. I understand the difference between cap and trade and carbon tax. I’ll be interested - not being critical - to see how the cap-and-trade program works because research I’ve done shows some people feel it’s going to work, and some people feel it doesn’t. So, it will be interesting to see how that works on a go-forward basis.

How much money has been actually collected so far, based on that one cent - do we know?

MARGARET MILLER: The government collects nothing on that. That money all goes to the fuel companies right now. They are the ones that are selling the fuel; it’s the fuel providers that actually collect those funds right now. They’re going to be going into a system in the near future where they get carbon credits, where the credits will be auctioned. That gives them a little bit of leeway with collecting that money, to be able to use that to buy credits.

As you’re aware, the fuel providers are not getting 100 per cent of their greenhouse gas credits; it’s 80 per cent. That means that that money will be going for them at this point to be able to buy those credits in the future.

BRAD JOHNS: Regarding the cap-and-trade program, if a business goes out of business, what happens to their allocation? Is it redistributed or how does that work?

MARGARET MILLER: It depends on how they go out of business. Certainly, if it’s a company that goes bankrupt, those credits would be returned to government, but if it’s part of a business model where the whole business is sold, the credits would actually go with the business.

BRAD JOHNS: When those credits come back to the government, the government does what? Redistributes them or sells them? Are they a source of revenue for the government potentially?

MARGARET MILLER: No, they would not become a source of revenue for the government. They would be held in a reserve or we can actually take them and sell them to somebody who requires more credits. We could sell them on the market.

BRAD JOHNS: Thus, having value, right? They would then become revenue to the government.

Harrietsfield, I believe I may have missed some of it, but with the contamination site that’s in Harrietsfield right now, who’s responsible for cleaning that up?

MARGARET MILLER: As you know, the contamination from the RDM site has been a problem for far too long. It’s one that has been ignored by successive governments and so I’m really happy to say it was one of the first things I heard about actually, from the member in the area talking about that site and how it needed to be cleaned up or something had to be done, certainly concerned about the water issues in the province. I was really happy to see action taking place.

Nova Scotia Lands, or TIR, has taken control of that site. They will be taking measures to deal with the contamination on the site.

BRAD JOHNS: Does the department have any idea when remediation would be completed there?

[6:45 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: Well, this put us actually in a, I won’t say it’s not a difficult position it is certainly, but the Department of Environment still remains the regulator, even though TIR or Nova Scotia Lands actually owns the property now and are responsible for the property, we still act as the regulator. We have to wait until a submission is put forward by TIR and Nova Scotia Lands and then move forward, so there will be an application at that point. We’re looking at this point that something will be starting in the spring.

BRAD JOHNS: So TIR makes application to remediate the site, it’s reviewed by Department of Environment. TIR goes out and starts the cleanup based on the proposal they submitted and then the Department of Environment goes out and OKs the work after it’s complete?

MARGARET MILLER: If any approval is given, we have to, certainly we’re going to use the same rigorous process we would use for any other environmental assessment. The applicant or proponent, in this case it would be Nova Scotia Lands, would put forward a proposal or put forward an application for environmental assessment. We would actually look at that based on the merits, the science and the evidence behind that. Then terms and conditions would be given with an approval, if an approval was given. Certainly, the department inspectors would be monitoring that site to make sure that the terms and conditions were being met. TIR would be treated as any other proponent.

BRAD JOHNS: I wanted to go into one of the problems - speaking after another speaker, sometimes I ask your questions - but I did want to follow up on what the NDP were talking about regarding plastic bags and discussions around phasing those out in the province.

When I was on municipal council, I know there were numerous times - I’ve said this in the Legislature as well - there were numerous times where council felt the province was overstepping their bounds or mandating or directing them to do something that really wasn’t in the provincial mandate. Yet on the other times there were a few issues where we looked to the province and not necessarily this government, this goes back over numerous governments, but we would look to the government for direction. I’ll use, for example, the smoking by-law, pesticide by-law, and now we have the plastic bag ban.

One of the things I found really frustrating as a municipal councillor was the province did not - whatever the government was at the time – did not take direction regarding smoking, they did not take direction regarding province-wide ban on pesticides. Instead what they did was they actually did leave it up to each individual municipality and we ended up with a patchwork of regulations, rules, and by-laws across the province. After about two years in both of those two cases, the province then came forward and did province-wide regulations. Everything, all the money, all the time, and everything that the Halifax Regional Municipality did at the time became moot because the province came in and did the same thing.

Regarding plastic bags and, you know, I think I have talked to representatives from, I forget where the gentleman was from, but he represents business across the province. I’ve talked to numerous municipal councillors, and I really think in some respects, this is something municipalities also feel are going to be the same way. When I spoke to the gentleman, he represents larger-scale businesses like Walmart and stuff like that, his concern really was that a Walmart store or a store in Truro may have a ban, where the municipality in Pictou may not, and so that’s going to affect them.

