HALIFAX, FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2020

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:04 P.M.

CHAIR

Rafah DiCostanzo

THE CHAIR: I call to order the Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply. We are meeting this afternoon to consider the Estimates for the Department of Environment.

Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $42,492,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment, pursuant to the Estimate.

THE CHAIR: The honourable Minister of Environment.

HON. GORDON WILSON: Thank you, Madam Chair and welcome everybody. I am pleased to present the details of this year’s budget for the Department of Environment. Today with me here at the table I have my Deputy Minister, Frances Martin; and the Manager of Financial Services, Milica Kunovac.

We also have what I would always easily say are some exceptional staff in the room to help support me and I’d like to take a few minutes to introduce them: Lorrie Roberts Executive Director of Policy; Michelle Miller, Manager of Climate Change Mitigation; Elizabeth Kennedy, Director in Sustainability and Applied Science Branch; Adrian Fuller, Executive Director of Inspection Compliance and Enforcement; John Somers, Executive Lead on the Coastal Protection Act; and Remi MacDonell, Director of Financial Advisory Services.

I will work with you to attempt to answer as many questions as you have. I’ll start with our department’s mandate. Our job at Nova Scotia Environment is to protect the environment, human health and the welfare of farm animals. It’s a much broader mandate than most Nova Scotians would expect.

We have 356 staff across the province - dedicated and talented staff who I am very proud to work with. They work in food safety, inspecting about 6,000 restaurants, cafeterias, food trucks, and more across the province. They investigate complaints about mistreated farm animals, about air quality violations or illegal spills in waterways. They are responsible for public health and for protected areas. They grant permits for wetland alterations and water withdrawals. They review environmental assessment applications and industrial approval packages. They enforce 35 pieces of legislation and more than 80 sets of regulations, and they develop policies to protect the environment, to reduce solid waste and to help Nova Scotia maintain its position as a leader in fighting climate change. They issue directives, warnings, compliance orders, summary offence tickets and, in some instances, help to prepare our court cases.

I’d like to take a moment to recognize the work our staff do each and every day and to achieve our mandate they do a tremendous job.

Madam Chair, climate change is at the forefront for so many Nova Scotians and people across the world. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change in our province. We see more and intense storm systems, rising sea levels, and coastal flooding. It is impacting more than 13,000 kilometres of Nova Scotia coastline, changing the growing season and promoting the spread of disease.

Nova Scotians know that the way we live, work, and play needs to change. They have long been leaders in environmental stewardship and they want us to do more. Our province is a national leader in fighting climate change and my staff are very proud to help move Nova Scotia forward.

Last October, we passed the Sustainable Development Goals Act. With it, we set the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets in Canada. Nova Scotia has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 53 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and we have committed to making our province net zero by 2050. This means we will balance our greenhouse gas emissions with removals and other offsetting measures. These targets are based on science - specifically, recommendations made by scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

We can meet these ambitious targets; we have to meet them. As we do, we’ll bring our expertise to the green economy. We believe the Sustainable Development Goals Act is the start of a new, cleaner future for Nova Scotia. One where other provinces and other countries come to us for advice on reducing their carbon footprint.

In the coming weeks, we’ll begin public consultation on a climate change plan we will deliver this year, and on additional goals that Nova Scotians want to see under the Sustainable Development Goals Act. I know Nova Scotians are passionate about this issue and we are all looking forward to hearing their priorities as we work on the next steps.

In regard to climate change risk assessment and the Climate Adaptation Leadership Program, as I’ve said, we know that climate change is having an impact on us now. Nova Scotia is one of the only provinces that has done a detailed, government-wide assessment of the likely impacts and severity of climate change. That assessment was done in 2005 and it must be updated. We are looking forward to doing a new climate risk assessment for the province over the next two years, starting this fiscal year.

We are also working with other departments and their sectors through the Climate Adaptation Leadership Program. This program helps provincial departments and the sectors they work with to develop the understanding and the skills they need to adapt to climate change. Working closely with our staff, the departments and their sectors assess the risk climate change will bring and develop plans to deal with them.

In the past we have worked with the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural sector. They did a pilot project studying how climate change, temperature and flooding might impact grapes being grown for Nova Scotia wines. This allows the sector to make smarter growing decisions.

We are also working with Communities, Culture and Heritage around places of cultural importance. Our staff are working with the Department of Health and Wellness to determine the risks to public health and health infrastructure. We will spend $503,000 in total on this important work in this fiscal year.

Madam Chair, as you know, in 2016 the federal government gave the provinces a choice: set a price on carbon or let them do it for us. We choose a made-in-Nova Scotia approach that recognized the hard work Nova Scotians have already done to move towards renewable energy to date. Cap and trade will encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, while protecting the pocketbooks of Nova Scotians.

The budget includes $1.6 million to start up our green fund, which is where the proceeds from our cap-and-trade option will go. That initial investment will support the Climate Adaptation Leadership Program, which I just described, and leverage investment from the federal government. It will help with our work to develop our climate change strategy and it will allow us to perform an updated climate change risk assessment for the province.

