HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:00 P.M.

CHAIR

Mr. Brendan Maguire

THE CHAIR: Good afternoon, everyone. We’re going to call the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply to order. We have the Estimates of the Department of Lands and Forestry and the Honourable Iain Rankin.

Resolution E16 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $76,750,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Lands and Forestry, pursuant to the Estimate.

THE CHAIR: Minister, you have one hour starting now for an opening statement.

HON. IAIN RANKIN: I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Department of Lands and Forestry’s Budget Estimates. I would like to introduce the two people by my side today. We have Deputy Minister Julie Towers and Remi MacDonell, Manager of Financial Services.

My department touches on a variety of topics of interest to Nova Scotians, and I will provide the committee with information on some key areas. This is the first time the Department of Lands and Forestry has appeared before this committee. Last year, our name was changed from Natural Resources in a move to ensure that the forestry industry has a more dedicated departmental focus. Our name brings renewed focus on our strategic priorities, which I will outline today. What remains unchanged is my department’s commitment to achieving the necessary balance between sustainably managing and developing our lands and forests and protecting the environment.

[3:00 p.m.]

This budget is an investment in the future. It will help us improve Nova Scotia’s stewardship of natural resources, protect and enhance ecosystems, and implement ecological forestry as our overarching forest policy. I’ll begin with an overview of some of our key initiatives.

In December 2018, government issued its response to recommendations made by Professor Bill Lahey, who was commissioned to conduct an independent review of forest practices in Nova Scotia. Our move towards greater support for ecological forestry practices, in line with Professor Lahey’s review, is under way. The transition cannot be achieved overnight, but government is committed to implementing the recommendations, thereby ensuring a vital and healthy forestry industry that is here for the long-term benefit of all Nova Scotians. Many of the recommendations are interconnected, and their implementation will be phased in over time. In the four months since we released our response, my department has identified the path forward. We have established seven teams to work on projects tied to ecological forestry and recommendations from the review. I’ll briefly discuss those projects and actions taken today.

A team is in place to revise the Forest Management Guide so more emphasis can be placed on ecological values. The Forest Management Guide outlines the forest practices that can be used on Crown land. These revisions will result in the further reduction in clear-cutting on Crown land, particularly where multi-aged and mixed species forest exists. Preparing these updates will involve external expert advisers and input from stakeholders.

We have initiated a peer review of the department’s approach to natural disturbance regimes, mapping, and methodology to ensure our practices align with the principles of ecological forestry. Natural disturbance regimes are the historic patterns of natural processes such as fire, insects, wind, and a mass movement that affect landscapes and ecosystems. This work will involve external scientific experts and input from stakeholders.

We are developing a process to identify areas on Crown land for high-production forestry. This approach is in keeping with the triad model of ecological forestry, which requires three elements: conservation lands, areas of high-production forestry, and the remainder for mixed use. Areas identified for high-production forestry will be managed to maximize timber production but will still be subject to environmental protections for things such as watercourses and species at risk.

We have been working closely with our colleagues at Nova Scotia Department of Environment and have completed much work on the conservation category of the triad model through the designation of parklands, wilderness areas, and nature reserves. These designations were completed in support of the government’s goal to work towards 13 per cent protected lands across the province.

Another team is developing an independent process for environmental reviews of forestry management plans. That will include opportunities for enhanced public input.

One of the department’s priorities this year will be to renew our focus on wildlife and the identification of protection of species at risk. Two new professional staff will be hired to support biodiversity and outstanding recovery plans, and status reports will be completed. This will begin to address recommendations by both Professor Lahey and the Auditor General.

Funding will allow us to complete LiDAR mapping of the entire province and for analyzing and interpreting the data so it can be used by the forest industry, landowners, municipalities, and other government departments. LiDAR is an accurate and reliable tool for detailed mapping of forests.

There is also $1 million in new funding to support Crown land silviculture as we move towards more partial harvesting and less clear-cutting. This approach better supports ecological forestry through the implantation of the triad model. I want to point out that this is $1 million in addition to the $4.2 million my department currently invests in Crown land silviculture. We recognize that the sooner we can move to hire retention harvest treatments, the sooner we can achieve ecological forestry.

As the minister responsible, I’m proud of the progress we have made as we begin to implement these recommendations. As part of our response to Professor Lahey, we have committed to a culture of openness, transparency, and accountability. The department will report on our progress to Nova Scotians, and we have asked Professor Lahey to evaluate our progress in one year’s time.

The forestry sector is an economic pillar and foundation to industry for our province, particularly for rural regions. The sector has shaped our heritage, and for thousands of Nova Scotians, it is a way of life. We have an obligation to ensure future generations can enjoy both the natural beauty and opportunities for economic prosperity our forests give us.

I’ll now move on to another important area of our work, biodiversity. Earlier this Spring, I had the honour of fulfilling a key government commitment by introducing the Biodiversity Act, the first legislation of its kind in Canada. Generally speaking, biodiversity is the variety of life found on Earth in the form of different ecosystems, species, and genes, and the systems and processes that link them together. The Biodiversity Act will help improve the protection of our forests, lakes, animals, and plants for future generations. It enables us to improve the conservation and sustainable use of wild species and ecosystems in flexible and adaptive ways, address legislative gaps, and manage emerging risks to nature. Implementation will be supported by the Biodiversity Council. The council, which is made up of external subject matter experts, has been given the responsibility to help craft regulations and further promote biodiversity in Nova Scotia. The department will also provide outreach and education on biodiversity to further support effective implementation. The Biodiversity Act is our commitment to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity now and into the future. It supports evidence-based decision-making, reflects balanced and sustainable management practices, and will strengthen public trust in the management and protection of our province’s biodiversity assets.

One of the key priorities for this year is to initiate a review of the Crown Lands Act. We made this commitment in response to the forest practices review. This review will strive to ensure Crown lands continue to be managed in the best interests of the public and to reflect the environmental, economic, and social values of Nova Scotians.

We will also undertake a review of our business processes around the management and administration of Crown lands. This review will help us ensure our practices support consistent operational and service excellence in the administration of Crown lands.

The department is also exploring small-scale wood energy projects. We are looking for opportunities to spur innovation and create a low-carbon renewable heating solution for medium to large public buildings and serve as a model for private businesses. This is a collaborative, multi-year effort involving nine provincial departments, federal and municipal governments, schools, regional organizations, and industry stakeholders that support the principles of ecological forestry.

The department takes great pride in managing our provincial park properties, which are enjoyed by many Nova Scotia residents and visitors. We are committed to promoting accessible, inclusive, and sustainable public use and enjoyment of our park properties. We also value the importance of maintaining good rural jobs.

We welcomed a record number of campers last season. More than 82,000 campsite nights were booked in 2018, an increase of 5 per cent from 2017. Bookings have gone up about 30 per cent cumulatively since 2014. I predict it will be another busy record-setting year for us. Our provincial campground reservation system logged 8,599 campsite bookings over the two-day opening period. That’s a 30-per cent increase over last year’s opening day reservations.

As parks continue to see more and more visitors, infrastructure updates are required to ensure that we are meeting visitors’ expectations. As part of this year’s budget, we are taking several steps to improve both the visitor experience and the management of our park system. The department will renew aging infrastructure within the parks, identify initiatives for system improvements, and review regulations to ensure they’re meeting our operational needs.

Land titles initiative - historical disparities and systemic discrimination, including the lack of title to land, have impacted African Nova Scotians and their enjoyment of their social, economic, and cultural rights. Government’s land titles initiative is addressing these long-standing issues and supporting residents of North Preston, East Preston, Cherry Brook, Lincolnville, and Sunnyville to get clear title to their land. The initiative was put in place to help applicants in these communities who have faced barriers to seek and attain clear title to land. Departments are working together and moving forward with a dedicated team and with funding that will pay for eligible fees and costs required to get land titles. Working collaboratively under the leadership of the Department of Communities, Culture and Heritage and in partnership with Nova Scotia Legal Aid, Lands and Forestry will continue to support this critical work by providing land surveying by a dedicated survey team and processing applications under the Land Titles Clarification Act. To date, over 100 applications have been received. All submitted claims are in a stage of being processed.

The land titles initiative addressed government’s strategic direction of inclusive economic growth, specifically economic participation and benefits. It is anticipated the longer-term impacts will foster economic prosperity for African Nova Scotians who own land in these five communities.

Government’s accessibility plan, Access by Design 2030, outlines how government, businesses, communities, and individuals will work together to create a province that is inclusive and accessible to all. My department is committed to advancing on this strategy’s goals. This year, we will begin work to make our provincial parks and beaches as well as department offices more accessible to all Nova Scotians. This work makes a real difference in the lives of people with disabilities, and the work will be ongoing.

Those are the highlights from our department business plan. Now I want to briefly highlight some exciting partnerships and a few accomplishments from the past year.

Government has partnered with the federal government and Emera to launch the Forestry Innovation Hub to look at new uses for forestry resources to spur economic activity in Nova Scotia. There is a strong potential to develop an innovative biorefinery that produces an alternative fuel from renewable sources of fibre. The Innovation Hub’s investment attraction working group is now working to attract investors and identify markets for a low carbon bioresource economy. Currently, there are several firms in the working group’s pipeline, and the project is continuing to advance. This is an exciting step forward as we look at ways to make our forestry and resource sectors stronger over the long term. Discovering new ways to grow the forestry industry is how we will unlock the economic and environmental benefits of sustainably managed forests and ultimately be more competitive.

The Mi’kmaw Forestry Initiative - recently I had the pleasure to join Chief Terry Paul and Chief Rod Googoo as we announced an exciting new initiative with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia. Government and the Mi’kmaq have begun a pilot project to increase Mi’kmaw capacity in forestry and to explore the viability of Mi’kmaw-led forestry as an alternative means of forest management on Crown land. The initiative gives the Mi’kmaq forest planning and management responsibility on two blocks of Crown land, one in the St. Croix area in Hants County and another in Digby and Annapolis Counties, totalling about 20,000 hectares. The Mi’kmaq will create forest management plans and ultimately play a larger role in the forest sector. This pilot project provides opportunities for jobs, training, and Mi’kmaq businesses in silviculture and harvesting while following Mi’kmaq principles of stewardship and sustainability. We share a common goal of ecological forestry, and it makes sense now more than ever that the Mi’kmaq should have a greater role in the health of our forests. Our government’s transition to ecological forestry parallels the Mi’kmaq approach of listening to our forests. The pilot project is for a period of three years, and the experience gained during this time is intended to inform the development of a longer-term agreement.

Professor Lahey was very supportive of this initiative and recommended that the Mi’kmaw Forestry Initiative should proceed as quickly as possible. He knew that the initiative had been in the works, and I’m happy that we are fulfilling this goal. It represents one of the first tangible accomplishments on his recommendations. The province will contribute $600,000 to the initiative over the three years of the pilot.

The safety of Nova Scotians is an important part of our mandate. As wildfire season begins, I want to take this opportunity to update members on the preparations and partnerships that protect our communities and our forests. Lands and Forestry has a great team of pilots, mechanics, and wildfire fighters ready to respond at a moment’s notice. They work alongside other teams like volunteer firefighters, search and rescue, and police agencies. They’re all hard-working individuals who are there when we need them the most. Our province has an exceptional public safety record because of their combined efforts. Our wildfire crews are known for their abilities not just at home but across the country. Last year, Nova Scotia answered the call and sent aid to Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec to help control forest fires. Provinces provide mutual aid and can call on one another when wildfires become too big to handle alone.

[3:15 p.m.]

Here in Nova Scotia, we have improved our ability to fight fires. Our government recently purchased four new, state-of-the-art helicopters with better capabilities than any of our previous helicopters. I am pleased to report that our fleet renewal was completed under budget and ahead of schedule. The helicopters are in service now, being used in search and rescue, aerial monitoring of environmental issues, conducting forestry and wildlife surveys, and helping our first responder partners.

The ecological forestry practices we are adopting place a great focus on ecological values such as water, soil, and habitat for species that inhabit and constitute mature ecosystems. We recently introduced several new tools that will help us better understand and manage our natural environment. The newly updated ecological land classification guide offers detailed information about Nova Scotia’s biodiversity and natural features, like our climate, elevation, geology, topography, soil, and vegetation for each of the regions of our province. Ecological land classification is a common method used to describe and map ecosystems so we can better understand the complex relationships between wildlife and the environment. Understanding these linkages is key to planning and managing those resources for everyone’s benefit.

Similarly, detailed scientific analyses have been completed for the 38 ecodistricts that make up our province’s beautiful and diverse landscapes. These analyses provide a foundation for moving forward with landscape planning. As you can imagine, countless hours of work were invested in the research and assembling all the science for the public benefit. I am thankful to everyone who had a hand in making it all come to life.

The balance between a healthy economy and a healthy environment is on everyone’s mind, perhaps now more than ever. We know the future we want for this province.

The government made a commitment to end the use of Boat Harbour as Northern Pulp’s effluent treatment facility so that it could be returned to the natural environment it once was. All of us know that cleaning up Boat Harbour will benefit the community and everyone who lives and works there. It is long overdue, and it is a commitment we stand by. Government knows the importance of the Northern Pulp mill to the provincial economy and the jobs it supports. We’re also aware of the strong feelings on all sides of this issue. We take the uncertainty in Pictou County and the forestry sector very seriously. The forestry sector is highly integrated, with Northern Pulp as an important player.

This is not an all-or-nothing choice between environment and the economy. Government has an internal group of public servants in place now looking at potential impacts on the forestry sector and mill workers and to advise government on possible next steps. This group is at the early planning stages and gathering information. We want to see the jobs tied to the mill, forestry, and fisheries continue. There may be a path forward where the mill can continue to operate. The company must submit a project that can meet the province’s environmental standards and regulations. We also have a responsibility to consider all possible outcomes and the impacts on Nova Scotians if the company chooses to close the mill.

In closing, beyond the responsibilities of managing our natural resources, I have had the pleasure of taking part in two iconic events that speak to what makes Nova Scotia a special place - the Boston tree-cutting and the Groundhog Day ceremonies at Shubenacadie Wildlife Park. The annual tradition of sending a Christmas tree to Boston is something near and dear to all Nova Scotians. Gathering in Oxford at the property of Ross McKellar and Teresa Simpson with hundreds of Nova Scotians to see the 46-foot white spruce last October was delightful. I dare say it was almost topped by Shubenacadie Sam’s Groundhog Day prediction in front of an excited crowd on a very cold February morning. Sam has the distinct honour of making North America’s first prediction. I also learned that day that the groundhog’s prediction is always right - sometimes it’s the weather that’s wrong.

I must say that I’m very proud of our department’s accomplishments this year. These accomplishments were possible because of innovative, hard-working public servants. I thank them for doing their utmost to serve the people of Nova Scotia. Certainly, the year ahead will be an exciting one offering new challenges. I know that we’re well prepared and positioned to rise and meet those challenges.

Nova Scotia has a strong financial foundation. Government will continue making long-term investments in what’s important to Nova Scotians. As a department, we will continue our strong focus on biodiversity, wildlife, forestry, parks and land management, and achieving a necessary balance between protection and preservation and sustainable development.

Good work is happening here. Lands and Forestry is a great department, and I look forward to working with our partners and stakeholders to build a better future for Nova Scotians through responsible and sustainable natural resources management.

At this time, I think we’re ready for some questions. I’ll remind the members it is my birthday.

THE CHAIR: We’ll start with the Progressive Conservative caucus. Mr. Rushton for one hour.

TORY RUSHTON: I want to thank the minister for attending, along with his staff this afternoon. I’m sure there are places the minister would like to be on his birthday, rather than sitting here for four hours. We will try to be easy.