When the province has made the decision not to institute a province-wide ban, can you tell me a little bit about what consultation happened there with municipalities and who was consulted in the decision of not creating a provincial ban? And what’s to stop the province from doing a ban in two years, the same way that they did with the smoking and with pesticides after municipalities have already done this?

MARGARET MILLER: I believe you were talking about CFIB or the Retail Council of Canada when you were talking about conversations - Retail Council, certainly. We have spoken with them, as well, and they were clear, too, they would like to see a province-wide ban, but they wanted the balance across the province so that one retailer or the next in different jurisdictions would have the same area. It’s like Lunenburg or Halifax have now made decisions to go with the bag ban, so does that impact a retailer who is now going to still have to buy bags in the next county or the next area. That’s what their concern is.

This is certainly something we have discussed at length, whether it’s in the department or on a provincial level, and with the NSFM, we have asked them to come back to us with an EPR solution. We are expecting that to include bags, we’ll see what their initiatives or what their suggestions would be. We brought that to them.

My round one was when that directive was given to the municipalities at that point. It is my understanding that they are very close to bringing something as a proposal to government.

Certainly, what we don’t want to see is just a yea or a nay; we support it, or we don’t. We want to see some concrete thought put as to what an EPR system with plastics would entail. When that does come to us then we will look at that and we will determine what our next steps should be.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you, minister, and I’m glad to hear that. What I am hearing is that you are open-minded until it comes, so I am glad to hear that.

I was talking in regard to pesticides, so it kind of leads into my next question. Does the department make public on its website the pesticides it uses, as well as any documentation regarding the studies that have been done on the impacts of those pesticides to land, water, and species?

MARGARET MILLER: Any pesticides that are used in the province of Nova Scotia have to be pesticides that are approved by Health Canada. That is our measure and who we talk to. All the approvals are online and yes, Health Canada tells us which pesticides are approved for use in the country and which ones aren’t, and that is where we take our direction.

BRAD JOHNS: Is it glyphosates?

MARGARET MILLER: Glyphosate, better known as Roundup in most of the hardware stores or whatever all around the province, is a product that is still available and is still approved by Health Canada.

BRAD JOHNS: Do you know if they use that in any way for forest management?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes. I think it is under a different trade name, but it is used sporadically in the forest, as well. Forest applications are very different than broader applications. When we were farming, we used the same product on the farm, as well, and many of the pesticides are developed to be used on a farm, like it would be a pre-treatment to keep weeds from coming up on bare ground. It might be with a corn crop. Corn crops are usually sprayed a couple of times during their lifetime.

Forestry applications are usually once every 60 years, so it’s very minimal. You will see basically the same kind of products also used on golf courses for weed reduction, in which case they are used much more often. In the forestry application it is very minimal, but because it is aerial spraying, people still are somewhat concerned

BRAD JOHNS: My understanding is the science is still kind of out on that. You can find people that say it does nothing and you can find some people who say that it has a negative and long-term impact on animals and soils. Is that your understanding as well?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, there are conflicting opinions and certainly it’s like anything that you’re reading online. You know, there’s a difference between an emotional and a scientific response. We have to take the lead from Health Canada. We will continue to take the lead from Health Canada. If Health Canada with all their scientists determine that we shouldn’t be using glyphosates in the province, then we won’t be using it but, as long as they have determined it not to be a risk, we will continue to use that for our purpose.

BRAD JOHNS: In reference to liabilities related to cleanup of Boat Harbour and in the Auditor General’s Report from November, 2017, the liability in 2013 was stated to be about $12 million. This subsequently has increased over 900 per cent to $130 million in 2017 with some of the current estimates putting that cost of cleaning up Boat Harbour up to around $217 million today. What has happened that it has gone up 900 per cent since 2013? Is there, like 900 per cent estimated to clean that up? What has changed that the estimate to clean up Boat Harbour has increased so significantly?

MARGARET MILLER: I can’t speak to those specific figures. That’s certainly not us. That will also be a project of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and Nova Scotia Lands when that moves forward. I expect they are monitoring that to see where the price comes. Our role with the Boat Harbour cleanup is to make sure that - well, we know that we’ve already addressed it. It’s going to be a Level 2 EA process. I know the federal government has made overtures as well about a federal EA. I don’t think a decision has been made yet exactly if that will be a joint one or if it will be the federal one that takes precedent on it. That is a decision that still needs to be made. As for the Boat Harbour cleanup, it’s a priority but we need to make sure that it’s done with the greatest safety.

We’ve had 50 years of pollution on that site, 50 years of toxic chemicals that, you know, the people of the area have been living with for many years. I don’t know if you’ve had the opportunity to go to that site. I actually went there and met with the chief on round one and was actually shocked at what they were living with. As an MLA, I fully support the cleanup of the site and where it’s going to go and we’re just going to have to wait until the decision is made about where that process goes forward, but it will be up to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal to determine what the next steps are.

BRAD JOHNS: Just trying to go through and make sure I didn’t forget anything. In the May 2014 Auditor General’s Report, in the chapter under public drinking water supply program, there were 19 recommendations to improve Environment’s management of the program. The AG’s most recent follow-up review for the audit was reported in February 2019, and found five recommendations that were still incomplete, including one the department did not intend to implement. Could you state which recommendations are still incomplete, as well as why? When do you expect to have them all completed?