We were the first province in Canada to do a climate risk assessment and many provinces still haven’t done it. It was done in 2005, though, and it needs upgrading. This June we will have our first cap-and-trade auction, with the second to be held in December. We are conservatively estimating that $24 million a year will go into the green fund, coming from the proceeds of our auction.

Madam Chair, we will watch the results of these auctions carefully, but we’re also developing programs now in anticipation of those auctions. We can use this money to help communities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. We can use it to support low-income and vulnerable Nova Scotians with any increased costs that come from our efforts to cut emissions.

Our Sustainable Development Goals Act also created a Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund, which will support innovative community projects that fight climate change, create green jobs, and grow the economy. That money will come from the green fund. Our green fund programs aren’t finalized yet, but I’m looking forward to sharing the details with Nova Scotians in the coming months when we’re ready.

[3:15 p.m.]

Madam Chair, Nova Scotia has over 13,000 kilometres of beautiful coastline. That’s part of the reason we are such a great place to live, work and play, but it also makes us hyper-aware of issues like coastal erosion, sea level rise and storm surge. Last year we passed the Coastal Protection Act, the first piece of legislation of its kind in Canada. This legislation sets out clear rules for what we can and can’t do in coastal protection zones. It will help us protect our salt marshes, our dunes, and other important coastal features. These perform an important function: they filter water, shelter birds and protect important sea life, and help our coastline adapt naturally to the impact of climate change.

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

Since the Act was introduced and passed, our staff have been working with municipalities, planners, realtors, engineers and other important groups. We are working to develop the regulations that will set out the rules that will determine how the Act will work. It’s important work, and we want to ensure that we hear from everyone as we develop these regulations.

Madam Chair, when we talk about the environment, we are often thinking about the future. Young Nova Scotians are passionate about the environment. Last Fall’s climate change protests showed us their commitment to this important cause. That’s why we’re so proud of the Clean Leadership Program that is run by the Clean Foundation. Through the program, young people get experience working on important environmental projects across the province and develop skills in their fields. Companies and organizations get smart and committed new talent.

It is a great program and one that we are very proud of. Last year we provided about $100,000 to this program, to hire summer interns. We intend to do the same this year. Our colleagues at Labour and Advanced Education also support the program.

This year I am pleased to say that Clean has received over 30 per cent more applications from businesses than last year, the largest number in the project’s 10-year lifespan. The interns work for non-profits, non-government organizations, First Nations groups, government, research institutes and small and medium-size enterprises. They take on research, education, and public engagement projects. They learn technical field skills.

When their internships end, they have developed important expertise that makes them employable in today’s job market and in the green economy. Many of them will go on to careers in the environment. Others may carry this perspective on to other fields. Either way, this is an investment in our young people and I think we can all agree that this is more than worthwhile. I’d like to thank the Clean Foundation, Scott Skinner, and all the interns and organizations who take part in this important program. This work makes a difference and we’re very proud to be part of it.

I like to speak about the important work that is being done by our Inspection, Compliance and Enforcement staff - or ICE, as we would call them - and the system we use to support their work. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, our compliance staff performed more than 18,000 inspections and audits, and issued more than 3,000 enforcement actions. That’s a lot of paperwork, a lot of forms and a lot of things to keep track of.

Over the past few years we’ve been putting in place a new IT system called System for Notification and Approval Processing, or SNAP. It helps our staff process notifications, approvals, licenses and registrations. It also tracks the operational work of inspectors and allows us to better manage the work they do to deliver programs. This year we are investing $453,000 in SNAP, as noted in the capital plan. We’ll add animal welfare and meat inspections to the system. Food safety, contaminated sites, and many other programs are already being managed through SNAP.

It is not the kind of work that makes the headlines, but this new system is important. It helps our staff ensure that restaurants and cafeterias are safe places to eat, that animal welfare is protected, and that risks to the environment and followed-up on and addressed. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank our Inspection, Compliance and Enforcement staff for the hard work they do every day, at restaurants and abattoirs, inspecting tattoo and piercing establishments, and investigating complaints. Your work is important to Nova Scotians to keep the environment protected and Nova Scotians safe.

Madam Chair, Nova Scotia is one of the most beautiful places on earth. From the steep canyon slopes to the Margaree River to the sand dunes of Sand Hills Beach, Nova Scotia’s parks and protected areas support recreation, tourism, research, and education. They preserve nature and offer us a place to escape, to be adventurous, and disconnect from our daily lives.

Nova Scotia has the fourth highest percentage of protected areas in the country. We value and appreciate our protected areas. Last Fall, Minister Rankin and I were proud to announce 17 new protected areas, four wilderness areas, 10 nature reserves and three parks. They are located in the province in Inverness County, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Lunenburg, Cape Breton, Kings, Digby County, and in the Halifax area. We are working to designate an additional 11. When completed, we will have 12.5 per cent protected land in the province, very close to our 13 per cent goal.