Truth be told, I do know that there was a transfer of department names, and there might be some logistics still left over, transferring over some things. Just bear with me as we go through these step-by-step questions. I’m going to try to skip a lot of preamble and just try to get to some answers so that maybe my caucus will better understand.

If it’s all right, Mr. Chair, we’ll start with parks. With 230 parks under the department’s management, can the minister describe the priority of the department in regard to park management?

IAIN RANKIN: As you quite correctly pointed out, it’s a precipitous challenge when we have so many of our great parks across the province. There are 230 of them. Our budget to spend each year is $1 million capital and $600,000 operating funds.

We rely on the staff, primarily, to look and assess. The senior management would look at different options for how we can prioritize what is put forward. We look at different perspectives in terms of regional fairness and looking at a multi-year plan. We generally look at a three-year plan similar to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.

We have a couple of projects that would have concluded or could be in the middle of a multi-year plan to revitalize. I’m not sure if you have the 2018-19 list. I can go over those. I know one is near your constituency, Amherst Shore, finishing the comfort station and electrical and water to the campsites at that park. There’s a number of other ones I can go over. We haven’t quite yet finalized the list for what you would see put into this budget, but it’s the same figure as last year’s budget.

TORY RUSHTON: If the minister wouldn’t mind, could he please table that later in the year when that list is completed?

As I took on this role, probably just shortly after the minister took on the role as Minister of Lands and Forestry, I have been looking through reports. The last online report that we can see for parks is 2012-13. Do you know when we could expect to see the most recent fiscal report online and a breakdown, just for transparency and stuff?

IAIN RANKIN: If I can ask you a question, do you know which activities specific to what kind of report you’re looking for there?

TORY RUSHTON: If you could bear with me for a minute, Mr. Chair, I believe I do have the document here. I just need to look through it. I’m not finding it.

It was a breakdown of what expenses went out throughout the whole park. It is online for 2012-13, but then it seems that the online portion stops there. It’s a breakdown of what was spent. It was pretty detailed actually. It just seemed to stop there. We’re looking for what has gone on for the last few years.

IAIN RANKIN: Okay, I’m going to rely on my note. Apparently we have up to 2014-16 potentially online, but we have confirmation that 2017-18 will be uploaded soon.

TORY RUSHTON: That would be the capital expenditures? Okay, thank you for that. I guess I’ll move on.

How much does the minister’s department plan on spending this year out of the capital for accessibility at these parks?

IAIN RANKIN: At this juncture, we’re still assessing what the cost would be. We have hired two students to work on that with the accessibility forum that I mentioned in my speech, the cross-departmental committee.

TORY RUSHTON: Attendance-wise, without having the numbers in front of us, you’re projecting that the attendance is going to be up this year. Online reservations came up last week. Talking with campers, it’s a very welcome addition.

We have had some very concerning calls this past week about people who have booked in history and their cards have been debited maybe two or three times for accommodations that they may not have made. I’m just wondering if your department has heard any of these complaints. If so, what are we going to do, as a government, to alleviate this and fix this problem?

IAIN RANKIN: I am aware of it. I did see a piece of correspondence about a similar situation. Past years on the opening days of the parks, the system basically crashed. There was such activity all on one day. This year we have spread that out over three days and different regions - eastern, central and western. My understanding was that for eastern and central, there were no complications in terms of traffic. On the third day, when we went with the western, there were some slowdown times.

I would say that this year, we have had enhanced user-face experience, but it’s not quite where we want it to be. In terms of the circumstances around billing, we’ll be working through those on an individual basis with our provider because it is an external third party that does them.

TORY RUSHTON: You were talking about projected increases in visitors this year. Is there any indication already, with the week and a half that those reservations have been on - are we going to reach those targets for another record year?

IAIN RANKIN: I would surmise it would be a record year. Based on the first couple of days, it has been a 30 per cent increase from last year. That could be a bit of a result of everyone being able to get through and reserve the space. We’ll have to watch that closely, but all indications are we will continue to increase park visits.

TORY RUSHTON: Maybe just one last question on parks, just general, that hits home for myself. When it was originally Lands and Forests back in the 1970s and 1980s, my grandfather had an integral part in the Shubenacadie Park opening. I’m just wondering, what has the attendance been like in the last number of years for Shubenacadie Park? Is there any new capital that might be going on there, any new projects?

IAIN RANKIN: For that park specifically it has been relatively stable. We’re getting about 100,000 to 120,000 visitors per annum.

TORY RUSHTON: In your lead-up, you mentioned that the helicopter replacement program had been completed. I know as one of those responders who relied on helicopters regularly in my previous life, it’s very welcome that there is an initiative to update these programs. Have all the old helicopters been taken care of through assets? If so, what took place with those?

[3:30 p.m.]

IAIN RANKIN: The answer is yes. One has been sold and four have been traded in.

TORY RUSHTON: To go along with wildfires, you mentioned that the staff is getting ready. How many staff would be full-time staff that we trade over to the forest fire aspect during the fire season, and how many would be part-time that we would bring in?

IAIN RANKIN: In total, we have 110 seasonal staff and 105 permanent staff.

TORY RUSHTON: Would those seasonal staff be strictly assigned to forest fire activities, or would there be other duties assigned to them as well?

IAIN RANKIN: Their main priority is of course to fight the fires, but when they are not occupied by that, then they’re tasked with various other tasks with the other staff at the regional centres.

TORY RUSHTON: Would some of those other tasks be park maintenance, maybe lawn mowing, lawn keeping? I don’t believe the department does any roadside kill anymore, I believe that’s traded over to a different department. I’m just getting an understanding of what the seasonal people may do.

IAIN RANKIN: It could be examples that you mentioned around basic maintenance, but it could also be surveying, which tends to take up a lot of time for staff. Anything that we have a pressure on, they would be there to help out.

TORY RUSHTON: If we did happen to have a busy fire season - hopefully not ever - would some of the other duties like park maintenance and maybe some routine painting - would some of that be put off to be available for the fires? Where I’m going is, are we going to miss out on something?

IAIN RANKIN: Obviously, public safety would always be the top priority. The staff complement that we have now is the appropriate staff complement to serve with the activity that we have had. We also would assess that on an annual basis. If there’s painting or something like that, that could obviously be put off to another time, and we would either be able to use resources that we have available that year, or we would go through the ordinary budget process.

It’s important to know, as I mentioned, how much sharing goes on, which is something I learned. I’m really amazed at the different provinces, how when another needs our help, they go and pay for that and vice versa. It’s a pretty good network of collaboration with other provinces.

TORY RUSHTON: I will echo that. I have been involved a little bit with the forestry sector, and it is a beautiful mutual aid system that we have across Canada. I have the utmost respect for the individuals that we sent out in years past, so thank you for that.

Are there any major upgrades to any fire equipment throughout the province this year?

IAIN RANKIN: I’m not aware of any major project, but every year there is regular replacement of the basic equipment that they need in terms of nozzles, hoses and those types of things - and trucks.

TORY RUSHTON: Just to keep on the theme, what are this year’s dates for fire season? Can you maybe give a little bit of an update of how the fire season works? I know, being chief up until last year in a volunteer service, we still had people calling to know if they could burn or couldn’t burn. As a past chief, I do have to give the department credit that the online portion is fantastic to know when you can and can’t burn. The truth of the matter is, there are still many Nova Scotians that can’t get that Internet service to see it or cell coverage to see it on their phone. Could you update us as to when the fire season is and how we’re doing on that online portion?

IAIN RANKIN: The genesis of the question is the dates. That’s March 15^th to October 15^th, the fire season.

I recognize the issue of Internet. There is also a 1-800 number that Nova Scotians can call to find out about burning restrictions.

TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate that. I’m just thinking of this off the top of my head, but with the department’s influence, could you as minister actually extend those seasons?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, but I would have to do a regulation change. That would go through Cabinet, so an Order in Council.

TORY RUSHTON: That was just something that I was thinking about. I know in years past we have had dry seasons and there were questions. I have taken the opportunity to ask the question at the time, so thank you for that.

I want to talk a little bit about the professional staff at the Department of Lands and Forestry. I believe it’s 629 on a search we did. I would like to ask the minister: How many of those would be biologists employed with the department?

IAIN RANKIN: Just to give you the macro number that we have here for staff complement, there was 629, but with the transition, with the mining division being taken out, we’re at 591.2. This is an estimation, but we’re pretty confident we have around the right number, about 23 biologists across the whole province.

TORY RUSHTON: How many forestry experts would be on that staff?

IAIN RANKIN: We can confirm the number, but just as an order of magnitude, we’re talking 50 to 60. We have a large cluster located in the Truro office. There’s about 40 there, but then there’s some others spread out who work more on a regional basis.

TORY RUSHTON: Would any of those professionals be included as park professionals on the staff?

IAIN RANKIN: No. Those are separate.

TORY RUSHTON: How many surveyors would the department employ?

IAIN RANKIN: We have a total of eight surveyors, and each of them would have two to three technicians with them.

TORY RUSHTON: This is going to lead to my next question. Does the department feel, with the past Auditor General’s requirements for the department, that the staff is appropriately divided up and divvied up into the appropriate classifications and proper professions?

IAIN RANKIN: From my short experience in government, I would say that any department that is passionate about what they do would always say they could use more.

Something I recognize and something that has been prioritized with our initiatives this year is the independent Lahey report. That aligns with some of the observations that were in the Auditor General Report in 2016 about more focus on species at risk.

We looked at potentially bringing some asks to Treasury Board about how we could implement the report as fast as possible. The biologist position was one that was key for me. We were able to get two new FTEs for that, so when the budget’s approved, we’ll be able to hire for those two positions. They will have renewed focus on looking at the various things from the independent report in terms of getting recovery teams up and running, getting recovery plans in place, looking at different core habitats, and those types of things.

I guess my answer to that is, yes, we could always use more. There are vacancies that always occur in different departments, and that presents challenges. We do have a good team across the province that focuses on a myriad of different operational issues in terms of forest management and surveying. Obviously, there’s the Land Titles Initiative, which is one of the most important initiatives our government has. That puts pressure on the surveyors to make sure that they’re out and looking at the boundary lines for folks looking to gain title.

We have added five biologists in the last three years. Add that to the two new ones we’re going to add this time, so we’re continuing to focus on those positions.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s move into Crown lands for a little bit. At the end of last month, there were quite a few lands that were acquired across the province, totalling $1.6 million. Could the minister enlighten us as to what those purchases of almost 1,800 acres were made for?

IAIN RANKIN: Every year, we have a pocket of money, $1.5 million. Nearing the end of the fiscal year is when I brought that to Cabinet to get approval on those. We have specific criteria. I’m not sure if we have that in front of us here. It focuses on different cohorts of priorities, one of them being high conservation values for different species; also high forestry value, if there’s land that has that; or connecting inland holdings, if we have Crown land, reducing the borders that we have of our own land.

We look at all those things. There’s obviously a lot of Nova Scotians who are interested in selling their land to government for various reasons, and there’s no shortage of opportunities for us to buy land. We put it through the criteria. How the process works is, back in December or January, the list was brought to me for approval to go out and negotiate. The landowner would get an appraisal because the policy is that government would buy the land at either the appraised value or lower. As they go through that process, sometimes they can’t contact the person for whatever reason, or the person does not want to sell for that value, so the list starts to decrease. Then we have a finalized list, and I bring it to Cabinet. Then it’s ultimately approved or not.

I have the criteria here. Basically, 50 per cent of the land is looked at for economic development. That’s the forestry interest, as I said. There are some other considerations: 25 per cent for biodiversity values and 25 per cent for parks and recreation. That could be for an addition to an existing park facility or other Crown lands that have recreational value. That’s the criteria we look at when we put the list together.

TORY RUSHTON: I think you might have answered the next two questions in that statement, but you said annually you have a budget at the end of the year of about $1.5 million to acquire further Crown lands. Am I correct in that?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, that’s correct.

TORY RUSHTON: What’s the priority when you would be going out and negotiating for further Crown lands? Is it for further biodiversity, sort of in the theme of this session for us, and rightfully so, I guess? Or is it for future harvest? What would be the priority if you were to go out right now and try to acquire further Crown lands? In the 2019-20 budget, when you’re done, what would be the priority?

IAIN RANKIN: That’s debatable and continues to be debated across the province. I think we have a good balance here if you consider 25 per cent biodiversity and 25 per cent for parks and recreation. Virtually half of our priority is looked at in terms of keeping the land public for use or protection, and the other half is potential economic development values.

I just want to add, $1.5 million is for the Crown lands, but there’s also $1 million that is in our auspices in terms of who controls the land. It’s a collaborative effort through the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. It’s a total of $2.5 million. There’s $1 million worth of land that the province purchases based on the priorities from KMKNO and the chiefs on the land that they would like to see eventually put into their hands. There is an agreement signed in the 1990s that is looking towards a potential accord in the future. Something I have learned is that each year the province puts aside land, and the idea would be that once the accord is eventually signed, they would be able to take on that land.

[3:45 p.m.]

We work closely with them, and that goes through the same process as all the other land. It was the same time in Cabinet that I brought all that land together. They would have their priorities, which would probably be similar in terms of recreational, biodiversity, and economic opportunities.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s go down the path, because I’m sure that all of our offices get phone calls that there’s too much clear-cutting going on in Crown lands. I don’t think that’s a mystery to any of us. Would the minister enlighten me and give me a step by step as to how the application process would go if somebody were to apply for a Crown land cutting? What are the deciding factors as to whether it goes forward or not?

IAIN RANKIN: There are specific Crown licence holders that have the authority to get a certain amount of green metric tons off of Crown land. I would say there’s more controversy in the western zone of the province, where WestFor has a licence, but there are others that have licences. There’s a community forest, and we now have an agreement with the Mi’kmaq initiative. There are other Crown licence holders. Northern Pulp is mostly central, although they’re one of the 13 mills that are the consortium under WestFor. Then we have Port Hawkesbury Paper in Cape Breton and the eastern zone. There are others also that are smaller. Those are the larger ones.

You need to have that licence before you can put through what they call pre-treatment assessment on the various block stands. They go through a process in terms of using the material that the department has. They have to follow our ecological classification guide first, which is very credible. Even the Lahey report, which had some concerns about our Forest Management Guide, was very complimentary of the way that the forest is ecologically classified, all vegetation types. Different stands have different species mixes.

On the stand level, foresters together with biologists make a determination of what the actual prescription type is, or you can call it a treatment type - what type of activity actually happens, what type of cut it is, and there are different categories that would go through. There are decision keys in that forest management guide. That’s where there is some level of disagreement.

I believe, with the independent report that Professor Lahey authored with a lot of support from experts in the field - he would be the first to say that they’re the ones, more than himself, who know more about the forestry industry and the whole species mix and different ages of forests are naturally grown here and disturbance regimes. Those are the ones that informed his recommendations and his subsequent conclusions.

In the western zone, we typically see more of what is commonly referred to as Acadian forests, mixed species - multi-age is a more technical way to describe it. You have particularly the long-lived shade-tolerant species like sugar maple, at one time beech - but they have been impacted by disease over time - yellow birch, red spruce, and those types of species. When you have a preponderance of those species mixed in with the early successional trees and different age cohorts, basically, the report says they most often should not be clear-cut. They should be treated and managed over time with uneven age systems. To the extent possible, there should be a lot of focus on retaining those species that I mentioned. Eastern hemlock is another one, the longest lived. When you do a good job of trying to retain those, and you cut some of the ones that are shorter-lived and not as tolerant of shade - like balsam fir, black spruce, or white spruce - then you are able to keep the forest around the same compilation that it is naturally.