[7:00 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: It’s certainly an important question. We take the Auditor General’s comments very seriously and want to be able to comply with all his directives. Water safety is very important. We realize how important it is to the province and the people of Nova Scotia.

I don’t have the specifics on the report and where we are. It’s something that we’re still working on, but we will follow up and get you that information.

BRAD JOHNS: It’s interesting to note that within the budget, there have been funds allocated toward inspection, compliance, and enforcement - all of which have gone up quite marginally, however, with an increase of only $5,000. That’s not even keeping up with inflation, according to the Bank of Canada. When you investigate the actual breakdown within the area, there is a decrease in funding for enforcement and conservation by $35,000.

Can the minister explain why we are seeing cuts in this area and why we’re seeing an increase in legislation that will likely result in a demand for it?

I’m not too worried about that. That’s not my question, so don’t worry about that. I got the Canso Spaceport, the beaver dam - I just want to make sure I got all of them, minister.

MARGARET MILLER: I can certainly speak to the extensive training that has been done in the department. With the consolidation of our compliance officers, the department has been much more efficient - the staff safety training - and we’ve had more consistency in our enforcement.

BRAD JOHNS: I think I’m done. Everything I had to ask, I think either myself or the NDP have asked.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Roberts, do you want to continue on? We’ll go to the NDP caucus and Lisa Roberts.

LISA ROBERTS: Maybe just for some clarity for both myself and staff, how much time do we have total and how much time do I have?

THE CHAIR: There’s a lot of math going on, so you’ve got to give me a couple of minutes. There are threes and fives and twos and stuff I’ve got to add up. Give me a few minutes and I’ll let you know.

MARGARET MILLER: We have less than an hour.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, minister.

LISA ROBERTS: I did want to circle back to the protected areas and the progress that has been made, which as my colleague Mr. Johns noted has slowed in recent years. You stated in your earlier comments that some properties that have been identified for protection may be released, I think I heard you say. Can you explain a little bit more what you mean by that, exactly?

THE CHAIR: Before we continue, you actually have 58 minutes.

MARGARET MILLER: When Parks and Protected Areas came in and areas were identified - let me just share this. There are many different ways that lands are targeted for protection.

We work with a nature reserve and the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, that also buy properties for protection. They are transferred to the province and then they are protected under our protection program. We also have Crown lands, parks, and different areas that are labelled for protection that were on the Parks and Protected Areas plan. That list went well over 13 per cent. It was at 13.8 per cent.

We’re focusing on which lands of all of those lands we want to have in that last bit that will take us to the 13 per cent. We want to make sure that the biodiversity in each of those areas is something - we are looking for things that are - well, I don’t want to say “extraordinary,” that’s not a fair comment either, but we want to make sure that the areas that are being protected now are the ones we are most concerned about, whether it’s endangered species in those areas, whether it’s animal species or other species like Boreal felt lichen or whatever, that we are protecting the areas that we want protected the most.

It’s a harder process now to get to that 13 per cent, because we have to be very selective. In the early days it wasn’t that important. I shouldn’t say - it’s not even the right word, “not that important.” There were a lot of areas that needed to be protected that we wanted to protect that were already targeted and listed. Those were in those early submissions and made them very easy to do. We know that the ones we select now, going to the 13 per cent, are the ones that we really want to be able to focus on.

We know that in the future we will still be getting lands from the Nature Trust and the Nature Conservancy, and we will generically probably be going over 13 per cent, at some point, although that is not the focus of government. We are dealing with the 13 per cent. That is our goal. We know that with Parks and Protected Areas it was up to 13.8 per cent. When you are looking at only going to 13 per cent, it just makes common sense that there is going to be that 0.8 per cent, and what are you going to do?

We are not going to hold that forever and say that it can’t be used for any other purposes when there may be other considerations for those properties, whether it reverts back to regular Crown use, whether it is used on a Mi’kmaq forestry initiative. There are many different land uses in Nova Scotia, but that is a decision for another day. It’s not for this week and not for today, but it is certainly where we are going forward.

LISA ROBERTS: Just a bit of clarification. You referred to getting land from the Nova Scotia Nature Trust. I actually wasn’t aware that Nova Scotia Nature Trust - is land becoming Crown land through the Nature Trust process? I know that land is becoming protected, but I didn’t understand that it was becoming - I guess it isn’t. Anyhow, explain that, if you would, please.

MARGARET MILLER: The Nature Trust and the Nature Conservancy often have lands donated to them to be held in perpetuity for future generations. The homeowners or landowners want that land protected. They want to make sure that it’s not being developed.

Take into account something like 100 Wild Islands. That land needs to be held by somebody, so they are not an organization that are always going to be able to hold land. They don’t want to own the land, so what they do is they transfer that land to the province and then it is protected. We will see our protected areas growing just from those kinds of acquisitions on a normal basis.