Last year, Environment and Climate Change Canada announced that Nova Scotia qualified for $14.3 million over the next four years in the Target 1 Challenge fund money. This money will allow us to work with groups like Nova Scotia Nature Trust, to identify more areas for protection and stewardship. I think it’s important to highlight the good work we’ve done because there has been a lot of progress in the last year. We work very hard to identify important areas for protection. We know these are important for research, for camping and for recreation, and they offer job opportunities in tourism and related businesses in nearby communities.

Madam Chair, it’s also government’s job to balance the need for new protected areas with opportunities for other types of development. That is a challenging part of the job and the way we do it won’t always please everyone, but we have made significant progress in the last year towards our 13 per cent. There’s a lot of work to be proud of and that we will continue to be proud of. I’d like to thank those dedicated staff who support and advise us as we get closer to our goal.

Madam Chair, Nova Scotia has long been an environmental leader. We are national leaders in the fight against climate change but for decades we have also been leaders in solid waste. Nova Scotia has the lowest disposal rate in the country by far; about 45 per cent lower than the national average. That means we’re putting about 45 per cent less garbage out to the curbside per capita than most Canadians.

Across the province most of us have curbside collection of organics - 95 per cent of what we put in our blue bags or green cart is the same across the province, which is great. Our municipalities work hard to expand their programs. Colchester, for example, has been accepting pet waste in its compost program for 25 years. The Valley waste region accepts end-of-life plastic products, such as laundry baskets. Halifax has just recently added pots and pans to its recycling program and it has an incredibly strong diversion program for construction and demolition diversion, which puts us head and shoulders above most of the world.

This year the Used Oil Management Associations of Canada started a new, extended producer responsibility program for those materials. This means that garages and other businesses can recycle used oil, coolant and the containers they come in. We estimate that about 2,000 businesses will save money through this program because they no longer have to pay to dispose of these items properly. Our estimate has them saving $1.2 million a year.

We also expanded the extended producer responsibility program late in 2019. Microwaves, e-book readers, video game systems, GPS devices, external hard drives, optic drives and modems can now be recycled at enviro-depots across the province.

We are leaders because Nova Scotians know how important it is to keep materials out of our landfills. It is also because the province and municipalities have worked hard to create the conditions for success. Nova Scotia has banned more than 20 materials from landfills including food, glass, plastics, paper, cardboard, and electronics. We are one of the only provinces that bans material outright from landfills. It helps not just to encourage recycling, but innovation as well.

As you may or may not know, China has been cracking down on the amount of recycled materials it imports. It started with film plastic and it has moved to a list of 32 more items recently. That creates pressure for the recycling industry but it also creates opportunities, and there are some Nova Scotia businesses taking full advantage of that opportunity.

For example, Goodwood Plastic Products is using film plastic and other materials, like end-of-life fishing nets and ropes, to make plastic lumber that is being used for lawn furniture. It also has used plastics to create a new asphalt pavement mixture which is used to pave a Sobeys parking lot in Timberlea. There is also CKF Inc., a company in Hantsport, that turns recycled cardboard and turns it into curio trays and other materials. These companies and others are at the forefront of Nova Scotia’s green economy. They are doing great work and deserve our recognition.

We know there is more to do. I am in the process of reviewing an efficiency study on Nova Scotia’s solid waste system, along with their EPR proposal. It is detailed and it will take us time to work through this with our municipal partners and others. There is more that we can do to reduce the amount of garbage we produce, but we have support from municipalities and from all Nova Scotians on this important task. I am confident that we can continue to be a leader in this sector.

Madam Chair, I was pleased to start last year’s Fall session with the Legislature by introducing the Plastic Bags Reduction Act. Starting October 30^th, we will ban single-use checkout bags in retail stores and fast food outlets across the province. Stores can choose whether to offer an alternative or to allow Nova Scotians to bring their own reusable bags. The average Nova Scotian disposes of 450 bags a year. As you know, Sobeys eliminated plastic bags at their stores across the country at the end of January; that’s great news and we applaud it. We’re looking forward to continuing the move to reduce the number of plastic bags in our landfills.

This legislation allows us to regulate other single-use items into the future but we are starting with checkout bags. I believe Nova Scotians are ready for this change, I’m looking forward to continuing the discussion in the years to come, and I know that it has changed the way people think every time they walk into a grocery store.

In closing, Madam Chair, this is a challenging and exciting time for the Environment Department and I am pleased and proud to be part of it. This year we will consult with Nova Scotians on new goals under the Sustainable Development Goals Act and on our climate change plan for clean growth. We will take their views into account as we develop our new goals and as we introduce our climate change plan in 2020. We will continue to develop regulations to protect our coastlines. We will continue to look for new opportunities to reduce solid waste and to support innovation in this field.

[3:30 p.m.]

Nova Scotians care about protecting our air, land and water and we do, too. It is at the forefront as we conduct our environmental assessments, as our compliant staff conduct audits and investigations, as we designate protected areas and develop policies to fight climate change.