The Forest Management Guide - and we’re in the process of looking at revising it - for me is one of the most foundational key recommendations in the report. That’s not to say that there is no science in the existing Forest Management Guide, but there is room for improvement and room for ensuring that there is augmented focus on preserving and really treating the forests in the way that they would naturally be treated if there were natural disturbances. The western end, again, has more propensity to have those types of forests, not all the time. Some of them could be more coniferous in nature, more fir and spruce. If I understand the report right, even with the revised guide, the decision key would still warrant some type of even management, and they could more correctly fit themselves into the high production leg of the triad.

I’m jumping around a little bit here, but just to try to finish the idea, the eastern end of the province, particularly in the Highlands of Cape Breton, has a huge preponderance of balsam fir and, to a lesser degree, spruce. When it’s more of a monoculture of coniferous nature, the acceptability, from an ecological perspective, would be that a clear-cut - and I don’t like using that word as much as the actual prescription which is typically overstory removal, but there are other forms of treatments - would be more accepted. Then central would have a bit of a mixture.

Generally the report says to look very carefully before the treatment decision is made to clear-cut that forest. Then you combine that with considerations that should be heightened around wildlife, especially species at risk, and that goes back to our discussion on biologists having more input. They do have input today into the pre-treatment assessment with the professional foresters. We do have special management practices. If it’s a clear-cut or not, there are certain guidelines that have to be followed for boreal, like setbacks for mainland moose, or up in the Highlands we have the lynx, and all these different species of concern.

It is a rigorous process. Could it be improved and more consideration given to the actual protection of the ecological makeup of the forests? I would agree with that. Since 1984, there has been a commission that has language about focusing on timber interests, and that was pointed out in the report. That’s part of the reason why we’re currently reviewing the Crown Lands Act, so the language can be enhanced to focus on all values of the Crown lands, not just economic values.

That work is under way. It’s another recommendation that we have accepted. Digressing to the Forest Management Guide, that is the foundational recommendation in terms of the decision on the treatment or prescription, whatever word you prefer. That’s why we have put a lot of resources and time into putting together the right internal team. We reached out to external experts. Some have been involved in the review themselves, and they have agreed to come onboard. We’ll be starting stakeholder consultations on a new draft of this guide in the late Spring. We’re getting close to doing that. I do think Nova Scotians are eager to see what that would look like. I have given a 12-month timeline, so we have until December before that is finalized, but it’s good to have a check-in and ensure that we’re being transparent and collaborative in terms of how we make that decision.

There’s a lot more I can say, but maybe I’ll stop there and see if you have comments on that.

TORY RUSHTON: You went right into one of my next questions, about the Forest Management Guide. Just to be very clear, you do expect that some time this year?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, that’s the intention. We have had our internal team together for two or three weeks now working on potential new additions and revisions to that guide. I have already explained why that’s important. We have recently reached out to the external team that are known as experts in the field, very credible. I think that some of the stakeholders that are concerned about this will be appreciative of who’s going to come onboard with that. Then we want feedback from those stakeholders. I would say by July, we’ll have some good sessions. In the report it talks about ensuring that the culture in the department is open and transparent, so I think that’s important.

We have also created a website so that, every month or so, you’ll see additions to the website about what exactly the department is working on. We’ll be in a position soon where we’ll be able to update that website and show them what external experts are joining the teams that are in place.

The Forest Management Guide is one team. We have the project charter in place already, and we just have to finalize some of the contracts with our external experts. We also have teams for the natural disturbance regimes which are also important for the high-production forests. In all of these we’re looking at external experts to join our internal team for outcomes, base forestry, for our species at risk, for the small wood energy projects, for the state of the forest reporting, for old forest, and for environmental assessment and planning. I think I have covered all the teams.

Just to comment, we have also an evaluation framework that we’re working on in collaboration with Professor Lahey so that he is comfortable. He has agreed to come back and check in after 12 months. I think that’s an important piece, also an important recommendation. It shows the seriousness of wanting to reduce clear-cutting to get a new guide in place and start to see changes on the ground.

TORY RUSHTON: Can I have a time check, please?

THE CHAIR: You have just about 20 minutes. You are running until 4:21 p.m. You have 24 minutes.

TORY RUSHTON: I’ll stick with lands a little bit with the minister. In 2014-15, there was a large expenditure in Annapolis County that was over $600,000. Could the minister elaborate on what that land might be acquired for? It was 2014-15, and it was a piece of land in Annapolis County that was purchased for over $600,000. We haven’t seen anything tagged to what is going on with that property as of yet.

IAIN RANKIN: I don’t have that information. Being pretty new to the department myself, I don’t have a memory of that. I don’t think the deputy has been in the department going back that far, but we can get that for you.

TORY RUSHTON: I have just one last, quick comment or question about lands. In the event that Paper Excellence does close and cease to exist in Nova Scotia - you did say in your last statement that they are a large Crown land operation or owner, if you will, and have a big stake in that. I’m sure they own some of their own private land. Is there any agreement where the province has to buy any of that land back? If so, if there an agreement, is there a value that we may expect to see in this year’s budget if that does take place?

IAIN RANKIN: There’s no set amount. They do have loans. There’s no set amount that we can give at this time, but they have loans that are outstanding. I’m not sure if they are through this department. NSBI would be the department that would have that information in terms of the loans.

[4:00 p.m.]

TORY RUSHTON: In Mr. Lahey’s report, he did call for the department - and the wording has changed, I guess, because of Lands and Forestry - he called for the department to be more open and transparent, for collaboration and accountability. I guess since the minister’s taken over this role, how are you approaching that recommendation outside everything else that Mr. Lahey has recommended?

IAIN RANKIN: That ties into all the recommendations that he has put forward, and I referenced the Forest Management Guide as being one of the foundational ones. I think it’s fair to say that when we have all these teams in place - which internally they are; externally, the advisors are coming on board - in the near future, which is months not years, because we want to have significant progress by that year check-in with Professor Lahey, that we have demonstrated a culture shift in terms of how we collaborate with all stakeholders.

The Forest Management Guide should have a revision partway through July at the latest to be able to share with our stakeholders. I don’t have timelines on the other ones. That was the priority, but we also have to look at the natural disturbance regimes and doing a peer review of how those work to ensure they are happening correctly.

We have reached out to different stakeholders and we continue to seek feedback in all things forestry. The map viewer is continuing to get feedback. We’ve made changes. Some of them were perceived as positive, some of them not so much. One of the things we did change was trying to focus on the actual stands that were pending approval, so we took off the other stands, the historical stands from the last couple of years that were approved.

Part of that was in response to some of the challenges around Internet time in uploading all of the maps, which I’ve seen as a complaint, so by trying to solve that problem we had an adverse reaction saying that that was not something that they wanted to see. We’ve since put those maps back on.

That’s part of the challenge of a transition, like other transitions - trying to do transformational change and you have a lot of different pieces to try to get together in an organized fashion, but also recognizing that in that transition period, there are concerns about existing practices. We continue to have an open door to meet with anyone and take feedback on how we can improve that, but once the report is implemented in a practical way, it is my view that a lot of these things can be improved in how we collaborate.

I don’t think it serves anyone’s interest to look at managing the forest in these block-by-block, stand-by-stand ways. It’s not only the environmental groups and the public that have concerns with that. It’s industry, and it’s departmental resources. I do believe that there can be improvements that all sides can live with that can be made.

TORY RUSHTON: You’ve already answered my question about the mapping program going on right now, so I look forward to having some positive changes on that as well. I can appreciate some of the concerns that are coming back from the public, that it is hard to navigate if you don’t understand exactly what is going on in the forestry sector and know the terminology. I welcome that information.

Out of the Lahey report, he did call for small-scale biomass, and you mentioned it in your entrance speech. Could you maybe elaborate on some areas that this might be popping up in the near future - timelines and maybe some possible projects that might be happening pretty soon?

IAIN RANKIN: That also is a priority. Even before the report came out, there were a number of my colleagues who had a lot of interest in seeing this happen. There is a cross-departmental team put together. It overlaps quite a few departments. One of the key ones is Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, because they are tasked with tendering.

Really, our goal is to have something out soon if we want to get a project in place by the time the next heating season comes around. We’re at the end of one. Ideally, if we can get a tender out in a good amount of time, then we can have something in place for potentially five or six projects by the heating season of 2020.

The tendering process is quite a process, so we’re working in earnest to try to get through some of that so that we can have something out soon. In terms of sites, I don’t know for sure. There’s a lot of work that goes into the best sites. Some of the new ones wouldn’t necessarily be the best way to put a new system in place, because they already have the most efficient heating systems in them. Conversely, in some of the older systems, the boiler could be so old that it may not provide that baseload, because you need a certain percentage of baseload in case you don’t have the material.

We’re really trying to find the balance of the age of the boiler, scale is an important one, location, proximity to mills for the supply, and access into the public building itself. There has been a lot of work that’s gone into it. I’m hoping we’re close to being able to get something together for the next heating season. In terms of location across the province, I could just say that we’ll do our best to be as regionally fair as we can.

TORY RUSHTON: I look forward to hearing the announcements and the updates on that.

Maybe you could enlighten me a little bit as well on the progress of what’s going on in Truro at the Dalhousie Campus with that system.

IAIN RANKIN: I did have the opportunity to go for the launch of that. I don’t really have any detailed feedback. I’ll see if I can get some, but all reports are that it’s going well.

TORY RUSHTON: Mr. Chair, if it’s all right, I’m going to take a little break and I’m going to hand it off to my colleague. I believe he has a few questions as well.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bain.

KEITH BAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you tell me how much time is left?

THE CHAIR: You’ve got 14 minutes.

KEITH BAIN: Okay. Minister, most of my questions are going to be more local in nature.

First of all, I want to commend the department on Dalem Lake in my constituency. Over the last few years, all the trails around the lake have been upgraded, and TIR has put double chip seal on the road going in. It’s just fantastic. The good part, I guess, is that it’s not just a summer park anymore. The park is being used year-round, because people are cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on the trail. I think that’s what parks are all about. The department is to be commended on it.

Just one concern that I have - and Dalem Lake would be one, and the other would be Groves Point Beach. Totally different, because Groves Point Beach is open to the ocean where Dalem Lake is a lake within the boundary of the park itself. Last summer with the warm weather, there was a lot of concern about bacteria. Again, Dalem Lake is fresh water, and a lot of people use it for swimming in the summertime.

I guess my question would be: In an event like that - I know it’s harder to do it with Groves Point because it’s salt water and in the open ocean - is the water that’s in Dalem Lake tested for bacteria during the summer months?

IAIN RANKIN: I don’t know specific to that one, but if it’s recognized as a public beach, then it does have regular monitoring for those levels. If it’s not specific to being a public beach, then it’s not.

KEITH BAIN: It’s just that I wondered, where the lake itself is right within the boundary of the park, it just goes around the lake.

What would be the process if concern was expressed to my office about the possibility of bacteria within? Do I contact the local office to have it tested? Do I contact Environment?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, it would be our department, because it is in the park. You would contact the local office and ask them to test it.

KEITH BAIN: I guess Groves Point is a public beach, but again, it’s salt water. There was also concern expressed - the temperature on that side of Boularderie Island is always a lot higher than it is on the north side of Boularderie Island, so there were concerns about that - because it is part of the ocean. Can you address that?

IAIN RANKIN: I’m loath to give a commitment. because I don’t know specifics on that, what our responsibility is for that side. If it is inland, like you say, then it would be provincial, but we’d have to check what our commitment is in terms of - if it is a public beach, then it would be tested regularly. We can certainly look into that for you and get back to you, no problem.

KEITH BAIN: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that. Another question I have is concerning Uisge Ban Falls in Big Baddeck - Rear Baddeck, I guess it is called. Over the last couple of years, my office has received concerns from constituents and users of the trail who are going out to the falls about the condition of the trail itself and the safety of the bridge that crosses the trail.

I guess my question would be, has the department done any work in the past while? If not, is there any work being planned for that site?

IAIN RANKIN: I just have last year’s work - 2018-19’s work - that was done on parks. I don’t see that listed, but we can certainly look at that as we go through the process for this year. We basically have $1 million to spend in capital and $500,000 to spend operating each year.

Now, we have 230 parks, so I don’t know where that is in terms of where staff ranks it as a priority. If there’s a safety concern or something of a pressing nature, make sure that the local detachment is aware, or you can send it to me and we’ll make sure that we look at it.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Bain, you have eight minutes.

KEITH BAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next one would be Cabots Landing in Sugar Loaf, Bay St. Lawrence area. That again is being used on a regular basis, and I’m wondering if there are any monies designated for any improvements or upgrades around Cabots Landing.

IAIN RANKIN: Sorry, I’m going to have to repeat myself and give you the same answer there. I don’t see that we did anything this year, and we’ll have to review it with all the other parks for this year. If you want to put together an email to me, I can have it there with me.

KEITH BAIN: Thank you again. I’ll get an update from the residents. I know Uisge Ban Falls is very, very busy in the summertime. There are actually bus tours that go out to that area, so I think safety is paramount at that point. I know there were some safety concerns expressed, and I’ll make sure that I can get them on paper for you.

Also, the approaches - again, I’ll use Groves Point Beach - there’s always a lot of potholes when people are going there, and there’s nothing any worse. I guess that responsibility would be with your department too, and not with TIR. Am I correct?

[4:15 p.m.]

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, if it’s in the park, it would be.

KEITH BAIN: That’s all the questions I have. I’ll turn it back to my colleague for Cumberland South.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Rushton, you have about five minutes.

TORY RUSHTON: I’ll just throw out a couple of quick questions. Since I’ve taken over the role as the Critic of the Department of Lands and Forestry, there have been several hunters contacting me in regard to different aspects of hunting or whatever. The inevitable question has come up. It’s Spring again and our black bears are coming out and the phone calls are starting again. What would be the minister and his department’s stance on a safe, regulated Spring black bear hunt?

IAIN RANKIN: I did receive correspondence from people looking for that. That would be something that I think would require more feedback from the general public in terms of their feelings on that.

We haven’t really strongly considered that. It was considered by my predecessor and the answer was no. I don’t see compelling evidence as to why it would be required for any conservation purpose. I would be cautious with that one, given that bears are coming out of hibernation in the Spring, but we would be open to the discussion if there is evidence that the general public would be in favour of that.

Just to answer your previous question that you had on the land in Annapolis, in March 2015, there was land purchased from the Town of Bridgetown for possible expansion of Valley View Provincial Park for $448,000. That’s probably the land you were referencing.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s stop the hunting conversation for a little bit. Are there any plans to develop on that land?

IAIN RANKIN: That would depend on the resources for the park, so I can’t say if there are or not. I can get back to you.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s go back to the hunting, I guess. We have an antler list, deer hunt draws, and so on. I guess the other question I’m getting from hunters and anglers is, is the stance of the department that it’s going to stay status quo, still have a moderate draw in certain areas - no antlered harvest in certain areas? Can you enlighten us as to what the idea is coming up for this hunting season?

IAIN RANKIN: Staff are in the process of compiling all the information that needs to be analyzed before any of the draws would change. We have had recent aerial surveys in Cape Breton looking at the moose population there, so we’re starting to look at the population numbers. We know they’re down from last year. I need a full detailed briefing on that to see what a result of the federal government’s cull was. They had upped the hunt with First Nations in that area to see what the impact was and to see what the evidence shows us in terms of what the biologists think in terms of conservation numbers.

We continue to engage with that group - the Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I was at their AGM just this past weekend and will continue to talk to Travis and the people who are involved. We may not always agree, but the department works closely with that group. We’ve had our department staff out doing sessions with them from enforcement at the Department of Environment and from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Mi’kmaq and Chief Rod Googoo are also continuously being involved in those discussions. It’s important that they’re at the table too when decisions are made.