LISA ROBERTS: I attended the Nova Scotia Nature Trust dinner this past year and have known different people who have been involved with it at different times. My impression is that the general understanding is that their work is in addition to the work of the province, and that the expectation is that those lands are in addition to the protection of the lands that were identified in the Parks and Protected Areas plan, many of which have not yet actually been officially protected.

Am I to understand correctly that, by dint of a certain portion of land perhaps being returned to the Crown through a protection process initiated by the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, another piece of land that was identified as worthy and requiring protection in 2012 or 2014, and has been waiting for Order in Council - that particular piece of land might fall off the table for possible protection?

MARGARET MILLER: With Parks and Protected Areas, all of the lands that were targeted for possible protection - it was always well over the 13 per cent, more like 13.8 per cent. Most of the lands that come through the Nature Trust or Nature Conservancy are very small acreages. As Mr. Johns pointed out, it takes a lot of acreage to make a little bit in that percentage, so those numbers don’t really add up to be a lot of land. Usually they are just small lots of land. But yes, they do become part of our protection, and they would be part of that goal of 13 per cent.

LISA ROBERTS: Thank you for that, and yes, it’s hard to hold in your head. Sometimes I try to draw visualizations of the province to understand exactly how large blocks of land are that I’m talking about, because I spend a lot of time talking about hectares and acres and average sizes of woodlots and so forth. I do appreciate that I don’t necessarily have a great visualization of 1 per cent.

That said, I do have some background on the work that went into the Parks and Protected Areas plan, which resulted in a whole series of particular properties being identified. My impression until today is that those pieces of property were just waiting for their turn at the Cabinet Table, because the actual protection happens through an Order in Council.

Is the message to Nova Scotians that if they actually really want this piece of land protected, which they know has been identified for protection, they have to be lobbying and identifying that particular piece again to ensure that it goes through those last steps and actually gets protected?

MARGARET MILLER: I can’t say that we don’t occasionally get lobbied or have people come forward who are very adamant that they want their land protected. I visited an elderly lady outside of the Springhill and Amherst area who had an area that she wanted to have protected. She wanted to make sure that it was done before - I think it was her husband was dying - she was quite elderly, and she wanted to make sure that that was solved. There was a real cause there, that she was donating it to the province for protection, so we wanted to make sure that that did go through quite quickly. We also knew that there were no incumbrances on that land, there were no mineral rights, there were no concerns about business or recreation on that land. We needed to make sure that it met the stipulations of the department and where we were headed with that.

That was one of the - I won’t say “earlier ones.” It was certainly in my round one, and certainly notable to me because of how much it meant to her to have this happen.

As for the lands that are still - I want to say in the queue, but I mean, on that path, we’re progressing on those lands all the time. They have to be surveyed. They have to be free of incumbrances, as I said. We have to make sure that some of them have existing mineral rights on those lands.

[7:15 p.m.]

Then we have to make sure that if we’ve got thousands and thousands of hectares here that next to them have, again, thousands of hectares that are exactly the same and have the same ecological values, do you want to protect both of those sets? Or do you want to move to another area that may have wetlands that should be protected and are going to affect us as far as climate change goes?

Right now it’s an intricate dance to make sure that we’re getting the right properties in that last bit of protected lands that will benefit Nova Scotians the most.

LISA ROBERTS: I’ll just make a last comment that, again, my understanding has been that there was a great deal of work that went into the 2012 document and Our Parks and Protected Areas: A Plan for Nova Scotia. I remain concerned that that work may be being discounted, or that there’s less commitment than I understood to actually fulfilling and completing that plan. It sounds like things aren’t just in the queue. It sounds like there’s an exit to the queue.

I think we’ve gone over it as much and I’ve gotten as much clarity as I’m going to get right now.

MARGARET MILLER: I can respond to that in a little more detail, in that we take this role very seriously. Our department that’s working on the protected areas takes this very seriously, and they’ve been working very hard on this for a long, long time. It’s not just the Department of Environment. It’s also Lands and Forestry. We meet with them on a regular basis. They have different properties.

We’re working together to make sure that what we are protecting is in the best interest of Nova Scotians, that we’re protecting the biodiversity that we want to make sure is within that 13 per cent.

There’s certainly no plan there to hold this up. There’s no plan to hold back or not finish. It’s a commitment that we have to move forward, and we will live up to that commitment.

LISA ROBERTS: Moving for a moment to EGSPA, can you talk to me a little bit about the round table? Is the round table a continuously-meeting body that is advising the minister and the department, or is it something that you call into being for these five-year reviews, which are now, as I understand it, two years behind schedule?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, we are certainly very appreciative of the work of EGSPA. It was a great policy decision. A lot of very positive things have moved forward because of EGSPA. People have actually asked me, “Is EGSPA going to be discontinued?” There are no plans for any such thing.

We are working with members of the round table to move forward, and in the meantime, we’re still taking the actions that have come from EGSPA and the EGSPA table. The people who are around that table are very knowledgeable in all their fields and very good at sometimes giving direction to government of where they feel the priorities are going.