Madam Chair, I thank you for your indulgence and I’ll be happy to answer any questions there might be at this time.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, minister, for the wonderful remarks. I have my bags in the trunk of my car - I just can’t seem to remember to take them into the store but I hope to do that by October. Thank you very much.

We are starting with the PC Party for one hour. The honourable member for Sackville-Beaver Bank.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you, minister, for your opening remarks. I want to get right off onto a couple of quick questions - just for some clarifications before we start. With the withdrawing of the former EGSPA Act and the introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals Act, at one point in time I was asking in regard to when that Act would come into effect. My understanding is that the regulations still have to be created for that as yet.

I am curious to know if you could update us on where that process is in regard to the regulations to that and when members of the Legislature and the public would expect to see that bill receive Royal Assent.

GORDON WILSON: Yes, when the member mentioned that my mind flashes back to those days on the floor of the Legislature when we brought that Act forward. I do want to say right up front that I appreciate the colourful comments at the time that we received from the member and actually a few of the other people who are here today. That piece of legislation I have to say will probably go down as one of the proudest moments that I would have had in my career, even if I am probably here for another 10 years. It was foundational. If you don’t mind, I would like to go through that side of it.

There was a lot of discussion at the time, getting us to the point where we were ready to bring that Act forward around how we would get it into the Legislature in the time that we needed to get it in there, and also how will we consult. The round table played a very important part in that conversation and I would be remiss if I was here today not mentioning the important work they did for 10 years with EGSPA, and the great people that they were. We’re hoping to duplicate that again.

In saying that, when we came to the Legislature we came with a piece of legislation that we did have a chance to talk on some of the foundational sides, with the commitment at that point in time that we would be going back out and ensuring that Nova Scotians had their voice.

I saw it as a path forward. In that, we certainly wanted to put some important pieces of information that we felt would again lay the foundation. Our goals towards reducing our carbon footprint to 53 per cent below the 2005 levels by 2030 was, I think, one of the primary ones. To add getting to net zero by 2050 on top of that was huge.

More importantly, what got missed in that is the commitment that we had to ensure that the message around it was spread across government also. The commitment to enshrine sustainability into the mandate letters of all the departments. The commitment to have an annual meeting with the round table and the Premier and the respective departments that would be impacted like Energy, TIR, and Health and Wellness. That was precipitated by comments that I had received from Marty Janowitz, the Chair, going back prior to an earlier group. He felt that that was one of the most powerful things to give that voice, to give that conduit.

Those are the smaller things but more important things, I feel, that were noted in that Act that maybe we didn’t talk enough about on the floor of the Legislature. In that, again moving forward, our commitment to a fund for our communities to participate in was another important factor. Eventually we knew that once we got out the door with this piece of legislation, the real heavy lifting was going to start.

I really do have to commend my staff at this point in time for the enormous amount of work they have done up to today. We are launching our consultation - I believe the press release went out for that or it is going out next week - and they put together a package that is going to partner with the Clean Foundation. I think the Clean Foundation brings a certain level of not only reliability, but credibility to it. They are extremely well-versed in doing public consultation, extremely well-versed in the issues, and they have prepared a package for us that I think all Nova Scotians will find a path forward to really engage us.

That is coming very soon. As we roll through that, it is going to formulate a lot of ideas. We’re going to be doing targeted stakeholder consultation, we are going to be doing online. We are going to be developing a tool kit for anybody - MLAs who might want to do their own round table - and we are going to be doing community consultation directly in a number of communities right across Nova Scotia.

I must say that as excited as I was to be part of the creation and moving the bill forward, it’s equally exciting to hear what Nova Scotians have to say today. We’ve educated them well. Conversations over the last two years in Nova Scotia - our youth, our seniors - have become very well educated and this is going to be a real opportunity for us as we move towards the end of the year.

To your point, yes, the bill truly does not come into a full Act until we have all the regulations in place but I will assure you that we are well on track for the timelines that we plan to deliver what we said we would and we will anxiously await what 2020 brings us.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you for that answer, minister. Maybe you can correct if my understanding is wrong, but with the repeal of the EGSPA Act and without the Sustainable Development Goals Act being - although it is outlined, but without those regulations, that Act can’t go in. Currently, what is really directing and guiding the province, I guess, in regards to environmental policy? We don’t have the EGSPA Act and the Sustainable Development Goals Act isn’t really in place yet either?

I know that the Sustainable Development Goals Act provided direction. I’m assuming that once the regulations and everything is laid out in the new Act, that will provide direction, but what is guiding the ship right now? I think that’s where there’s a bit of an urgency to have that done. I’m just curious what your opinion is on that.

GORDON WILSON: A good point, yes. So until the new bill comes into an official Act and proclamation - I’m not sure what the exact word would be for it - but the old one is still in effect. Obviously there were a number of items in EGSPA that we did meet - by far the majority of them. There were a few that we did fall short on, there is no hiding of that by any means.