TORY RUSHTON: I’ll just be very quick before we hand everything over to the NDP side. Is there any indication of what the deer population or herd is like? If there is any indication, could you entertain me with the idea of when you do flyovers and calculations?

IAIN RANKIN: I’m not a hunter, so I’m not really well-informed on that. They’re doing pellet counts in late April or early May, so we’ll have more information by mid-May.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Rushton, one minute, if you want to make a final comment.

TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate the fact of not being a hunter, but I myself am a family hunter for the right reasons. We don’t necessarily harvest every year. It’s more about getting out in the forest with the kids and enjoying the atmosphere.

I look forward to hearing what the population is like for the deer, and I echo the same comments from the Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I wasn’t there myself this past weekend, but I believe the sport and industry are very strong in the province, and from hearing and being a part of it, there’s lots of room to grow. Have I spoken for my last minute yet, Mr. Chair?

THE CHAIR: That minute always seems long, doesn’t it?

We’ll now go to the NDP caucus and Ms. Roberts.

LISA ROBERTS: Thank you, and thanks for this opportunity. I have a lot of questions, so I’m going to just dive right in, starting with the increased silviculture funding.

First of all, can you help me locate that silviculture funding? Is it under Renewable Resources? I have notes here that suggest a new $1 million in silviculture funding for Crown land, but I’m not immediately seeing from the Budget Estimates where that would be.

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, it is under Renewable Resources, so it is $1 million extra on top of the $4.2 million that we spend on Crown lands. It’s included under the Resource Management subtitle under Renewable Resources.

LISA ROBERTS: That line item obviously includes other things as well. I guess my first question is, are there different rules governing this new silviculture spending than the original $4.6 million budgeted, or is this just an expansion?

IAIN RANKIN: There are no specific rules that apply to it, but any money that’s put out as silviculture, we have to approve it based on their practices, juxtaposed with private land where they can choose how they spend that money. When we say that it’s dedicated for partial harvesting, we would expect that that funding would be used to stimulate a focus on multi-aged management and activities that would be more aligned with ecological forestry, such as thinning or that type of work, rather than a focus on planting or spraying, which is more typical of even-aged management.

LISA ROBERTS: Would you know what proportion of the base of $4.6 million for silviculture has been going to silviculture activities that maintain or restore multi-aged forest versus what proportion has been going to planting or thinning?

IAIN RANKIN: We don’t have the Crown numbers. It’s a good question. We know off the top of our head that 30 per cent of the private is spent on that cohort that focuses on even-aged, so 70 per cent of the private goes into more of an intensive forestry mixture.

We’ll get that number for you for both. It’s a good question.

LISA ROBERTS: One of the challenges of repairing and restoring the health and the value of our forests is that many stands get caught in a loop where a clear-cut leads to an even-aged stand, and then the treatment prescribed for an even-aged stand is a clear-cut, so the cycle repeats itself while the quality of the trees and the soil continues to go down.

Can you talk about how the new silviculture funding might break that cycle?

IAIN RANKIN: I think that’s kind of the premise of needing more funding, because that would require increased thinning over time, instead of one application that would happen over a number of years and a number of treatments. I will add that the total increase is actually $2 million, because before the fiscal year ended, there was a request that went through Treasury Board for $1 million. It has actually been an increase of $2 million, because it is important to focus on those treatments. Obviously we’d like to have more, but that’s what we were able to acquire for the process.

LISA ROBERTS: I should clarify, are those $2 million spent by department staff? What does that actually represent, and who is administering that money?

IAIN RANKIN: We direct those who spend it, but it is the Crown licence holders who do the work. It flows through them.

LISA ROBERTS: Other than the Medway Community Forest Co-op, that would be primarily Port Hawkesbury Paper, Northern Pulp, and Taylor?

IAIN RANKIN: Taylor Lumber, Ledwidge, and all those, yes.

LISA ROBERTS: The members of WestFor as well?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, through WestFor, correct.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. I’m going to move on to some questions about implementing Lahey on private lands. Can you update me on conversations with the Nova Scotia Landowners and Forest Fibre Producers Association about how best to support ecological forestry on private lands? Are there ways that silviculture funding can be allocated to better support ecological forestry on private lands?

IAIN RANKIN: I think it has been a month, probably more than that - I did meet with them. They had a proposal put together that does require significant resources. That came after our official response to the report, where we’ve made a conscious decision to focus on Crown land, following the focus on Crown land in the report itself. Three-quarters or more of the recommendations were around Crown land, and I think it’s because of the public seeing it as public land, for good reason, and the way that we manage it.

As I’ve said publicly, we would work with groups in collaborating ways that we can, but there should be a recognition that resources are not easy to come by. We do provide $1 million per year to various groups across the province. There are more than a dozen of them. That’s one that you mentioned, but there are some groups that I would say overlap in mandates, and I would like to perhaps see more collaboration amongst them themselves.

They all bring good and different skillsets to the table, but I would say that there is some fracturing in what each group is working on. We will continue to provide those funds to those groups.

The operation in Cape Breton is working quite well in terms of helping woodlots manage. Then we have western and central, and we’re trying to help those groups work through that. That’s where we’re at with that. That was the genesis of putting money into the Crown, into silviculture, LiDAR, and the FTEs, so that has been our focus.

LISA ROBERTS: One of the conversations I’ve heard from speaking with private woodlot owners and the co-ops is around tax incentives. I’m wondering if you’re looking, or if your department is engaged at all in looking, at tax incentives for bringing more private woodlots into active management.

[4:30 p.m.]

IAIN RANKIN: I guess I would say I’m open to that. It sounds like an interesting concept, but I’d have to learn more of how that would be administered and what the outcomes would be.

Just to mention, there’s $2.2 million directed at silviculture through the Association for Sustainable Forestry. I should mention, too, there also is a new home-study module that’s being put together. It’s under contract to be written. We should have that put together soon. That’s a free module that we would share with all these groups and private landowners so that they can follow ecological-type practices in how they manage their woodlots. Just another initiative.

LISA ROBERTS: I recognize what you say about there being multiple groups active on our landscape, though I am wondering if you have spoken with the Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners & Operators Association about supporting the establishment of a centre of excellence in ecological forestry to develop technical expertise and help develop new markets and innovative product to support high-value, low-volume forestry.

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, I did meet with Andy once. I think he has written to me recently. Unfortunately, I’m not able to make the gathering that they have on May 25^th, because we have our Party’s AGM, but I would go.

That sounds like something interesting that we would consider, along with the other proposals that were brought forward. I would say that group has - I don’t want to say “competing proposals,” but certainly around the same areas. We had different proposals being brought forward around the same time from different groups, and I wouldn’t say one is better than the other, but I certainly appreciated the meeting that we had and the outcomes of ecological forestry that the Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners & Operators Association espouses.

LISA ROBERTS: Moving to Crown leases and land-use planning: since the Lahey report, your department has given one-year extensions to all Crown land licence holders. Is that correct?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, that’s correct. In the spirit of fairness, and when I came in in July, there was one that was expired a week or two after, I think - that may have been Northern Pulp - so in terms of the legal implications of operating without a licence, that was kind of an imperative to have the licence in place.

That is relative to the terms that licensees were used to having - 20- or 25-year planning from a business perspective. You could see why they’d want more predictability. But from the perspective of government and ensuring that we are committed to implementing the Lahey report, we felt that that was an approximate amount of time that we would be able to get some of these recommendations in place so that we could consider a different arrangement.

We have to start being serious about implementing these recommendations and looking at what that means on the ground in terms of environmental assessments and landscape planning, what the implications are of different forest management practices, and what that means for the general landscape. That was what we thought was fair.

I know some may see one year as a long time, but in the industry, it’s really not. With Northern Pulp, there was actually legislation - the Scott Papers Act almost gives them a right to extend for that 20- or 25-year period, but they were in agreement to sign for the one year at that 25 per cent reduction volume that was put in place before I was in the department.

LISA ROBERTS: Have you indicated to the Crown land licence holders if this will be the last interim extension, or do you have a vision of what next year looks like after this one year?

IAIN RANKIN: That is a good question. Again, a year is not a long time. We’re already a quarter of the way through that year, but we’re working hard to get these teams running. I would defer to some of their advice, especially because some of them were involved in writing the report around the Forest Management Guide. The environmental assessment piece is an important one, and how that is structured.

I wouldn’t preclude the possibility that there could be another year’s extension, just because I know my time in Environment, the Class 2 assessment, could take over a year in itself. I would defer to some of the expert advice that we’re going to ascertain through these groups, whether it’s the Forest Management Guide, the natural disturbance regime team, the identification of the high-production forests - I would frankly just be speculating on how quickly we could actually ensure that we are getting the best areas dedicated for high-production forests.

I think the biggest challenge to all these things is timing how they all fall in place. I know there may be some who want to focus on one area of the report, but I think there’s a reason why the report had so many recommendations. Some could mitigate potential impacts - if there is a reduction of clear-cutting on the general landscape, really it speaks to the importance of the high-production part of the triad in ensuring we’re getting more timber off less land.

I think some of these things need to be carefully considered - the exact date that something will be implemented. I’d love to say it will all be in place in a year, but the only real hard commitment we made in that response was 12 months on the Forest Management Guide, and I fully expect that we’ll meet that commitment.

LISA ROBERTS: Which of those teams - or is it one of those teams that will be identifying where plantation-style forestry will be practised?

IAIN RANKIN: There are the teams that will be identifying the criteria. There’s an internal team in place - we’ve reached out to people who have agreed, and there’s a draft project charter in place. The idea is that once we have the criteria, there will be a public forum in terms of getting feedback from the public - again, going back to some of the talk around being more transparent and more collaborative. We’re embracing that as a concept. Then we’ll be able to identify where those would be.

I’ve had general feedback from some of the authors in terms of where that may be, in terms of the type of forests that could be in proximity to where mills are or those types of considerations. But again, I would defer to the experts in getting the science behind where that would go. Then we would go to the public and get feedback.

LISA ROBERTS: What percentage of Crown land do we envision being dedicated to plantation forestry? “Triad” makes me think of a third, but a third is not necessarily what should be understood. I don’t know.

IAIN RANKIN: I do think that no matter where we land, there’s going to be some disagreement on what the appropriate number is. It is too early to say. We know that roughly 35 per cent of the land in the province is Crown, so after P.E.I., that’s the smallest percentage that we have to deal with.

When we’re getting close to 13 per cent protection, which is the conservation side of the triad, that’s one-third of it already off the table, so we’re really talking about the other two-thirds.

I’ve had multiple conversations with the authors and their feelings. I’ll continue to do that, and our external experts will weigh in, but it will really have to do with a lot of variables, in terms of where we can grow in high production without environmental impacts and where we can get the best timber volume and quality. Ecological considerations should be at the forefront, as Professor Lahey noted in the report.

The largest cohort would be the matrix cohort. Even though it’s a triad, that doesn’t necessarily dictate that there would be three equal legs, because that could be precluding any further conservation efforts. We have an application happening right now where we can actually get federal funds to protect more on the private side, which inevitably is required if we want to look at some areas when 75 per cent of the land in Nova Scotia is private. We have an application in with the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, conservancy groups, and Ducks Unlimited, and we’re partnered with Environment.

Then there’s a number of subpartners that feed into that group to look at leveraging potential - to leverage some of the fund, the land that we’ve committed to protect in the list that gets us from 12.5 per cent to 13 per cent. We’re hoping the federal government will give us in-kind value for that so we can get more money and we can buy private land for the purpose of conservation and protection. There’s a lot of variables that go in, as you can see.

LISA ROBERTS: I was here last week for Environment Estimates. The conversation around those protected lands, particularly the ones that have already had all the work done but have been waiting for an Order in Council, was such that I understand there might be some reconsidering of some of those pieces of land. Would you suggest that these federal funds that might enable protection of private lands might result in some of those pieces of public land not being protected in the end?

IAIN RANKIN: How I would respond is that the commitment from the government has been quite clear that the intention is to protect 13 per cent of public land. We’ve made significant progress and met the legislative goal in EGSPA, reaching 12.5 per cent. I think it was under 10 per cent when we came into government. The political commitment in both mandate letters is to reach 13 per cent. There is no commitment to protect the lands that would go beyond 13 per cent on Crown.

LISA ROBERTS: Can you talk to me a little bit more about how you see public participation in planning, particularly on the WestFor lands, which many people still remember as part of the buyback - buy back the Mersey, buy back the Bowater lands. Can you talk about what the department is currently thinking, in terms of public engagement in that planning process?

IAIN RANKIN: We do plan to have a lot more public feedback at the outset on the recommendations that I highlighted in our response - so the Forest Management Guide, the natural disturbance regimes, those types. We are going to have some workshops on those identified with our stakeholders.

We haven’t really considered at length the opportunity of revisiting the engagement. I’ve heard from some stakeholders, and you probably have too, that that engagement during that time wasn’t all-encompassing. Certainly there was an expectation, whether it was right or wrong, that there would be more protection of the land out there. The documents I’ve seen written by public officials prior to our government - that land would be a balance of recreation, harvest interests, and conservation interests.

[4:45 p.m.]

The Parks and Protected Areas Plan was put together and the land was chosen for a specific reason. It wasn’t our government - I think it was the NDP Government that put together the 13.8 per cent that had the different considerations of biodiversity and not trying to impact on recreation in certain areas - but there are some groups that feel that their area wasn’t considered enough.

I think you’re familiar with St. Margarets Bay. There’s a commitment to take a second look at that area and see what biodiversity considerations should be reviewed. We’re going to do that and see what results from that and potentially consider what land may add to conservation. There are competing interests in all that land, because there’s value on all sides.

I think the most important part of the Lahey report in terms of what the public will be able to participate in more is the EA process - the Class 2 or equivalent EA. We haven’t decided whether that will be the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Lands and Forestry who leads that, but we’ve been engaged in discussions with the Department of Environment to get their feedback.

As you would know, the Class 2 is very rigorous public feedback, and the independent panel especially adds to that accountability from a third-party perspective. I think the sooner we can organize and have clarity on when that will take place, the better. We don’t have specific Western Crown Land engagement planned as of yet.

LISA ROBERTS: It strikes me as you’re talking how much the Medway Community Forest Co-op model incorporates on a continuous basis some of those desires for engagement and community input. One of the recommendations of the Lahey report was to expand the community forests land base, so I’m wondering if you can update me on the state of negotiations with them.

IAIN RANKIN: I would agree that a lot of their philosophy is ecological-based forestry, but they do overstory removal. I think it’s important that that’s part of the discussion when we are talking to the public, because there is a percentage of the public that I don’t think understands the balancing and the inclusion of clear-cutting as a tool, on Crown or private, and the appropriateness of it at times.

It’s good that you pointed out that group. We did extend their agreement until March 2020. We are working on further bridge funding, and we just received their business plan this week, so we’ll need some time to review that. I did have the chance to meet with them, and they will be involved in some fashion as we implement some of these recommendations. I look forward to that.

LISA ROBERTS: Just to clarify, will they have more flexibility in terms of prescription treatment of cuts that they are doing? I know that had been one of the challenges - they were seeking to use input from community members and not always wanting to follow the Forest Management Guide. Will they have more flexibility moving forward?

IAIN RANKIN: My understanding is that they do have flexibility through their research trials, and I’d have to take back the comments on the Forest Management Guide. We have committed, as I said, to have that fully revised by the end of this year, but we’ll have a draft ready in the short term that they’ll be able to comment on themselves and look at what decision keys may be added.

I’ll also say that in the interim period we have the interim management guide that mandates certain retention, as you know. We may be adding to that as well, based on the feedback that we’re hearing from these types of groups on different opportunities to manage in the middle, as one of the authors would say. That’s what we’re really trying to do: add more flexibility and options in between the partial cut and the overstory removal, like an irregular type of shelter with those types of initiatives.