They do have an ongoing role. One of their tasks was reviewing the five-year anniversary of EGSPA.

LISA ROBERTS: Maybe just to break it down into really specific questions, when they meet, are those minutes published, or is the work of the round table publicly available in some fashion?

MARGARET MILLER: There are no minutes taken at this meeting. It’s just a round table discussion with making policy suggestions, but there are no minutes.

LISA ROBERTS: When you say that they reviewed the five-year anniversary of EGSPA, that would have been in 2012, and then the next five-year anniversary would have been in 2017.

We know that many of the goals - maybe not all of the goals, but many of the goals - have actually been met and passed. I’m wondering why we’re not going with ambitious stretch goals. That was the power of EGSPA, initially, that these were big, bold goals and they mobilized government to actually meet them, whereas now it seems that we’re setting very modest goals that we’re almost certain we’ll surpass instead of being ambitious.

I guess I’m wondering, what’s that dialogue like with the round table? Are they asking for more ambitious goals, given what we know now?

MARGARET MILLER: That is an important question. The EGSPA group had really amazing goals and were bringing a lot of things forward. One of the things I noted when I first came to the department was the suggestion for a cap-and-trade program, and now we’ve moved forward with that.

There are many things in the spirit of EGSPA that have come from that table that we are still working forward to. These were concrete suggestions and ways forward. Their work has not stopped. It is ongoing, and I hope to have something later in the year.

LISA ROBERTS: Can I ask, did the EGSPA round table express a preference for cap-and-trade over a carbon tax?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, they did.

LISA ROBERTS: When you say that you expect something within the year, what exactly should Nova Scotians be expecting?

MARGARET MILLER: That’s a hard question, because it is ongoing, but we will have a decision on the way forward with EGSPA. Maybe the direction will change. I don’t know. Maybe it will stay the same. Maybe it will be a smaller group. Maybe it will be bigger. There are so many variables we’re waiting to see when all that information comes, and we’ll be consulting with Nova Scotians before we move forward.

LISA ROBERTS: Can you share what that consultation will look like?

MARGARET MILLER: It will be broad-based consultation. The intent now is to consult with all members of the group and their associations. They are all representative of different groups like the Nature Trust, the Conservancy, the Ecology Action Centre, the foresters, agriculture - there are many groups involved with that - all those groups, and then there will be a fairly broad consultation outside of that.

LISA ROBERTS: I want to go for a moment to the idea of carbon credits for forestry. You’ve seen this file from a couple of different portfolios. I think I heard you say that you’re game to discuss it, but not intending to bring anything in until the next set of regulations. Does that mean 2022? Can you speak a little bit more about that?

With the Lahey recommendations and the recommendation for ecological forestry, there’s lots of great forestry happening in Nova Scotia, but there has also been an interest in a source of revenue for ecological forestry, and there has been interest in carbon credits as one of those potential sources of revenue.

MARGARET MILLER: Those conversations have been had. We’ve heard from the forestry industry as well, and they’ve been meeting with our Executive Director of Climate Change. Part of the consultations about our whole process have been bringing all those things into mind as well.

It’s not where we are at this point. We’re still working with our cap-and-trade system with the 21 companies that are involved with that right now. The framework for carbon offsets for the future will be developed in 2019, and there’s a possibility that that could include forestry.

LISA ROBERTS: In the Budget Estimates, I note there are a number of places where there’s reference to federal funds. Basically what I’m wondering is if we could have a breakdown that includes transparently, federal government funding for and the percentage of federal funding for different programs within your department and different initiatives within your department?

MARGARET MILLER: To speak to specifics, we can get you that information.

LISA ROBERTS: Would you say there are programs and initiatives within the department, that the department is engaged in because there is federal funding that is kind of leading the work?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, any federal funding that is available that the province can have 50-cent dollars is certainly a good investment for Nova Scotia. You know, water monitoring is one and air monitoring is another that we’re getting some funding on. Certainly, we’re having discussions with our federal counterparts and so if anything is available and it works out that we can take advantage of these programs, we will certainly do that.

Climate change adaptation is certainly a big one as well and something that we’re all very, very aware of in Nova Scotia. There’s also some work that we’ve done with agriculture as well, and the wine industry. There are different things that become available and when they do become available, we try to take advantage of those 50-cent dollars or whatever they may be.

LISA ROBERTS: I apologize if I am jumping back and forth just a little bit, but I have an abundance of time I didn’t entirely anticipate.

It does strike me, again, that we are at a time for ambitious goals and that consultation and a consultation process around the next five years of EGSPA or the next goals of EGSPA could be an opportunity to build public consensus and public excitement around ambitious goals. When you say broad-based consultation, do you see that possibly involving a chance to travel around the province to do some really innovative and engaged consultation in communities looking at what our next economy, our next low-carbon economy could look like?

MARGARET MILLER: Certainly, members of the EGSPA panel are from all over the province and all of them have their specialties, their special fields, and are thinking inside of their own realm of their specialties at different things that can be done. All of those will be, should be, part of that process and we’ll certainly be looking for that input from them, but a lot of those details still have to be determined.