It is also important to note that not only do we have EGSPA and the Sustainable Development Goals Act, but we do have a number of policies and initiatives that we always use to guide us. The department is probably one of the biggest, top-end regulated departments that we have. You only have to go through the Environment Act to see exactly what we have to do to continue with the direction and the mandate that we have.

I’d also like to add to that that we continue to work on our cap and trade, and we’re going into our first auction. For my staff, I see a balance between excitement and anxiousness. This is not for the weak of heart. We’re going into something that we’ve never done before, as complicated as a cap and trade program is where we’re partnered with California and Quebec - again, it’s exciting and anxious at the same time.

We’re continuing our work on the green fund, as we work towards not only understanding that we’re going to have upwards of potentially $24 million-plus coming in - thoughts on how we can use that policy lens is around how we can use that money within our green fund.

Again I’ve been very proud of the fairly significant work that we’ve done. I’ve been very fortunate to have come into the position as minister at a time when my predecessors had laid a lot of planks and, for one reason or another, I was the fortunate one to be cutting the ribbons on them. Our protected areas - again, another policy piece that you would see not only in EGSPA but in our new initiatives where we develop these new goals.

Our 13 per cent is a commitment that’s in my mandate letter and we work towards a strategy to roll out a number of those properties that I had mentioned and the consultation that is going on right now for another round of them.

Finally, again as I mentioned in my preamble, solid waste which was in EGSPA. It’s a very complicated world, the solid waste world. I have to thank our municipal leaders. What they brought us when they started the conversation around EPR is bigger than EPR. Obviously their recommendations in that world are important but the work that they did on the efficiency report to give me a document - and I will admit that I read it once, but more so I will admit that I have to read it twice. It is something I see that not only is going to be fundamental for us to be able to work towards EPR, but it is fundamental towards working towards how are we going to continue to be a leader in solid waste.

[3:45 p.m.]

I said that we’re leading the country, but I will say that I have concerns that we aren’t decreasing, that we’ve plateaued. The efficiency report provides us with a lot of information to digest across the whole spectrum, not just on EPR but on our C and D sites, on our transfer stations. They certainly indicated in there that we’re a little bit top-heavy with infrastructure, and maybe not coordinated the way that we should be.

It has provided a lot of information on the differences that we see across municipal units, not only in what sometimes is being collected but the cost to those municipal units and they are crying out to us for some leadership in that area.

There are a number of things that are still sort of enshrined in the older stuff that as we transition, will never be forgotten, but we’ll be refreshing them as we move into the next phase with the new regulations.

BRAD JOHNS: I’m sorry, I may be falling asleep - those regulations will be coming within the next two years?

GORDON WILSON: Yes.

BRAD JOHNS: Yes, thank you very much. Just to address an earlier comment, I know you made remarks about when the discussions were going on with regard to the new legislation. I will say that the one benefit of the people who typically are involved in the environment - they become relatively passionate about the environment. I think that most of us - regardless of what Party we are in or what side of the room we’re sitting on - want to do what is the right thing for the environment, but sometimes it’s very frustrating when you are sitting on the wrong side of the room and you don’t really have control. Sometimes we get a little bit passionate with that.

I’m going to go totally off topic here because I do know from past experience that the hour moves quickly. I do want to ask you some questions on something that is a little bit more relevant here right now. I never understood why the Department of Environment has 70 per cent of inspections and enforcements of things - I never understood why they were lumped with the Department of Environment. Given the significance that Environment plays, I think I would have seen it align maybe better with some other topics than what is there.

Of course one of the things you deal with is the enforcement and inspections. I’m curious to know - because this is somewhat pertinent to discussions that are currently going on - what role the department will be playing in enforcements and inspections around vaping products. Is that something that is going to fall under your department or not?

GORDON WILSON: I hope the member doesn’t mind me sharing my time with him on the enforcement side to a little bit broader than that. Tell me if you think I should be shorter - I don’t mind, to give you more questions.

The enforcement side is an interesting one for me. I did have the privilege in my career to spend five years as a conservation officer and did enforcement work. It has been an interesting transition for them, to say the least. I can go back to the 1970s when our enforcement people were given a ticket book, sometimes handcuffs and a billy, and away you went and that’s how we did enforcement. We had some training and we were pretty good at it.

Through the years, I have had the real privilege to watch the growth of our fine enforcement people - I am very proud of them. In that growth, there has been a move within government to consolidate and that consolidation creates an efficiency within government and it creates another level of professionalism, I think.

We currently have approximately 60 environmental inspectors, 27 public health officers, 52 conservation officers and 15 farm welfare meat inspection staff. Again, as I mentioned, they do 18,000 inspections a year and over 3,000 enforcement actions.

I will get to the vaping question for you, but I just wanted to set the understanding for everybody here that I think our enforcement people have done a tremendous job over the last few years of coming together under the Department of Environment. As you are aware, some used to be under the Department of Lands and Forests, some used to be under the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and some were under the Department of Health and Wellness.