LISA ROBERTS: Do you see any opportunities moving forward for additional community forests?

IAIN RANKIN: I wouldn’t commit, and I wouldn’t say that that’s not possible either. Significant land went into the Mi’kmaq forestry initiatives - 20,000 hectares. That would be part of looking at the land, and as they are in the western area, we have to look at what happens in St. Margarets Bay and what happens with the high-production forestry and where that is located. It’s a balance, and we’ll do our best to reach that balance.

LISA ROBERTS: I want to move to old forests. I do know that “old forests” and “old-growth forests” are not the same thing. I may misuse the term at some point in this line of questioning, so I’m sure you’ll correct me.

Since the whistle was blown on some old-growth forests being cut in Guysborough County, has your department changed the frequency of its checks on pre-treatment assessments from licence holders?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, and specifically checking all of the ones from that Crown licence holder where that occurred.

LISA ROBERTS: So 100 per cent of pre-treatment assessments are being checked by department staff before a harvest is conducted?

IAIN RANKIN: They all have to check them as they’re coming in now. We’re going back at looking at most of them.

LISA ROBERTS: Do I understand correctly that the department has formed a team to look at work plans around old forests? If that’s correct, what is the goal of that team?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, correct. The goal is to identify the existing policy and identifying more areas. We have that team in place.

LISA ROBERTS: If I understand how that works with the other recommendations of the Lahey report, would that identification work then translate to landscaping designated for matrix forestry versus plantation?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, that would be a logical assumption. I should mention, specific to this budget, that the extra money for LiDAR will help us identify, from the aerial view, types of tree sizes and potential for old growth. It adds another tool for us to do that.

Having been out in the forests with some of our staff, like Dr. Peter Bush, and looking at trying to identify, I must say that that process continues to improve. Some of those areas may be added into the policy and become part of the other leg of the triad, the conservation, if they’re getting close to being old growth.

LISA ROBERTS: With the LiDAR resources that we have now, does the department currently have a detailed map of the remaining old-growth forest in Nova Scotia? Or if it’s working on one, will that be shared publicly?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, we’re working on that. It’s a work in progress, but it will become public.

LISA ROBERTS: A bit of an aside, but I have heard comments about the LiDAR resources that the province has. Some other groups, for example the forestry co-ops, would be interested in having access to those LiDAR resources, but currently they don’t. Is there a process for sharing that LiDAR?

IAIN RANKIN: We’re impacted by the licensing on how we’re able to share that information. It’s something that we’ll look into.

LISA ROBERTS: There is a perception amongst some Nova Scotians that there is a rush by industry to secure as much fibre as possible before the implementation of all the recommendations from the Lahey report. Can you provide me with what we have actually seen in terms of harvest since the Lahey report - harvests each month versus each month of the two years preceding the Lahey report?

IAIN RANKIN: That goes back to the reductions that took place before I came in and have been extended. That’s their guideline. Regardless of what happens, that’s their limit in terms of how many metric tons they can acquire of Crown land. They do need to follow the interim retention guideline. Those guidelines were put in place based on consultation with some of the authors of the report. We felt like we were phasing in some of the ways that we can get better retention on Crown land with what’s referred to as LIT species. Those are being followed now whenever overstory removal is what the decision key directs the Crown licence holder to do.

This is an approach that we thought was practical, and until the Forest Management Guide is updated, the Crown licence holders will follow these. It does mean, in some circumstances, increased costs because they’ll have to change planning, they’ll have to build different roads to get in, and they will get less wood off some of the land that they ordinarily would have without these interim guidelines.

It’s a way of getting the industry used to the direction that we’re going in, which will ultimately be finalized for purposes of the management guide and prescriptions by December. I can only go on the time I have been there, since July, but I haven’t really seen an atypical amount of forest pre-treatment assessments coming through. It has been relatively constant in terms of how many in volume I would be seeing come across my desk.

They plan for multi-years. There could be cuts that have been approved three years ago that they’re just now cutting. Their operational planning could vary, and the way that they distribute the resources could vary. I haven’t seen evidence of a rush, nor do I think they would have resources to be able to rush a whole bunch of pre-treatment assessments in before we make the change.

LISA ROBERTS: To clarify, where a cut was approved some time ago, would that cut have to follow the retention guides that were brought in as interim measures?

IAIN RANKIN: No. Certainly there is a cohort of the population that wants no clear-cutting, and then there are some that want clear-cutting to continue on the industry side, and then we have probably a mixture in the middle. In order to be fair, we had to figure out what was in the public interest.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s not lost on me that 10,000-plus Nova Scotians, predominantly in rural Nova Scotia, rely on these jobs. The sawmills need to continue to operate. Finding the balance of where we intended to go, the Lahey report was clear. We endorsed the report. We put in place an interim guideline that looks forward. It’s a forward-looking piece and doesn’t change the rules of the game retroactively.

This business, like any business, would be planning years in advance in terms of equipment, resources, human resources, so this was one step. Even the report didn’t recommend it, but they helped us put together something that would incorporate the spirit of looking at these retention opportunities.

Actually, the Crown licence holders had many of the authors in the forest learning from this group, and the feedback was that these Crown licence holders are onside with making these changes. To change it overnight and say that you had to go back on some of the approvals, in my view, wouldn’t be fair to the business side.

LISA ROBERTS: To be fair, I was just asking to clarify.

For species at risk, when will the outstanding provincial recovery plans and status reports be complete?

IAIN RANKIN: Just to repeat, we do have the two new biologists in place who will help us with this. Resources, as always, is a challenge to ensure that we have specific focus because our biologists are also involved in the pre-treatment assessments. Currently, we have completed three draft recovery - sorry; was the question on recovery plans?

LISA ROBERTS: It was asking when the recovery plans and status reports would be complete.

IAIN RANKIN: I’m not going to give a specific timeline because I know the challenge in putting these together, but we do have three draft recovery plans: for rockrose, ram’s-head lady slipper, and hoary willow. New status reports are completed on the Canada lynx, rockrose, American marten, and hoary willow, and other draft recovery plans are in process. Aside from the recovery plans, we also have management practices for ribbon snake and Blanding’s turtles, and they are almost complete.

It’s a challenge. It’s an overlap with the federal government. They work on this with us, and they’re in charge of some of them. My understanding is that 60 per cent either have plans or strategies in place. Unfortunately, I don’t give commitments that I’m not sure of, and I won’t do that. I can only say that there will be heightened focus because there are a number of challenges in terms of how we identify the plan. You first have to understand what’s happening.

The mainland moose is an example that we have looked at. There have been aerial surveys in the last couple of years, and we’re putting that together and seeing what that means. It’s a low number of moose, but in terms of how you figure out what the recovery plan is, that is a big challenge when it could be poaching, the brainworm that they can’t seem to fight off, or other considerations. The next piece is core habitat, and when you have animals and birds and things that move around so much, that’s another challenge.

What I would say is that we’ll continue to work towards that and also use the other tools that we have, whether it’s special management practices where they’re identified or other types of strategies that our biologists bring up. That’s what we’ll be looking at.

Donna Hurlburt is the tasked staff member. She was on our biodiversity council, and now she’s on the staff side. I look forward to working with her. I can say that I did sign off on, and I’ll make public soon, four new recovery teams for birds, lichens, black ash, and amphibians and reptiles. That covers 26 species. We’re focused on looking at specific cohorts and getting the best experts that we can on those areas - birds, lichens, black ash, and amphibians and reptiles. Four different recovery teams will be looking at that, and that should be announced in the next week or two.

LISA ROBERTS: Moving to small scale wood energy, I won’t try to cover the same content that you covered with Mr. Rushton. I’m wondering if there’s any contemplation of district energy systems in addition to single boilers and distinct buildings?

IAIN RANKIN: I don’t believe we have discussed that. We’re focused on the recommendations in the report. We would be open to that, but I think most of them operate off a subsidy like a COMFIT. That would need the co-operation of the Department of Energy and Mines to figure out if that’s a possibility.

They are looking at clusters of buildings. In terms of the small wood heat energy, we’re looking at potential options. If there’s hospitals, schools, and others from the MUSH sector, we can work with that. Right now, there really is intensive effort to see if we can get just a few of them out. Time is tight before the 2020 season because the tendering process takes a while. That’s the biggest impediment to trying to get something done soon. I don’t know if we’ll be able to do that, but I would rather get at least a few out to see how it works than wait.

P.E.I. has 20, and that’s great. I have been over that and it seems to work well. The efficiency is over 90 per cent in some of them, so that’s great. We’ll have to evaluate that. Of course, cost is also a consideration. Speaking with P.E.I., when the oil price is high, it makes a lot of sense because it’s cheaper than oil. But the volatility - I think oil dipped in price. Now I think wood is actually a little bit more expensive than oil, but the benefit is that you have that long-term predictability of price. You’re not attached to the volatility of the market of a commodity, so there are pros and cons. The obvious pro is helping sawmills find an end market for their residuals.

We’re looking at the scale and all those things. We have a team dedicated to this, and they’re working as hard as they can to get something together soon.

LISA ROBERTS: That’s great. I also have a question here: What response have you had from municipalities? I haven’t heard mention if you’re engaging municipalities directly, but I think that could also make sense.

IAIN RANKIN: We have done a reach-out to the Department of Municipal Affairs, and they’ll be reaching out shortly to them.

LISA ROBERTS: Just a little bit of clarification around the teams. I have heard reference to Forest Management Guides and natural disturbance regime teams. Will that work be done by external experts and department experts? Will it be published? Will it be peer-reviewed? Will it be publicly available?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes. The theme is to make as much as possible public throughout the process. We have three external experts confirmed for the natural disturbance regime, and we have our project charter in place. They’re actually meeting today, incidentally. In the next two or three weeks, we’ll update the members of that team, once we can finalize their contracts. They plan to have stakeholder workshops to discuss their approach. That would happen by July, I would say.

LISA ROBERTS: I understand the department is also working on developing an evaluation framework to support Professor Lahey’s evaluation. When will that evaluation framework be ready? Who is involved in the independent evaluation, apart from Professor Lahey?

IAIN RANKIN: That would be our team leads and the directors of the department who are developing the framework. We’re also back and forth with Professor Lahey to come to terms on what that would look like as well.

LISA ROBERTS: Just to clarify, is Professor Lahey the only external person involved in the evaluation?

IAIN RANKIN: He has said he would need some support, and that would need to be sorted out. I won’t speak for him. There is some overlap in some of the people we want to have. There is at least one person I know who we have tasked with one of the teams he likes to rely on. He may end up using that person for another part of the recommendations. Because these are the most well-known experts, we obviously wanted to reach out to them to see their interests in working on things like the Forest Management Guide or the natural disturbance regime.

He has expressed interest in some of the same people, but he will definitely need some support in terms of how he evaluates.

LISA ROBERTS: In Recommendation 38, Professor Lahey stated that the department “DNR must deeply and pervasively embrace a culture of transparency and accountability. It must institute the information management, sharing, and distribution systems needed to put that culture into routine operational practice.”

Can you tell me what steps the department is taking to address that concern and implement the recommendations around transparency and accountability?

IAIN RANKIN: I think a lot of that ties into most of his recommendations so that the department doesn’t just go back and change the management guide and say it’s done or go back and say they reviewed the disturbance regimes.

Once the teams have something put together, then they’ll have an opportunity to meet with the stakeholders. Whatever comes out of those stakeholder sessions will become public and will be published online. We have dedicated a website to our progress on the report. That will be updated frequently. Then we’ll discuss looking at more public interfacing for the general public. We could have some online feedback mechanisms for the Forest Management Guide or for other parts of the recommendations. Again, once the EA process is in place, that will be where I think the operational planning and the concern around clear-cutting in certain areas will materialize. Right now, there is obvious disagreement, I would say, on how decisions are being made and lack of agreement on some of the answers that they’re getting on the map viewer, even though we are the only province, I believe, that still allows that opportunity for the public to give feedback. Obviously, Nova Scotians are very interested in what happens on the Crown land around them.

I would take any feedback that my colleagues or any stakeholder has in terms of how we can improve the mechanisms to communicate with the stakeholders. I have met with all that wanted to meet with me, and that’s what I am prepared to continue to do while I’m in the department.

[5:15 p.m.]

LISA ROBERTS: I am aware that my time is ticking down, but in terms of the environmental assessment for forest management plans, are there other jurisdictions that the department is looking at for promising models?

IAIN RANKIN: The jurisdictional scan has been completed, but I haven’t seen it. I’m going to see that soon.

LISA ROBERTS: The Minister of Environment has said that staff will be looking at a framework for carbon credits this year. Are you aware of that?

IAIN RANKIN: I can just recall that that was one of the more challenging parts of the cap-and-trade system to try to figure out. I don’t think that will be in place by 2020. I would have to check with the Department of Environment to see if that’s a possibility.

It’s a very interesting concept that I think could work, given the carbon value for sequestration of what happens with leaving trees on the ground. Given that it’s a new program that’s in place, it wasn’t something that we prioritized in our response. We have to really stay focused, and have our teams focused, on the foundational recommendations and then look to see what potential opportunities there are with credits and with the division of climate change and environment.

LISA ROBERTS: I guess I’m hearing that you’re going to be focused on Crown land. That has primarily been viewed as a possible revenue stream for private landowners wanting to do ecological management.

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, that would be correct. I think it is a good incentive opportunity. It’s just how it’s administered and how you associate the values with it. I’m not sure if that could be practically put in place by that time with the resources we have.

The focus at the Department of Environment is to organize the 20 per cent auctions that the fuel suppliers need to purchase. Our resources are being focused on the management guide, natural disturbance regimes, and EAs. That’s significant work that needs to be undertaken.

LISA ROBERTS: What is your department doing to develop local demand for high value wood?

IAIN RANKIN: It’s primarily through the partnership with the Innovation Hub, which we fund - there’s a combination of different initiatives that they’re undertaking. Then there’s the different co-ops - the Breton Forest initiative. Also, I’m very interested to see what happens with the Mi’kmaw Forestry Initiative and see what they’re able to bring up for ideas. I think there are big opportunities there. Another obvious one is the community forest that you referenced earlier.

I think that is the opportunity when we’re moving towards more partial harvesting, finding ways for value-add products and seeing how much the industry wants to come along with us as we move in that direction. They will continually need markets for residuals, but if there’s a higher focus on value-add, and if there’s opportunities for markets for even veneer, if that’s possible, that would be a great sign for the industry.

LISA ROBERTS: Are you considering the possibility of changing Nova Scotia building codes to allow for taller buildings to be built with wood?

IAIN RANKIN: We actually fund the Atlantic Woodworkers’ Association, and we’ll continue to collaborate with them. Building codes would fall under the Department of Municipal Affairs, I believe, but it wouldn’t be us.

LISA ROBERTS: I must be down to a last few seconds. I’m going to wish you a Happy Birthday.

I do have more questions so I hope I have a chance to come back. Maybe I’ll let the minister take a breath before he goes back to the Tories.

THE CHAIR: If the NDP is finished, we’ll move to the PC caucus and Mr. Rushton.

TORY RUSHTON: Would the minister or staff like a quick break? Can we entertain a quick break for staff?

THE CHAIR: We certainly can. We’ll take five. Thank you.

[5:20 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[5:29 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: Members, please take your seats. The time is 5:29 p.m., and we’ll resume now with the PC caucus. Mr. Rushton.

TORY RUSHTON: Minister, in your review of your department in your introduction, you mentioned the group that our Party has talked about a little bit and even introduced a bill about, a group that would look at the forest industry and diversifying it. Is your department involved with that newly formed group? Are you able to give us an update on where we are if this group is going forward?