LISA ROBERTS: Maybe I missed the answer to this, and certainly there has been the cap-and-trade initiative, which has taken some time and resources, and there have also been a number of different ministers in the Environment portfolio, but is there a good reason why, in my view, or in some people’s view, you missed the deadline of the five-year review of EGSPA? Can you speak to that?

[7:30 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: The EGSPA panel was aware of the review, and they had also been tasked to review where the next stages of EGSPA would be. I think it’s important, moving forward, that we’re making sure we want EGSPA to be all that it can be and provide. We’re just making sure that we were taking the time and due diligence to do it right.

LISA ROBERTS: Are you consulting around EGSPA with other parties beyond the people and parties and organizations that sit around the round table?

MARGARET MILLER: Yes, we’ll certainly be consulting with all of the departments or everybody that’s around the table and their organization, but also all government departments and research, and then we’ll decide whether it goes beyond that during this process.

LISA ROBERTS: My apologies, I’m distracted by multiple communication channels.

Could your department share how much Environment spent on services provided by a temp agency last year and how much the department is budgeting for those services in this budget? I recognize that that’s probably not something you have at hand, but it is something we’re asking all departments for. Maybe I can just get a commitment that you could provide it afterwards.

MARGARET MILLER: Okay, the figure I do have for you is $121,482. That is for consulting services and administration fees for professional services contracts. We can get a breakdown on this for you and provide that to you later.

LISA ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Would you also be able to provide a current organizational chart for the department and a list of job vacancies?

MARGARET MILLER: Last year we had 31 vacancies in the department. With a department with, I believe, 355 staff members, it’s always in flux. There are people coming and going, but we have a very strong core staff that has been there for many years. That was 31. Plus we have retirements and people moving, as well.

I do have here the organizational chart for the department, if you would like to have that, or I can read this to you, if you like.

LISA ROBERTS: I think we would really appreciate a photocopy. I would hate to be read an organizational chart. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR: Thank you for sparing us that.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to ask one more small question and then I’m going to ask a bigger one.

Does your department offer any internships, and if yes, can you share how many in the last year and what they were paid?

MARGARET MILLER: I am pleased to say that we do hire students, actually, and on a regular basis I meet these students, because - not so much when they’ve been in the department for a little while, they usually make their way to my office and we have a conversation about how they feel in the department, how much they love what they’re doing, that they are finding that they are actually doing work that they believe in and means something to them. It’s a great opportunity for them to come to the department and see the real hands-on action.

I hear from the students on a regular basis. Some of them are from out of the province or have been students here at Dalhousie or have been taking environmental sciences or the hydrology courses, in many different fields. They are finding a place within our staff and really enjoying their time. In some of those cases we’ve had them come back to be employees of the department - very valuable employees.

It’s interesting to see the students come in and to see them having some of their first work experience in the department and the enjoyment that they get from that. We also fund the Youth Corps, which is a group of students who go out and do special projects around the province. We help fund some of those, as well.

As for payment scales, those are HR issues. I don’t know hourly wages for them, but an intern at a PR 06 level earns about $52,000.

LISA ROBERTS: Can you share how many people there are employed by the department or on contract to the department who are paid less than $15 an hour?

MARGARET MILLER: I can’t speak to the exact salary range. We know that we have employees who are - well, here we are looking at an intern at $52,000, but I can’t speak to the range and where that starts and where that ends. It is very changeable. In the department there is a broad range of different salaries, but we will try to find out for you if we can find out if anybody is getting paid less than $15 an hour.

LISA ROBERTS: Taking advantage of my time - going back again to our goal for 2030, but also recognizing that the science is in the process of being peer reviewed in terms of what is contributing to carbon emissions. It seems that some of the early calculations of the carbon emissions of biomass may have been dramatically off, because of a number of assumptions when biomass was first classified as a renewable energy source.

I’m wondering if the biomass boiler at Point Tupper will be or is currently planning to be considered one of the emitters under the cap-and-trade system.

MARGARET MILLER: We know that the electricity sector is engaged with the cap-and-trade, and it’s one of the highest sources of GHGs. We do follow the federal counting rules and the feds follow the international rules as far as biomass goes.

LISA ROBERTS: Can you just confirm - does that mean that any emissions from the biomass boiler are not to be counted under cap-and-trade?

MARGARET MILLER: I believe that all emissions are counted under cap-and-trade. I mean, with Nova Scotia Power, they have a direction to reduce. They will have caps in their program which will see reductions in GHG levels on a yearly basis.

How they determine to do that will be their business decision. We will hold them that they have to have reducing caps or they’re going to have to buy credits, or if they do better than they projected that they will do, they may have credits to sell. But those are all the business decisions of that company, as it would be any other company that would be captured under this, like Lafarge or any of the other companies.

LISA ROBERTS: Do you have any concerns about the efficiency of the biomass power generator at Point Tupper, or indeed the one at Liverpool, or anything else that you’d like to share?