I think there certainly was a justification again that bringing them all under the same roof and the same direction created that efficiency. But, at the same time, I’ll be the first one to recognize that it also is a time where you need to clarify roles and responsibilities. I was surprised when I came in as minister that we inspected tattoo parlors. I go back to my days as an enforcement officer - who would ever have thought that?

The vaping side of it - there are two components to vaping - there is the taxation side and then there is the visual, open shop presence. We won’t be doing any enforcement work on the taxation side, we’ll leave that to some other qualified people. If there’s non-compliance areas on vaping stores with visual compliance, underage, and those kinds of things, those do fall within the purview and the responsibility of our department.

BRAD JOHNS: I’ll stay on that for a few minutes and then go back to some more traditional environmental things. Will there be any additional training that officers need to deal with that? Similarly to the food inspections and stuff like that, will there be any inspections that are actually getting into the e-liquids itself at all, or would that just be a federal thing?

GORDON WILSON: It’s a good question and I think I could expand it right across the whole spectrum of work that they do, regardless of whether it’s vaping or whether it’s tattoo parlors or restaurants, accessibility, these kinds of things. All of our staff are constantly being trained at some level where pertinent, as things might change. Some of it is in-depth, some of it might not necessarily be, depending on what the situation would be. For a regulatory change, it’s easier to upgrade and train staff for those things.

It is key and again, as I mentioned, the world is changing and as that marketplace changes, we will always ensure that our staff are well-trained and well-versed.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you for that. I guess this brings me to a point I was going to make and I kind of alluded to it earlier. Within the last couple of years, the department has picked up the additional responsibilities of looking after tattoo parlors. Now they’re picking up the responsibility of inspection and enforcement on vaping.

It seems to me that over the last couple of years that that enforcement area continues to grow significantly. I may be wrong but there seems to be more and more that is continuing to be added for responsibilities of that part of the department.

As I said earlier, where I am really concerned is that as those grow, the more important environmental issues, those ones that have created things like climate emergencies - I think the general public don’t realize the responsibilities of the department. How much of the department resources go towards environment and climate change, and how much of the resources of the department go towards inspections.

Do you ever feel that the inspection side of it is growing to a point where climate change and greenhouse gas and coastal protection - that section of the portfolio is not getting the attention that it really should be getting?

GORDON WILSON: With any changes like that, obviously there would be pre-planning and a lot of consultation and work that would go into not just within the department but across departments. One example would be when the health inspectors came from the Department of Health and Wellness. There were a lot of preliminary discussions around how that would work and integrating that into the system, to ensure we weren’t putting undue burdens and that the organizational structure would make sure that appropriate resources were allocated and that the reporting system was one that would also cover-off on any necessary requirements that we might have.

BRAD JOHNS: Although I am relatively well versed at municipal politics and municipal government, I am still relatively new here and being an Opposition member I really don’t understand sometimes how this works. I know that when I was across the street at City Hall, staff would shudder every time a new CAO came on because it meant there was going to be a department shakeup and a realignment, and all that.

Who is it that is responsible to actually review the department and to see whether or not a realignment of responsibilities and focus - who is it that is responsible for actually reviewing that? How often does that happen?

GORDON WILSON: I would say the main responsibility for that would be the lady who sits to the right of me, our deputy minister. Ultimately the deputy minister sets the overarching plan on how to deliver the mandate of the department. I don’t think any deputy minister would take the credit for that without also understanding that there are very competent executive directors and staff under them, but ultimately that falls to the deputy minister.

BRAD JOHNS: That would be a realignment of resources within the department. Who is it that does a realignment of focus of the overall responsibilities? Just to explain a little bit further, I would see perhaps Lands and Forestry and Environment or Energy and Mines and Environment aligned better than I would Environment and inspections - I know it’s not called that. Who is it that makes that decision? Is that Cabinet?

GORDON WILSON: Let’s step back a few years - probably I’m going to say maybe even 20 years. I can remember, and maybe my deputy can correct me, but I don’t even know if she was in the - yes, she would have been around there.

[4:00 p.m.]

We used to administer protected areas with the Department of Lands and Forestry, so we were bringing the Tobeatic and all these other different protected areas into government as an initiative. That all changed, and that was a major policy change that took the protected areas and put them in the Department of Environment. There was a reason for that. They felt that at that time, the government of that time - and I am not sure who it was, but I believe it was a Progressive Conservative Government at the time - felt that you had a department that was overseeing the development of programs on an area where you were taking resource accessibility away, and one that was promoting access to resources, so there was a little bit of headbutting there.

There was a policy - it was bigger than a policy decision - to move that into Environment and separate it out. That was a decision of the government of the day. Those decisions are very similar, I would say, to the decisions - which I wasn’t really watching a lot - to move our fisheries and our other enforcement people all under one umbrella.

Those decisions would have been made by the government of the day, obviously within Cabinet, yes, but again, fully understanding that there would have been a lot of coordination and a lot of consultation across the other departments to align the resources, to align the structure on reporting, and also to integrate those people into that new system.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you for that answer. So Cabinet makes the decision on how the alignment goes.