IAIN RANKIN: You’re talking about Northern Pulp, I assume? At this time, I can’t get granular on this. There are original talks of scenario planning of what may occur should the mill decide to close. We have been consistent in our commitment to the community of Pictou Landing First Nation and the broader community that the deadline is the deadline. That is a legislative commitment that all Parties have supported.

It’s unfortunate that there wasn’t enough information for them to pass an environmental assessment, but the decision has to be made based on the evidence that’s in the application. I know the industry has a lot of anxiety about what the potential impacts could be, but I also don’t think this is a new discussion of whether or not Northern Pulp lasts through the next number of decades.

They have had their challenges environmentally over the last little while, not just with their effluent. This has been a promise by the Nova Scotia government a number of times, so they had to have known that Boat Harbour would need to cease to exist and have a new effluent treatment facility in place for more than the five years that we gave them in the timeline. Now it’s very real for the sawmill operators and everyone associated with the industry.

I would say at the deputy level, there are a number of deputies, which of course would include mine, who would be involved in conversation about the true impacts. We know that Northern Pulp takes 90 per cent of the woodchips in the province. They consume about 1.2 million green metric tons. It’s significant. To say that there is a comparable Plan B would be dishonest. There is nothing that would replace that amount of volume.

When we were talking about the small-scale wood energy projects that we would be putting in place, you would need probably over a few hundred. You would probably need thousands of them to come even close to that volume.

That initiative will take place on its own, but we do have staff talking internally about that potential. We’ll wait and see what happens with Northern Pulp and how quickly they can get information into the focus report that the minister has asked for and wait to see what happens with that. We’re gathering information.

I’m certainly not in a position to say anymore than what the Premier has said around the specifics of what we may be prepared to do. As the Department of Lands and Forestry, we’re always there to help, as we do when we give funding to the various associations we have talked about earlier today, and silviculture funding, as we did for our other Crown licence holders. There may be programs that our internal team come up with that help mitigate such a significant loss to the industry.

I don’t believe that there is an equivalent replacement to that mill. If there was, it would be here now. A lot of people in western Nova Scotia say that the Plan B was Northern Pulp after Bowater closed. The scenario planning has commenced, but I’m not in a position to give details of what could happen in the future.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s go to biodiversity a little bit. You know that ever since second reading and Law Amendments, I have been very vocal about this. Our Party welcomed the whole idea of the Act coming forth, being the first in Canada. When I spoke at second reading, we welcomed it, and we encouraged all to do this right. At Law Amendments Committee, it was very evident that many stakeholders on all sides of the spectrum weren’t necessarily happy with what was in the meat and potatoes of the idea. Everybody welcomed the whole concept.

I’m asking the minister if he can extinguish some rumours that maybe your department has held this back to reconsider some things, make sure that we do it right, as a government, on the first level.

IAIN RANKIN: This is an important topic for Nova Scotians. This Act was thought about for some time in the department. The Natural Resources Strategy, back in the NDP Government, highlighted the importance of bringing in some kind of legislation to help the department to close existing gaps, to deal with species that don’t fall under the Wildlife Act, that aren’t mammals - non-vertebrates, insects, pathogens, and those types of things - where we don’t have a regulatory framework. It also helps give the department tools to act much quicker with species that aren’t yet categorized as threatened or at risk. If there is a propensity, when they go in that direction, there may be an opportunity to create biodiversity management zones. That’s one part of the Act. There’s no way to deal with invasive species in any collaborative, consistent way.

This Act has been worked on for some time. There was significant consultation during the Natural Resources Strategy. Mind you, it has been dated - it has been some time. So that’s the genesis of putting it in the platform.

Then we had a round of consultation in February 2018, with a number of stakeholder groups, which would include environmental NGOs, the Mining Association, and landowners - anyone who had an interest in biodiversity and how that may impact economic development. It was a high-level meeting, no question. There wasn’t any sharing of the Act, and that typically doesn’t happen. We chose to put together the Biodiversity Council, again in our platform, so we had specific technical experts helping us draft legislation. Then before I brought the Act in, I had conversations with people who were concerned about an Act going forward without broad public consultation.

I’m proud to have brought the Act in. It’s a significant piece of legislation, and if there wasn’t concern, I would say that it probably wasn’t as significant as I may have thought it would be. This is similar to the way that other natural resource Acts work, like the Environment Act, where it is all-encompassing in terms of all land, air, and water. Nature doesn’t decide what’s private and what’s Crown, so there are some challenges.

We talked about how 75 per cent of the land in the province is private, so there is some concern from that side. From the other side, the environment side, there is concern that we’re perhaps not doing enough, that there’s not enough “shalls” in the Act, that there is not enough specificity in the action that we could take, in terms of regulation authority. Like a lot of Acts that are that broad-based, that’s where the action falls, in the regulations.

We have heard the feedback at Law Amendments. There was significant feedback. Ultimately we believe that there isn’t any real impetus to get the Act passed quickly. The feedback led to a decision to keep the bill in second reading and talk more with all groups that are interested so we address the concerns that have been brought up. It doesn’t mean there will be any changes necessarily, but I think we need to ensure that everyone understand what the intent of the bill is and what the intent of the bill isn’t.

There are very important parts of that bill that we need to protect biodiversity in the long term. Up there with climate change, a lot of the experts are saying that is one of the most significant risks on the planet. It’s a planetary boundary that has been crossed: 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the wildlife in the world has been wiped out over the last couple of decades. I think the province needs to show leadership in this regard.

We’ll see how those discussions unfold. I know this session is coming to an end. I have no issue with talking with the stakeholders that have interests or worries or concerns about implementation of that Act so that they understand it, and they know the importance of the Act.

TORY RUSHTON: I still echo my comments. This Act is very important, I agree with you 100 per cent. I really want to echo our whole caucus’s stance on this. This is the first Act of its kind in Canada. I stood up and said it during this session, let’s get it right. I am very encouraged to hear that you may be taking a second look, although you may not be changing anything, but at least you are stepping back and listening to some of the concerns that come back, so I applaud you for that, and I thank you for that.

In your response you mentioned the Biodiversity Council. Can you enlighten us on what their role is and what groups would sit on that or what members that would encompass?

IAIN RANKIN: Right now it’s three members. It originated with four. We actually hired one of them. That’s why it’s down to three. We’re looking to replace that person. They are experts, not stakeholders, so there’s no agenda. They are academics. One of them is an environmental consultant. The other two are professors in this field. Where we now have a gap is the Mi’kmaq representative, so we’re trying to find a replacement for that one.

I did hear feedback from the environmental NGOs that they would like to see that expanded, so we’re considering what that would look like. Ontario has a significant amount. We’re not the size of Ontario, so I wouldn’t go to that extent, to 20 or 30, but there could be an opportunity to add a couple more into the Biodiversity Council. The focus should remain on the science, what the gaps actually are, and how we are able to make some change and protect biodiversity in the province, not having specific stakeholder groups. Having said that, there could be more collaboration with the groups, and I have committed to the stakeholders that they would have an opportunity to meet with the Biodiversity Council.

In regulation is where a lot of the meat of the Act is. Invasive species are the priority of the council, and that would be the first round of regulations, so we would have some consultation around that, seeing how that would work with landowners and with other stakeholders. The members are Dr. Kate Sherren, Dr. Graham Forbes, and Peter Oram.

TORY RUSHTON: Thank you very much. You actually answered a couple of my other questions in that response.

There was some speculation that maybe this biodiversity Act had to come because of a federal regulation. Is there any truth to that idea that it was a federal regulation?

IAIN RANKIN: No. I went through the process of how it originated on the department’s agenda. I wouldn’t say it was federal. The federal government does have targets on biodiversity that are emanating from the 1992 biodiversity council in Rio de Janeiro. There were 20 targets, I think, globally, something like that - 19 targets. Then the federal government mirrored some of their targets. One of their priorities I just know offhand is Target 1, which we talked about. That’s the 17 per cent land protection. We have put in an application in terms of how we might be able to acquire some funds that would help our private conservation groups acquire some of those funds to purchase land for conservations.

[5:45 p.m.]

There is some connection there. We meet annually with the other biodiversity-tasked ministers across the country, so there is collaboration in that regard. This Act is not from any federal initiative.

TORY RUSHTON: You mentioned 17 per cent land protection. It wasn’t a question, but can you let me know a little bit where we are at? What percentage are we at in Nova Scotia right now?

IAIN RANKIN: We’re at 12.47 per cent to be exact. We’re reviewing a list to help us get to 13 per cent. As you would know, your Party brought in the EGSPA in 2007. That put in place the 12 per cent target. We reached that, as a government, in 2015. Now we’re beyond that target, and the commitment in our mandate letter is to get to 13 per cent.

There is a list of land in the Parks and Protected Areas Plan. There’s more than enough land there to go to 13.8 per cent if it was all protected. We’re reviewing the best pieces in terms of biodiversity value and ensuring that we’re not inadvertently encompassing a big opportunity for economic development or recreational values. That’s where we’re at today, and we have a commitment to meet 13 per cent.

TORY RUSHTON: You mentioned 17 per cent. Is there any appetite of what year your department may reach that 17 per cent?

IAIN RANKIN: Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse there. The 17 per cent is the federal target for land protection. We have said at their table that we support that as a federal target. We believe there are much better opportunities in larger provinces, for obvious reasons, of how to get there. We have not committed for us to go beyond 13.

Keep in mind that 35 per cent of our land mass is Crown land, and some provinces have well over 15 per cent. We’re sitting at third place, I think, in the country right now in land protection, and we don’t have nearly as much Crown land as they have. Given that one third of the land that we own as a province - or that the public owns, I should say - is protected, that’s punching well beyond our weight. We’re supportive of helping them reach their target.

We’re also supportive of trying to find ways that we can shift some focus over to private land and opportunities to help our private land conservation groups - like Nature Trust, conservancy groups, or Ducks Unlimited - find opportunities to protect some of the most precious land that has our most important species at risk, habitats, and those types of things.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s change topics for a little bit, let’s get on to something new.

I want to talk about off-highway vehicle trails, the network and so on, and the program that allows grants to go out to different clubs and associations to enhance our network of trail systems and recreational trails. I’m a firm believer that this helps build our rural economy, and we can build on it. Can the minister enlighten me on how this whole program works, how the application process goes? How is it decided what group gets what?

IAIN RANKIN: I have here some of the financials on that. There’s a balance of $1.9 million in that account. There’s a third-party group of stakeholders that processes this. There’s $1.9 million, and we pushed out $1.3 million in grants in 2017-18. Since 2006, we have collected $16 million.

TORY RUSHTON: What projects could the group apply to? What is the scope of these grants they’re applying for?

IAIN RANKIN: Most of the projects are upgrading, ditching, repairing, and maintaining existing trails; 60 per cent of that is maintaining existing trails, with an additional 15 per cent going towards new or repairing existing bridges. In some cases, projects that are included have new trails, connectors, re-routing of trails, and that was 15 per cent of the funds that have been going to that.

The fund has provided grants to over 80 community-based organizations including OHV clubs and municipalities.

TORY RUSHTON: Would your department have staff who would inspect these trails and be accountable for where they are, or do they rely on the third party? How would we know, as a government, where the trails are?

IAIN RANKIN: We do have staff dedicated to auditing to ensure the work does happen.

TORY RUSHTON: My last question - I’ll stop picking on you for your birthday and turn it over to my colleague.

IAIN RANKIN: Keep it going.

TORY RUSHTON: Is that staff responsible or is it a different level of your department that would be accountable if a group were to get grant money? Some of these figures that I’m looking through are quite a sizable amount of grant money, and I welcome it. Do we know that these projects are being completed? Is that up to your staff? I’m looking for that process of transparency.

IAIN RANKIN: We actually ensure that we go out and make sure the work happens before we even pay it. We have a staff member on that third-party panel that helps approve it, so there is some work that goes into ensuring that it’s a good project. We also have core funding going to associations like ATVANS, SANS, and NSORRA, the Off Road Riders Association.

TORY RUSHTON: I just want to say thank you to the minister and the staff for their dedication and sitting here on your birthday. I’ll turn it over to my colleague now.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Paon.

ALANA PAON: Happy birthday from me as well, Minister Rankin.

There are three areas here that I want to talk to you about. The first of which would be not directly speaking to the Northern Pulp issue, but indirectly related - the offshoots that are going to occur as any effects to Port Hawkesbury Paper. As you are of course aware Port Hawkesbury Paper is in my constituency of Cape Breton-Richmond. We’re doing very well with Port Hawkesbury Paper right now, and I want to stay on that trajectory.

A few years back, I’m sure that most of us if we were around at that time remember that there were quite a few hiccups - I’ll call it - that were happening in my neck of the woods - excuse the pun - and caused a lot of havoc. We’re still seeing the effects of that.

There’s a lot of people who lost a great deal of their pension plans due to what happened there. That rolled out with less being spent in our community overall and millions of dollars not being spent every year. Those are trucks, renovations to homes, and all of those types of things. The saddest thing is when you go and speak with someone who has worked their whole life at the pulp mill and who’s receiving a pension - 70-something years old - and having to go back out to the oil fields in Alberta to try to make ends meet because of losing about 40 per cent of their pension. Anyway, I digress.

What I wanted to speak to you about is, because there are quite a few delays and a lot of uncertainties with what’s going on with the effluent treatment plant for Northern Pulp, we saw back in March of this year that Port Hawkesbury Paper was purchasing barge-loads of woodchips from Quebec for themselves and for the adjacent biomass boiler for Nova Scotia Power because the two are very synonymous. We were also seeing that they were purchasing pulp wood from New Brunswick as well - at extremely high amounts like $93.05. We don’t get anywhere near that amount of money, the foresters in this province. They were buying it at exorbitant prices

What concerns me even more is that there was a shortage going on during that time. I know that they usually bulk up in their yard to make certain that they have enough to hold them over when the roads close for the Spring thaw. This year, they have said that it was even worse. We have some people in the woodlot industry, in the forestry industry, who have actually said that there was a shortage as well.

I was wondering if you would please comment. If everything goes sideways with Northern Pulp, how do you think that is going to affect the other pulp mill that is doing so well on Cape Breton Island, that being Port Hawkesbury Paper?

IAIN RANKIN: I had the opportunity to visit the mill myself, and I was quite impressed with the facility and their focus on that supercalendered product that they have markets for in the New England states and across different areas.

It is obviously an important employer and has a lot of different integration with some of the other aspects of the forestry industry. I do want to point out that they have a licence to acquire 400,000 metric tons off Crown land. There is a requirement in that licence that they have to have a minimum of 200,000 from private, so they do have to buy from private.

My understanding is the reason they weren’t able to get the amount of wood that they would have liked to have gotten before going to external sources was the challenge around getting the right contractors in place. We also have other challenges in terms of access to roads and snow and that type of thing. That’s the issue, and I continue to meet with them when they want to. I have met with them a number of times now.

Again, we are going through a transition, and there will be less clear-cutting, which will impact some of their supply from Crown land, but we continue to work through this transition period. They are following the interim guidelines, which mandate more retention. We recognize that input from them as we move forward is as important as from anyone because they are an important employer, and they provide good jobs for Nova Scotians.

ALANA PAON: As much as I think that likely there was a challenge in getting the right contractors in place, you have to ask yourself why they’re having that challenge at the moment.