MARGARET MILLER: I can share that biomass is considered carbon neutral, and that is per the federal regulations.

LISA ROBERTS: So for complete clarity, that means that carbon emissions from the boiler are not being counted because it’s considered carbon neutral - which is, I think, part of what is being contested and perhaps at some point revised.

Do you have concerns about the efficiency of the biomass boiler?

MARGARET MILLER: The role NSE has with the biomass or these operations would be at the air quality level, so we wouldn’t be looking for efficiencies. We would be looking at the air quality from those facilities.

LISA ROBERTS: What responsibility does the department have for freshwater lakes in terms of water quality?

[7:45 p.m.]

MARGARET MILLER: We do have an extensive responsibility with freshwater lakes. We definitely protect watersheds in the protected areas. We work with community groups to make sure that their water supplies are adequate. We monitor all those supplies. We get the results from their testing on that. We monitor all drinking water supplies. We regulate industry to make sure that they don’t pollute water.

LISA ROBERTS: There is considerable concern right now, and various issues cropping up in Dartmouth lakes. My colleagues who represent Dartmouth North and Dartmouth South recently hosted a community meeting to hear those community concerns.

I’m wondering what action your department is taking specifically around those lakes - I think it’s Banook, and is it also Miller Lake, maybe? I’m not as familiar as my colleagues are.

MARGARET MILLER: Could I have some clarification? Are you talking about bacterial issues in those lakes or are you talking about invasive species in the lakes? What in particular are you talking about in the lakes?

LISA ROBERTS: I have only a general citizen’s understanding, but I know that the beach at, I think, Birch Cove is considered blue-something - it’s supposed to be considered an extremely clean beach, and yet it has been closed because of bacterial count numerous times. Last summer, many lakes were closed a lot because of bacterial count, but then there are also concerns because of recreational uses of the lake being impeded by the growth of - I don’t know if they’re invasive species, but certainly vegetation that was not there previously.

MARGARET MILLER: This goes back to my DNR days, when we were looking at the invasive species that were happening in some of the local lakes in the area. With the climate changes, we’re seeing more species that are now living in Nova Scotia that have never been able to before, and we’re going to see that continue. That’s why the Biodiversity bill is so important, that this comes through and that we’re going to be able to deal with some of those species.

We don’t know what’s coming, whether it’s an insect population - we knew that when spruce budworm came in the province, there was nothing in place to deal with that as a species. You’re going to see that the Biodiversity Act is going to help deal with some of those issues.

Beyond that, when you’re looking at the bacteria - as far as NSE goes, with the infringement of the invasive species in the lakes, our concern is more about bacteria. We have to make sure that the water is safe to use, whether it’s for swimming purposes or drinking purposes or whatever it’s being used for. We do have inspectors who go out through the summer and inspect the waters at the beaches and take samples. If they’re found to have high chloroform counts, beaches will be closed until they are clean.

We know that this is from public use of beaches, but also we know that with climate change and the water temperatures, you’re seeing bacteria grow much more quickly now than you would have earlier. Certainly you’re not dealing with it on the Atlantic Ocean, but you are in a lot of the interior lakes.

We deal with this on a case-by-case basis. When the lakes are safe, they will be open to the public. When they’re not safe or there are high bacteria counts, they will be closed.

LISA ROBERTS: Does the department take any steps towards remediation or prevention, or is it simply monitoring and posting closure notices?

MARGARET MILLER: We do work with HRM and the community. There are several lakes - Banook, Lake Charles, and Birch Cove - that have had bird droppings, for lack of a better word. We share the communities’ interest in protecting those lakes to make sure that they are still good.

We had an incident a couple of years ago - I shouldn’t say “incident.” We were working with Mattatall Lake in Pictou County, or just above Pictou County - Colchester, Cumberland, around that area - about the algae there and what was contributing to the algae. We worked with the residents around that lake. They were asking for results from NSE, but we have to first identify where the problem is coming from. Algae comes because there’s a predominance of food, so what’s creating the algae in the lakes? Was it because of runoff from clear-cutting in the area? Was it because homeowners or cottage owners in the area have stray pipes going into the lake? There could have been a multitude. They did have to form a group that proactively looked at what the conditions around the lake were and what their actions could be from that.

We did help out with some research on some of those projects, because we know that moving forward, as temperatures increase, this could become more of a problem in the province. We extensively work with municipalities and with groups and share that concern, and we’ll deal with them as they come along.

LISA ROBERTS: I have how many minutes left?

THE CHAIR: You have about 10 minutes.

LISA ROBERTS: I think I’m going to let my colleague across the way ask his question.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Horne.

BILL HORNE: I have a couple of questions - maybe five - I could ask. I am just curious on a couple of issues, one being the use of consultants. How often do you use consultants to get information on a project you’re dealing with? Is it done very often, or you allow the proponent to do all that type of work for you? I’m wondering what your comments would be.