Now that I got my one little question in that I wanted to know in regard to vaping, I wanted to go back in regard to the regulations that are coming up for the Sustainable Development Goals Act. One of the things that I discussed in regard to consultation when the Legislature was debating - you did mention some stuff in regard to consultation in your opening remarks.

I am curious to know if you could tell me a little bit more to clarify for me if consultation has started yet - I don’t think it has - and what will be specifically done to engage the Aboriginal and African Nova Scotian communities, as well as any other marginalized communities, to ensure that they are actively taking part in any engagement?

GORDON WILSON: Is this in regard to the Sustainable Development Goals Act consultation?

BRAD JOHNS: Well, I guess you could expand that to either be directly to the Act, or my assumption is that, although not engaged right now, there will be some type of other minister’s round table as well. What are we doing to engage members of those communities?

GORDON WILSON: It’s a very broad question. Once our consultation starts on the

Sustainable Development Goals Act - we also have ongoing consultation right now in regard to those protected areas that we have out there. I can’t get into the specifics on some of them, but I can talk in generalities.

Our department works very closely with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and consultation - I’ll also throw in there our environmental assessments and all the work we do to create industrial approvals. There are a number of areas. I can go through each one individually and give a general idea, but I want to assure the member that consultation is at the foundation, especially with First Nations, but also with our African Nova Scotian communities. We do our best to support that, and again, depending on what the conduit is.

I’ll also add that under the environmental development goals, we are hoping to find an opportunity to have a member from the First Nations on the working group. I’d like to have somebody from youth on that.

I had a quick look at the bill that was brought in today. I do appreciate the bill that was brought in today and I think we share some common ideas there.

Again, in regard to the Sustainable Development Goals Act, which is coming out - we’ll be rolling out the plans - that partnership we have with Clean Foundation is huge because, again, there is the expertise that we can reach out to.

We have great staff who have done an awful lot in the last number of years. Interestingly enough, I can remember one of my earlier conversations with Minister Delorey when he was Minister of Environment. He came to me because I was involved a fair amount with the municipal government at the time, which as you would understand - if you are going to consult, there is a government that consults on a daily basis because it is the closest to the ground. He was trying to develop an understanding of how we can expand the way we consult. It has been a conversation in the department for a long time.

To the other point, the Office of Aboriginal Affairs provides us with advice on how to engage. They’ll do that. They will also sometimes do some engagement for us. Again, it depends on the nature.

I would really like to assure everybody that engagement and consultation are taken extremely seriously by this department. It has been a real eyeopener for me through all the conversations I’ve had in the briefings. We do our best to find that balance.

Ultimately, I think if you look back through the years it has provided us an ability to create good solid policies and pieces of legislation. Even in our environmental assessments, when we come out the door with a recommendation, if we haven’t done that consultation right, it is going to bite you.

I think they understand that. I think it’s a cultural thing within our department. I’m really quite proud of the work they do there.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you, minister, for those remarks. I won’t really get in depth right now in regard to Owls Head and public consultation there. I really think that in some cases - it is easy to criticize, but one of my criticisms would be that sometimes doing public engagement can actually forward a role as well. I’m very much for public engagement - I supported that when I was a municipal councillor and I support that now.

Are you reaching out to the African Nova Scotian communities and to First Nations? How are you attracting - I know sometimes marginalized communities can be even more challenging to engage, so what are you doing to reach out to the marginalized communities in the province?

GORDON WILSON: Specifically to African Nova Scotians, we do as we do with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. We reach out to the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs on a regular basis. Again, it would depend on the circumstance. It would depend on the situation, the location, whatever it might be, but that is a regular thing that we do.

BRAD JOHNS: I’m going to see if I can get some other things in here. I have a couple of questions in regard to watercourses. That falls under you guys, right? Okay.

Does the Province currently have a mandatory buffer amount from watercourses? I know that HRM did, but I don’t know if the Province does or not. I think the Coastal Protection Act . . .

GORDON WILSON: Watercourses obviously come under pressures from a lot of different activities. I am not sure which activity you are specifically talking about - developments, for example, we would be the lead there. We are the lead in all of them, actually, but some of the guidelines - for example, under forestry operations - would be developed in consultation with Lands and Forestry, and for riparian zones, say, that would be left along streams, we would again be the ones who would come in and enforce those.

BRAD JOHNS: How many of the rivers in Nova Scotia has the department actually conducted floodplain studies in? Do you know?

GORDON WILSON: I’m sorry, but that’s Municipal Affairs and Housing, I understand. We don’t have that information, but we can maybe reach out to them and ask them to get it for you.

BRAD JOHNS: That actually brings me back to another question. Because some of these departments are so closely aligned and seem to be overlapping, I am assuming that there is good communication between the departments and between the ministers.

Do the ministers meet regularly - particularly yourself, as the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Lands and Forestry - to discuss some of these more global issues? Do you meet on a regular basis outside of Cabinet?

[4:15 p.m.]