I think it was in an article back in the beginning of March that it first came forward that they were buying their pulp wood at such high costs from New Brunswick, and also those barge-loads of bark as well. North Nova Forest Owners Co-Operative Manager Greg Watson came forward. He stated that part of the issue is that investments are on hold in the forestry industry by those contractors because everyone is absolutely terrified - and with good reason - to invest in any new equipment and some people are perhaps looking at getting out of the industry entirely before it all goes sideways. There is a huge amount of uncertainty with regard to what is going to happen with Northern Pulp. Mr. Watson said that basically the uncertainty around the future of the industry being at risk was due in part to the current impasse over Northern Pulp. He really felt it was part of the problem there, as far as them having to purchase their resources out of the province.

[6:00 p.m.]

Again, minister, I guess I really want to feel confident, and I want my constituents to feel confident as well, moving forward, with regard to what the plan is here if things don’t go the way that we would all hope they would, with obviously a proper effluent facility put in place at Pictou. If the facility continues as a pulp mill, and Northern Pulp continues onward, I want to make certain that we’re not going to have two disasters, two pulp mills that are going to be in a really bad situation.

We’re in really good shape in Richmond County right now with Port Hawkesbury Paper, as you know, and I want to make sure that it stays that way. What reassurances can you give me and my constituents that, moving forward, if Northern Pulp does go out of business or decide to close up shop, this is not going to negatively affect the ability to have product available to keep Port Hawkesbury Paper going in the way that it needs to?

IAIN RANKIN: Again, I do value the economic contribution that Port Hawkesbury Paper does bring to the province. I’m not in a position to speculate on business decisions for any mill. I’ve said this, and I’ll say it again - if Northern Pulp decides to close, that is their decision.

We are quite confident, speaking with Port Hawkesbury Paper themselves. They said that issue you referenced was an issue with finding contractors and trucking. I can’t say whether or not they’ll have concerns about supply when we have more progress on the Lahey report. I don’t see a collapse of all mills across the province if Northern Pulp goes down. I know Port Hawkesbury Paper would be interested in further conversations about what the industry may look like without Northern Pulp. They may or may not be able to take some product of wood chips from the sawmills that are close to Cape Breton. That is a decision that will be between them and the sawmills.

There is a different product. They generally take pulp roundwood, but they may be able to take chips if they are in a certain condition, based on logistics that I’m not privy to. That mill will be important.

The importance of closing Boat Harbour will never be lost to me, having seen it myself, having met with Chief Andrea Paul, and having seen government after government say it’s going to happen and it not come to fruition. That’s not a slight against any member. It’s just the reality of what has transpired over decades. This is the fifth time that the province has said it was going to close it, so that needs to happen. It’s up to Northern Pulp. They have had the five years that we gave them, but this discussion has been around since at least 1991, when the first promise was officially made from the Province of Nova Scotia.

I do feel empathy for all involved in an industry that is as integrated as it is. There is a transition under way in the province in terms of harvesting methods, and that has been our focus over the last number of months. We’re watching with keen interest to see if a new effluent treatment facility is able to pass the environmental assessment process, and we look forward to seeing how that focus report is assessed. We’ll work with the sawmills and with Port Hawkesbury Paper and consider ideas they may have.

You mentioned investment in capital. I have heard that that wasn’t happening as long as I have been an MLA, before the potential of Northern Pulp closing, that there hasn’t been a significant amount of investment in capital in the province. I do know that the market has been favourable for that company, so that’s a good sign in terms of longevity of that business.

That’s where I’ll leave my comments. I do believe in the Boat Harbour Act, and I think that we owe it to that community to follow through on our commitment with that specific piece. I do think that five years was enough for them to figure that out.

ALANA PAON: I want to make certain that I put on the record that I’m not disputing that we need to find a solution for Boat Harbour, having seen it myself as well. I’m sure it’s not lost on the minister that there possibly could be a domino effect here should things not continue with Northern Pulp staying open.

I’m just keenly aware that I don’t want to see further chaos in the industry moving forward, especially when we have ironed out so many problems that we already had to go through in Richmond County. It’s not just those workers and the jobs that are available to them, but it’s a huge revenue base for the county. It’s a major industry in the county, so it would be absolutely devastating. We’re already losing the fractionation plant, and it’s causing some issues there, some hardship because a revenue source there is gone with the offshore oil not being what it is any longer.

I’m going to move from that because I only have about 20 minutes left, and I’m trying to speak as quickly as possible. It’s like tap dancing.

I wanted to ask this because I also have responsibility as a Critic for Agriculture. I know the minister is not the Minister of Agriculture, of course. I am very aware, being a farmer myself and knowing many farmers, that many farms have as part of their revenue base, especially when they have tough years, a nest egg that they hold aside, and that would be their small woodlots. Many farmers are small woodlot owners as well.

I’m having a very difficult time, seeing as the Department of Agriculture doesn’t have any statistical information on this - I’m wondering if the minister would know any data or percentages of how many small woodlots in Nova Scotia would be associated with registered farms.

IAIN RANKIN: We have the data, we just don’t have it here. We’ll get that to you.

ALANA PAON: Further to that, I would also like to know: Would your department have any data on the percentage or gross value of those woodlots associated with registered farms, the base gross amount that would be part of their bottom line as far as their revenue base for the year?

IAIN RANKIN: No, we wouldn’t know that because we don’t have the complexities of each individual piece. We wouldn’t be able to speculate.

ALANA PAON: Maybe I’ll ask this question, then. With regard to small woodlot owners - away from the ones that are associated with agriculture - what kind of revenue is generated from activity on small woodlots on a yearly basis?

IAIN RANKIN: The only relevant figure we could get you is the volume of wood that comes off private land. That’s in the public document, the Registry of Buyers. We can get that for you, but it’s also on the website.

ALANA PAON: Kind of moving down the same road, does the Department of Lands and Forestry have any collaborative projects between your department and the Department of Agriculture with regard to on-farm woodlots? Is there any kind of collaborative program or project going on at the moment or going into the new fiscal year?

IAIN RANKIN: We do a lot of work with Ducks Unlimited. We also do some work with biodiversity and looking at wildlife and stuff like that on land.

ALANA PAON: If my memory serves me correctly, was there not at one time - I don’t know what it would have been called at that point, the Department of Lands and Forestry or Natural Resources - a forestry extension service within the department that was directly connected with the Department of Agriculture?

IAIN RANKIN: We have our own folks who work with the Department of Agriculture, but there’s nothing formalized. The deputy seems to recall that there was a long time ago - 15 years ago at least. We can find that out for you.

ALANA PAON: The last thing around that would be that I would love to have some of that aggregate information as well with regard to the percentage of Christmas tree farms that are also owned by or associated with registered farms as well.

IAIN RANKIN: We can get that for you. It’s apparently easier than some of the other questions you had, so we’ll get that.

ALANA PAON: I apologize if I’m asking you difficult questions about this data that I’m looking for. I’m just having a very difficult time finding it. Again, the Department of Agriculture doesn’t seem to have any statistics around that. I would also like to ask you: With regard to a conversation with my colleague that you were having here earlier about off-road vehicles and trail maintenance and so forth, what was the name of the $1.9 million program?

IAIN RANKIN: I think it’s the OHV fund you’re speaking to.

ALANA PAON: I have a group of fine folks in my constituency. There is a section of trail about which there has been much discussion and a little bit of difficult discussions with regard to what the future usage should be of that section of trail. I believe it’s under the management of your department. That is the section of trail that would have been the old rail bed going towards St. Peter’s - so from River Tillard to St. Peter’s. That’s right on the coastline, so there are probably some coastal erosion issues happening there. I haven’t been on the trail since the winter hit, so I’m not sure if there has been any damage over the winter months.

[6:15 p.m.]

There’s several groups of ATVers and their formalized associations that wish to move forward with utilizing that section of trail for multi-use, to be able to access the businesses and the amenities in St. Peter’s. They do have a trail and a bridge that goes up to River Tillard but they would have to cross the road after that to be able to continue on. I know there are programs through the Department Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, pilot projects across the province, that are looking at allowing off-road vehicles to utilize portions of the highway. It’s not set in stone whether or not that’s going to go forward. That’s why they’re pilot programs.

There’s also a group that wants to maintain it as just a walking trail. It is a very beautiful section of coastline. I’m wondering what your advisement would be to these constituents and to myself to assist in moving forward? I would like to know if that section of old railway bed is, in fact, under your jurisdiction. Are there any resources or any particular department staff that they can reach out to to speak with them with regard to trying to find a solution for usage moving forward for this section of old railbed?

IAIN RANKIN: That is an issue that is not isolated to your community. I am a little bit familiar with that because when I visited the Battery Park office in St. Peter’s, their staff actually mentioned that issue. My understanding is that it is very divided. I think it would be a challenge for you to find middle ground, and there are other MLAs who face this issue of non-motorized versus motorized use of specific trails currently.

To answer your question, yes, it is our responsibility. It’s under Lands and Forestry, the old railbed on the coastline. Currently, there is an agreement for only non-motorized groups. There were attempts in the past to try to get the groups together to figure out a solution, but my understanding is that the group that is on the non-motorized side is not interested in ATVs having access.

As the MLA for the area, I would take your feedback. I do know that the discussions are ongoing with staff in those groups. I would check in with the staff at St. Peter’s, and they would be able to give you a status update on how the last round of conversations went. Then you can make a determination, and we can chat further if you think that should change. I don’t think that you would be able to find a solution that everyone would be happy with.

ALANA PAON: My advisement was that the community has to decide what they feel would be best moving forward for that section of trail. It is certainly not my place to impose my views as to what should happen with that section of trail. It’s a planning issue from a community perspective.

However, I am curious to know - you mentioned that there is a current agreement for only non-motorized groups. I would like to ask you: With whom is that agreement in place?

IAIN RANKIN: Sorry. I don’t have the name with us, but we can get you that, or the office would be able to get you that.

ALANA PAON: Minister, just to be clear, your department will provide me with a copy of the current agreement?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, we can share that with you.

ALANA PAON: Minister, could you walk me through the process? Again, I think of it as a management agreement. Years and years ago, I used to work putting in a trail system with a community group at a provincial park system, and we entered into a management agreement with the province at that time to manage a section of that park.

The agreement that would be in place for that section of old railbed - and I apologize if I’m not using the right terminology when I say old railbed or section of trail - is that like a management agreement? Is that what the agreement would look like? Is it your department that is supposed to take care of the management of that section of trail? Would it be the community group with whom you have the agreement?

IAIN RANKIN: There are various types of agreements. My best guess with that specific one would be a letter of authority. That’s usually what communities try to get. They may have some funding potentially from the municipality, and they may be able to get grants. I don’t believe we give them core funding. No, we wouldn’t give them core funding.

ALANA PAON: I would very much hope that the community of St. Peter’s and obviously the users - the ATV clubs and users, as well as the walking trail group - would be able to come to some form of agreement as to what would be best for that section of coastline. It is a very beautiful section of trail with extraordinary vistas coming into the St. Peter’s canal. It’s really a very rare opportunity to have something like that available in a small community like this.

Is it the municipality or an individual group? Is it a tourism group? Who is it that you would seek an agreement with moving forward for that section of trail? I don’t have clarity as to who has an agreement with your department now. In fact, we have been having a lot of difficulty finding that out. It would be great to have some clarity on that.

You mentioned that you would give me a copy of the current agreement. Who has the authority to come forward in a community to try and renegotiate a new agreement? How would that play out? What is the process in place to do something like that?

IAIN RANKIN: The starting point would be to get you that agreement. They could be a community group, a trail organization, a stewardship group, or it could be the municipality itself, like in Halifax. In my community it’s the Rails-to-Trails organization. Then throughout those Rails-to-Trails, because it is the old railbed, there are different groups as you go through a certain kilometre that it connects to. It works out well because those groups all get along, but certainly you can see friction when groups have different visions of what types of use could be permitted in the area.

We’ll get that for you, and you can start the discussion with that group. They are obviously organized enough. They have to show some kind of capacity to manage the trail for the letter of authority. It is a process, and the department does a lot of due diligence. I have gotten questions from MLAs about trying to help the process along for a letter of authority. It’s not something that is just a basic, knee-jerk sign-off. It’s something that takes some diligence. We’ll get that for you.

If you want to discuss some other groups that have an issue with it, we can discuss it. Right now, the letter of authority would rest with the group that prefers non-motorized use.

ALANA PAON: I think that pretty well covers all the questions I had for you today. I thought that with just a little bit more than three minutes remaining . . .

THE CHAIR: You have five minutes remaining.

ALANA PAON: Oh, so I guess my clock is wrong. Okay, five minutes.

I could ask you a few more questions if you’re feeling that you are up to a few more.

In your department, obviously you would be the first point of contact, but is there anybody in particular in your department who I should be looking towards to contact with regard to this issue? It has been an ongoing issue for quite some time. Again, it’s not for me to solve, but it would be wonderful to be able to give some contacts, perhaps not just on the ground within the constituency but within your department outside of the constituency, so that both groups that are currently trying to work out what they would like to see in the future for this section of trail would be able to reach out to someone else with regard to this issue.

IAIN RANKIN: I just looked over my shoulder at one of our executive directors. Walter will make sure that you get connected with Matt Parker, who is our Director of Parks. We can start there.

ALANA PAON: I was aware that you had gone to Battery Park. I believe it was last summer - I can’t remember. I was there just after you were. It’s a beautiful location. The St. Peter’s canal is having an anniversary year this year, and of course the park is adjacent to the canal.

When I was speaking to some of the members who work at the park and have been working at the park for a very long time, it is extraordinary how dedicated they are to the facility and to their work there. They take a great deal of pride in what they do. It’s wonderful to see.

They asked me to reach out to you with regard to funding. They were looking at trying to do some renovation work to some of their sites. It is badly needed. They were looking for some financial assistance to be able to put in more electrical sites so that RVs would be able to go there and perhaps stay for more extended periods of time.

Is there anything in the budget this fiscal year moving forward for improvements to Battery Park, especially considering it is an anniversary year for the canal?

IAIN RANKIN: I did speak with staff there, and they were bringing up the issue of the receiving building. There was a plan to move it. Then they preferred to keep it there because of the vista there and the whole entranceway. I did bring that back to staff, and we came to an arrangement. The reason why we were moving it is the safety of the road, so we’re looking at moving the road now. I think staff will be happy that we’ll be able to keep that building there.

I want to point out that $74,700 went into the electrical and water to the campsites in this year, the 2018-19 fiscal year. That’s part of our TCA for the $1 million I spoke about earlier. That’s the $1 million we have to spend on all 230 parks. I think it’s great that we were able to give them that. I can’t confirm what’s in the next round for 2019-20 but I know Battery was a potential . . .

THE CHAIR: Time has elapsed for the Progressive Conservative caucus. That was right down to the second.

We have 38 minutes left.

Just a couple of quick questions before we continue on. Ms. Roberts, will you be keeping the department? If you would leave a couple of moments for the minister to read his statement, that would be great.

LISA ROBERTS: I’ll just ask you to stop us when we need to be stopped for the resolution because I think I’ll have enough questions to take us to that time.

THE CHAIR: We have a couple if you don’t.

LISA ROBERTS: Moving back to the conversation around the general shift that the department will be trying to lead towards the matrix or ecological forestry practices, I have some questions around the current incentives that are built into the industry and also some of the issues that I’m hearing about in terms of human resources, starting with some questions which, in ways, belong in Finance, but I wonder if the department is looking at them. Can you explain what government subsidies or tax credits exist for buying harvesting equipment and speak to whether, in your view, those subsidies currently incentivize equipment that is better suited to clear-cuts than selection harvesting?

[6:30 p.m.]

IAIN RANKIN: I want to point out that we don’t provide any subsidies to the industry, which is important for trade implications. There is a tax credit available through the credit union that helps backstop loans through that program, 90 per cent of it.

LISA ROBERTS: Is there not 20 per cent tax credit from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board for working capital? Or maybe it’s federal?