MARGARET MILLER: Within our department, we do have a vast resource of expertise in their fields. I am always impressed by the expertise that comes from the department. Occasionally we run into an issue that is outside that expertise, and we will engage in hiring a consultant when necessary. It isn’t common, but it does happen occasionally.

BILL HORNE: Outside this question is one on the reorganization of the department a few years ago where you brought in all the field staff workers. How is that working out?

MARGARET MILLER: I believe it’s working out very well. We heard complaints during the first time. People who have been in one department or another for a long time don’t like change, especially when it’s imposed on them and it’s not their choice. I think the consensus is that - I’m not hearing those complaints anymore. I think people are, in general, appreciating where they are.

When you start looking at the one agricultural inspector who is working by himself and now has a team that he is able to work with when there is a situation that necessitates that, it certainly provides that backup and support for that one inspector. Yet at times when he may not be needed in the agricultural field, he is able to work with other compliance officers.

It has been support for each other. I have heard no recent complaints at all in the past, or in the recent past anyway. I am sure that it has been working quite well.

Another issue we had was with the mink farms. When we had some issues with mink a couple of years ago, because the inspectors had been trained in each others’ fields, more people were able to go and assist that agricultural inspector to make sure that those farmers were compliant.

THE CHAIR: Just a quick question to the minister: How many minutes are you going to need for your closing? You have about five minutes left. Sorry, six - seven minutes. I can’t tell time. Essentially you’re just going to need a minute to finish off and then read your statement, do you think?

MARGARET MILLER: It’s only going to take me 30 seconds for the resolution, so if there’s some more questions.

BILL HORNE: Another question that I’ve always wondered about is invasive species - not just fish but also maybe plants. Our lake system, the Shubenacadie canal system, and in particular the lake I live on, Lake Fletcher, is just full of these invasive species. I think that in Lake Banook, which they harvest that - when they have the championships of kayaking, canoeing - do you have any part of your job about looking at invasive species and how to get rid of them, or how you try to maintain some control over the invasive species?

MARGARET MILLER: No, that is more of a role for the Department of Lands and Forestry, to look after invasive species. That’s why the Biodiversity bill is so important to be able to do that. It actually deals with invertebrates, which have never been a classification in that department before.

It is very important, but no, we deal more with the public safety, with the water, to make sure that the bacteria levels stay low and that it’s safe for Nova Scotians to swim or play with different classifications. I think that there were some areas occasionally where you weren’t even allowed to paddle on it, let alone swimming, because different areas may have had issues. We want to make sure that if Nova Scotians are enjoying waters in Nova Scotia, they are safe.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Horne, do you have another question?

BILL HORNE: I could. Emergency response: how is that working within your department? Do you have a roster of people who respond to emergencies? I’ll just leave it wide open there.

When I was involved in Environment Canada, we had quite a group of emergency response people, a dozen people, and we’d be the first on call. Now that doesn’t work anymore. Environment Canada has done away with that, so that leaves it up to the provinces, more or less, to look after emergencies.

MARGARET MILLER: We do train our staff extensively. There are many training sessions, and there is training in many different aspects. One of them is emergency measures. We also work with our federal counterparts and always have access to a 1-800 number to consult with them as well.

BILL HORNE: I can mention air monitoring. How often do you do air monitoring at different locations - maybe, say, Northern Pulp? Do you have a group of people who look after air monitoring or do you go out to consultants and have it done?

MARGARET MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two minutes?

THE CHAIR: You’re back tomorrow, just to let you and your department know. The Progressive Conservatives have requested that you come back tomorrow. (Interruption) Pardon me? Sorry, Thursday.

MARGARET MILLER: Thursday, okay. Air monitoring is a part of a lot of industrial approvals, that there’s air monitoring done, the same as there is water monitoring in different sites or whatever when there could be leaching. But we also do monitor air, certainly around the Northern Pulp community. I know that there are monitoring stations in the Town of Pictou. We have dedicated staff who look after that, and we get data from those sites on a regular basis.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Horne, do you have another question?

BILL HORNE: I think I’ll defer to the minister.

THE CHAIR: Two minutes for Minister Colwell. Can you speak for two minutes?

HON. KEITH COLWELL: I just want to ask a general question around enforcement. Our departments work together on enforcement in the fishery and the file. Are there any suggestions your department would have on how we might be able to help more - provide information to your department or make staff available, anything that would make enforcement easier for your department?

We appreciate the work that your enforcement people are doing. I know they’ve got a lot of activities that they have to become experts in, and it takes time. Is there anything we can do to help your enforcement officers - who have been great to work with, by the way - as we move forward, especially in what we’re doing in Aquaculture and other areas as well?

MARGARET MILLER: That’s really good to hear. I’m really glad that the departments are working well together in this field. I think it’s really important. Good training is important to all our compliance officers, both with industrial applications and in the community.

If you or the department have any concerns or see any deficiency or see an opportunity where they would need more training or could use more training, I hope that you would bring that forward. Then we can make sure that that happens, because we want to make sure . . .

THE CHAIR: Order. The time allotted for the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply has elapsed. We shall see you Thursday. Great job, everyone.

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