IAIN RANKIN: There is a provincial capital tax credit. That question would be best asked to Finance and Treasury Board because I’m not sure how they would be eligible for that.

LISA ROBERTS: What I have heard from some folks out there is that tax credits are very much a piece of the consideration when deciding whether to buy new heavy equipment which, of course, is very expensive. Harvesters already have thin margins and when they take on a lot of debt to buy machines it creates a need for them to harvest in the most affordable way, which is often overstory removal, to use the technical term.

I’m wondering if there is anything the department can do to support harvesters in making that transition, recognizing the debt load that many of them are working under.

IAIN RANKIN: We do support the training through FPInnovations and other opportunities. In terms of a tax credit, we haven’t really explored how that would work, but it’s something we can certainly consider.

LISA ROBERTS: Apart from conversations around equipment and how debt drives forest practices at the level of a harvester, I have also heard concerns about a lack of depth of human resources in the industry when it comes to ecological forestry. For example, there are few individuals who are skilled at tree marking. That’s not a skill set that many Nova Scotians have. There are very few harvesters who are comfortable doing selection harvesting. Often, if a harvester becomes unavailable after many years of work or training, for example, a forestry co-op that does mostly selection harvesting could end up in jeopardy by dint of losing one individual.

Again, I’m wondering if those are things that the department might look at tackling, whether with LAE or through some other partnership.

IAIN RANKIN: It’s a good observation, and I think there are challenges. Most of the harvesting is overstory removal or clear-cutting. It’s not only the human resources. It’s the equipment that’s being used too. It’s much easier to come by when they are designed to be used for clear-cutting.

In 2012 and again in 2015, there was some funding put aside for training on how to do a partial harvest. We can certainly look at that and see if there is an opportunity to do that again or expand or work with the co-op that we have and look through the Innovation Hub for opportunities to explore that because that is the transition that we’re committed to. This is all coming together. It wasn’t specifically mentioned in the Lahey report, but I think it would be complementary once we have advancement of some of the core initiatives.

LISA ROBERTS: What is your department doing to support women’s participation in the forestry?

IAIN RANKIN: Probably not enough. That’s a good question. It’s typically an industry where I don’t see a lot of women. Our focus has been the Lahey report.

We’re working with the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. I confess I wasn’t aware of this. We’re working to figure out how to involve women with natural resources - not just forestry, but all natural resources. I submit we should be doing more.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to move on to biomass. I know you’re on the record as saying that most of the roundwood that is burned as biomass at the Point Tupper biomass boiler is junk wood and that junk wood is defined as wood that couldn’t be sold for any other purpose. Is that right?

IAIN RANKIN: I don’t remember - I don’t think I would have used the words “junk wood,” but I may have. It is primarily on residuals or secondary product.

A lot of the secondary wood, particularly from the eastern side of the province, would be going into that biomass plant that the NDP Government had put in place. In terms of primary wood, I think most Nova Scotians are concerned that they don’t want cuts specifically for feeding biomass. That has been decreased to less than 3 per cent according to the Registry of Buyers guide. That information is public.

It was upwards of 10 per cent, I believe, when the must-run regulation was in place that required that the biomass operate 24/7, but that has decreased. It is a market for that residual type of wood. I have been on the lot and have looked at what Port Hawkesbury Paper’s process is for stripping bark and stuff off of the lumber as it goes through the machinery there. There are other piles of wood that are not merchantable wood, that are knotted or have deficiencies where they were not able to be used for stud wood or saw logs and that type of thing.

Does primary wood go into it? Yes, some of it does, but the percentage has been decreased over the last couple of years.

LISA ROBERTS: If roundwood was banned from being used for biomass, what impact do you think that would have on the forestry industry?

IAIN RANKIN: We could look at that as an opportunity, but I guess the genesis of how the industry works is trying to find the best value and the best return for the products that are created at the sawmill. There is an economic incentive for them to make the products that are highest on the scale of value-add. Saw logs would be up higher, and then even wood for pallets and things like that are down on the scale. The price point that they would get for anything that would end up in a biomass or something of that nature would be the lowest return on their investment.

There still is and always will be a percentage of each tree that will not be merchantable for those high value-adds, and that’s the challenge. I don’t think that all appreciate, but there is a percentage - at least 30 per cent, and I have heard numbers of 45 per cent - of trees generally that don’t have that market that would fit into a saw log or stud wood or those types of products. They are either pulp wood or end up as sawdust and even the residual from that when the cutting takes place.

LISA ROBERTS: Presumably that 30 per cent could have value, though maybe not economic value, if left or returned to the land from which was actually harvested.

IAIN RANKIN: I would agree. That’s true, there is ecological value to wood and leaving trees that are snags for wildlife and downed trees. The fact is, when trees are cut, you can’t put them back. Even on partial harvests, there will be trees that are taken out that you can’t find a market for 100 per cent of. If it’s not biomass, then there would be a challenge of finding other markets where there is some kind of revenue stream for sawmills that are trying to find markets for low-quality wood. I have met some that specialize in firewood. I think it’s Barrett Lumber that does. Even with firewood you get a higher value. You get a higher return than you would if you were selling it to a place for biomass.

LISA ROBERTS: I know that you’re aware that there is significant new scientific and community concern about the carbon emission impact of biomass. There has been considerable advance in the science around that, including catching some errors since that biomass boiler was implemented.

As the previous Minister of Environment, now Minister of Lands and Forestry, does it concern you that no carbon life cycle assessment has ever been done, to my knowledge, on the Point Tupper biomass facility to address or calculate its carbon impact, with an adequate time frame to fully assess the emissions?

IAIN RANKIN: I continue to read the literature and try to understand. I know there are some challenges around the double counting observation about carbon. We have hired a carbon modelling specialist this year, not specific to Point Tupper, to look through the details of how that may work. Currently, we rely on international standards. This isn’t just a Nova Scotia issue that people have. All the European countries and other jurisdictions count the same way in terms of carbon.

[6:45 p.m.]

My understanding from the trip to P.E.I. and talking about the biomass on a small scale is that the reason why one side of the count happens is through commercial thinning. The tree width, there is almost a point where it doesn’t go out as far. That’s when the thinning takes place, and it actually allows the tree to grow out horizontally a lot further. That’s the reasoning behind being able to cut and allow that not to be counted as carbon release then. I know it’s complicated, but I saw some diagrams that speak to that as the idea of why it’s advantageous to do those types of cuts and then use it for an energy source. Mind you, the small-scale ones are much better and much more efficient. They’re 80 or 90 per cent as opposed to 20 or 30 per cent, so for heating it makes sense.

I wouldn’t say that I would give a full endorsement of the way that biomass operates in Point Tupper. It does provide a market for some of the mills. It wasn’t our government that started that. Right now, our priorities in the department are looking at the Lahey report and ensuring that the harvest methods are more ecologically based and increasing partial harvest considerations, increasing focus on wildlife, and increasing focus on public participation in the process, opening up the doors to the department. Those are significant priorities that require significant resources.

In terms of markets, where the product goes, I would be concerned if there was a high level of primary wood going to that as an end use. I think the primary concern really is ensuring that we’re operating on the ground and in the forest ecosystem in a way that emulates what natural occurrences should happen in a mixed species, multi-age forest. If we get that right, then we can begin to look at some of the end users and sources.

LISA ROBERTS: I think both the Lahey report and, as you described, the priorities of your department are focused on the supply side of the equation, as opposed to the demand side, where the products are going. I understand you can only wrap your head around so much at once.

To go to a couple of budget questions, the Information Management and Support Services, under Policy, Planning and Support Services line is being cut by $86,000. Policy and planning seem particularly important right now when the department is moving to implement the Lahey recommendations. Can you explain why information management’s budget has been cut and what activities the cut will impact?

IAIN RANKIN: The net reduction for that branch is $30,000. The $86,000 reduction is because of savings on rent. We no longer use the fourth floor in Founders Square. We don’t require the office space, so we found savings there.

LISA ROBERTS: Also, we saw that Land Services is being cut, with the budget being $150,000 less than the last budget and $300,000 less than the forecast. Can you explain why and what, if any, activities that will result in being cut?

IAIN RANKIN: It’s not a cut. It’s actually an adjustment because of amortization. It’s a lower amortization expense, so it’s essentially accounting.

LISA ROBERTS: Under Renewable Resources, some lines are up, and some lines are down. I’m wondering if you can say what impact there is of cuts or reduction in budget - if you want to call it that - to Economic Development and Trade, and Landscape Planning.

IAIN RANKIN: Under resource management, there are increased silviculture payments, supporting implementation of the Lahey report, of $1.415 million. Program development has been reduced by $422,000, and that’s a redistribution to support the Lahey Report. Forestry is primarily due to the $533,000 for LiDAR funding. That was an increase of $562,000. Under Wildlife, the $285,000 is primarily due to salary and benefits for the two new FTEs, the biologists I referenced. The only other piece to that is a minor decrease of $36,000, so it’s a cumulative $1.8 million after all that.

LISA ROBERTS: Just so I understand better, is there anything that won’t happen under Landscape Planning and under Economic Development and Trade as those other initiatives are supported?

IAIN RANKIN: That’s correct. There won’t be any reduction. Landscape Planning has moved into the Forestry and Wildlife budgets.

LISA ROBERTS: Likewise, the Fleet and Forest Protection budget, under Regional Services, has been significantly reduced by half a million dollars. Amortization - I heard that.

IAIN RANKIN: Again, that’s a decrease due to the lower amortization costs relating to the helicopters. There’s a declining balance.

LISA ROBERTS: I have some questions about the Access Road Construction Program, which of course, has been the subject of scrutiny from the Auditor General. I know that this program has a really long history, so I recognize that it was not the department’s recent choice to administer it the way it is administered, through a third party, but I wonder if you can update us on how the department plans to address the concerns of the Auditor General regarding the lack of service agreement in particular.

IAIN RANKIN: All I can say is that our review has been tasked right now and is under way with Forest Nova Scotia to evaluate how that has been working.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m sorry. Forest Nova Scotia is the organization that benefits from this and that administers it. They’re also evaluating how they are doing at administering this program which has really high administrative costs?

IAIN RANKIN: To clarify, they are involved in that they have to show us where they’re putting the money, how they’re spending the money. They’re the third party that spends the money. The review, they’re a participant because they show us how they’re spending the money, and we’ll evaluate it.

LISA ROBERTS: From my conversations with woodlot owners, one of their primary reasons for joining Forest Nova Scotia and paying the required dues is in order to access the access road construction funding. I feel like it’s not even a well-kept secret. I feel it’s pretty obvious in the industry that Forest Nova Scotia exists the way it exists because of the Access Road Construction Program.

Is that a shared objective with the department, to sustain Forest Nova Scotia by not changing the Access Road Construction Program much? How will you handle that moving forward? That’s certainly my understanding, and there’s some books that are written that tell the story very plainly about how Forest Nova Scotia went from being a very small, mostly volunteer-run organization to a real concern, thanks to the implementation of that program in the 1960s. I don’t think it has changed overly much since.

IAIN RANKIN: I would say no, that’s not the way I understand it. We would take the feedback from the woodlot owners to see how they want it administered. That’s how it’s administered today. We have had the discussion about how many different woodlot owner organizations there are and the differing opinions on all of them. I think any change would be a challenge to get unanimity. Currently, this is a third party, but we will review and ensure that prudent spending is occurring.

LISA ROBERTS: Forest Nova Scotia does collect the equivalent of 25 per cent of the total grant funding for administrative costs. Has your department done the work to determine what an appropriate amount to be spending on administration would be, percentage-wise, to the grant?

IAIN RANKIN: That is a work in progress.

LISA ROBERTS: Would it be possible to get a current organizational chart for the department?

IAIN RANKIN: Yes, it is. I’ll table that, I guess.

THE CHAIR: No, we don’t table things here.

IAIN RANKIN: Or I’ll pass that to the member.

THE CHAIR: Just pass it on over.

LISA ROBERTS: How much did the department spend on employee overtime last year?

IAIN RANKIN: We don’t have that here, but we’ll get that information.

LISA ROBERTS: I wonder if you might also have or be able to provide how much the department spent on services provided by a temp agency last year and how much, if at all, the department is budgeting for those services in this budget.

IAIN RANKIN: The total spent on temp services in 2018-19 was $18,000.

LISA ROBERTS: In the budget, are there lines where there’s significant federal funding? You’ve made a reference to some federal-provincial collaboration related to innovation. In the budget of the department, would you be able to identify where there’s federal funding?

IAIN RANKIN: No, unfortunately there’s nothing in the budget for anything from the federal government.

[7:00 p.m.]

LISA ROBERTS: Does your department offer any internships?

IAIN RANKIN: In 2018-19, we had one intern. We hire students, co-ops, and interns. There are no active incumbents making less than $15, if that’s what you’re getting at.

LISA ROBERTS: I am interpreting that departments have gotten used to one of our lines of questioning.

Thank you. I’m done.

THE CHAIR: We have five minutes. You can ask a question, or maybe we can have some of these people ask some questions if they want. Which do you prefer, Mr. Rushton? Do you have a few more questions?

TORY RUSHTON: No, I’m good.

THE CHAIR: Sure, I’ll ask a question. I’ve got a couple of questions.

I know in the past, there have been discussions with municipalities and your department around off-leash dog parks. My question is: Where is that? Where is the department on that? I know it’s something that the minister and I have both had discussions about over the last couple of years. I know there’s a process that needs to happen to allow this. I would just like to know if there’s any update on that.

IAIN RANKIN: No off-leash dogs are permitted in provincial parks. The Act would need to be amended to allow for that. I think we have put this in correspondence with HRM - since you’re an HRM member. If a municipality has the desire to look at existing Crown land that we have, we would be interested in conveying that piece over to them. It doesn’t fit in our mandate to operate off-leash dog parks, but we have highlighted certain areas where there could be a dearth of opportunities for off-leash dog parks. I don’t know how HRM responded to that, but we have had our Land Services staff at least reach out to the staff at HRM and look at opportunities. There is Crown land throughout the municipality. I know there is an increased need for such a service. It’s something that doesn’t fall directly under our mandate and doesn’t fit within the rules of a provincial park. I guess I would be sanguine to see their response.

THE CHAIR: Mr. MacKay.

HUGH MACKAY: Yesterday, the province announced significant investments in the Nova Scotia Community College system, particularly in three campuses that will undergo expansions, one of which is the Centre of Geographic Sciences, COGS, in the Annapolis Valley.

One of the things that’s going to be there, in addition to a new residence at that facility, will be a business research centre for geomatics. Your department is probably the largest user of geomatics technology and data within provincial government. I’m wondering if you, with the assistance of the deputy, might have some thoughts on how your department might work with industry and the academic staff and student body of COGS to further the needs of departmental research in geomatics.

IAIN RANKIN: I would say that we do work with academia all the time, and we’ll be happy to work with them more and see what opportunities there are.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about some of the research that we have done recently. I asked for this because I noticed that I have signed off on quite a significant amount of research that the public doesn’t always realize is occurring right now. I have a couple of minutes.

There is research ongoing in the collaboration between the University of North Carolina, UNB, GNB, and industry on tree breeding and genetics. There is participation in the Atlantic Forest Research Collaborative. We’re funding a UNB Ph.D. candidate on development of LiDAR tools and metrics based in Nova Scotia. We signed off on research for procurement of Canadian Forest Service research funding, a total of $15,000 split between Dalhousie and CFS. We have signed off on $21,000 for Dr. Elena Ponomarenko . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, time has elapsed. Sorry for interrupting.

Shall Resolution E16 stand?

Resolution E16 stands.

Thank you everybody. We will see you in the Legislature.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 7:06 p.m.]