GORDON WILSON: I will say right off the top that I’m very lucky. I’m not saying it because we have one of them in the room here with us, but one of the fortunes I have seen is that a number of my colleagues are well-versed in this department because they have been ministers. One of them sits next to me and is constantly giving me policy suggestions or criticisms.

The seriousness of it, yes, and I will say more particularly with the Minister of Lands and Forestry, who was an excellent Minister of Environment when he was here - the kind of irony is that I was educated in forestry and he has a real passion for environment. He’s in Lands and Forestry and I’m in Environment, so it is a very interesting symbiotic relationship that we have here.

We do have a lot of common things. We meet on a regular basis not only formally but informally - I would have to say the same thing for our deputies. Our departments have a lot of common things that we try to coordinate. Protected areas is one, but also on a number of them.

It is very helpful, I must say, to have an ability to go to somebody to get a sober second thought from an unobjective person who has been in the department. It is very helpful to me, as minister, to have that opportunity.

BRAD JOHNS: To go to coastal protections for a minute - very similar to the question that I asked in regard to the Sustainable Development Goals Act - I know that the Coastal Protection Act really can’t come into force yet because we’re still waiting for the regs on that. I believe that the Province was waiting on some mapping that needed to be done to identify key areas in the province and make recommendations on setbacks in regard to coastal developments.

I’m curious if you could give an update in regard to where the mapping process is in that and when we would anticipate seeing those regulations coming forward.

GORDON WILSON: Yes, it certainly is a work in progress, I will say. That’s an understatement, in a way. Again, this is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in Canada, the first of its kind to be brought in. Sometimes when you are first, it’s nice to be able to go out there and raise that flag and say that you are, but the challenge that comes with it is that you don’t have an awful lot of other templates to follow. We’re leading in that way. I think that’s an important thing to understand.

We’re looking at about a year that we’re going to have, I think, the final dot put on everything there. There’s a lot of detailed work, as you can imagine, with 13,000 kilometres of coastline - and not only 13,000 kilometres of coastline but the varying degrees of vulnerability. I guess that would be the best word that you could say. Some areas are very prone to erosion and some aren’t. Some areas are far more developed than others.

The detail work that needs to be gathered is crucial in this, and not only for mapping. We would love to have our whole province done with ground sensing so we could really get into it. The LIDAR work is important.

I think it is really cognizant for everybody to also understand that we have a lot of partners in this as we’re going through it. The Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing plays a huge role with us, and obviously also the Department of Lands and Forestry and the Department of Energy and Mines. We’re trying to coordinate with them. We have GeoNOVA. We have real estate agencies. It’s important for us, as we go through this, to hear what they have to say. We don’t want to negatively impact, but at the same time, it’s our responsibility to protect.

What we’re trying to determine as we go through these, if you can imagine it - sometimes it wouldn’t hurt if we had a whiteboard here that we could work with - we’re looking at a vertical and we’re also looking at a horizonal setback. Through our mapping work that is being done to set these regulations, we’re trying to establish what the proper vertical and horizontal setback is going to be to ensure that we’re not putting an opportunity for something that is going to be a problem down the road.

If you can think of it that way, it’s so important to not only have proper mapping but to understand the ground situations for all of that, and at the same time develop a way that this is going to directly tie in with municipal government with the issuing of building permits. Coordinating that conversation with them is huge.

Ultimately, at the end of the day - I’ll throw another one in, the insurance bureau. Insurance companies are the biggest ones that see this as a positive thing that potentially is going to give us the ability, if we can somehow manage and reduce these costs that we’re seeing year after year - New Brunswick is the one that I know we all look at around this time of year. I know they’ve already started their talk on the Spring flooding on the Saint John River. These are the kinds of things that are driving our insurance costs sky high. Those are borne right across the whole of the industry.

As we know, climate change happens and sea levels are going to rise. Those costs are going to be borne by everybody. Sometimes they are going to be borne by people who can’t afford them. That’s another important part of our conversations with realtors.

As you can imagine, it is a lot of work to get it right. I think we’ve done a lot to get there. We’ve got a bit more to go, but when we get out the other end, I think you’ll find - again, through that collaboration and listening and talking to all the stakeholders that give us good advice and good data on how to do this - that we’ll have something at the end of the day that is going to be one of the best in Canada.

BRAD JOHNS: I’m often reminded, and I know that we - I feel that you always strive to be the best. I think you can always strive to have the best goals and to do the best job and everything else, but at some point in time, being the best doesn’t fix the problems. While we’re striving to get there, we need to move forward.

I wrote really quickly that it’s kind of like when my boat is going down - if I have a hole in my rowboat, I use whatever I can to start filling the hole. I don’t wait until I get back to shore and then slap on fibreglass and everything else, because I may not make it back to shore.

One of the things I find very concerning is in regard to the climate crisis we’re facing, the climate emergency that the government has called. I mean, even what we see outside of this House, just in the public as a whole - I find it really discouraging that some of these regulations, and thereby Acts, are unenforceable until that happens.

I’m unsure why the government or the department wouldn’t at least come forward with some kind of temporary measure that would limit or in some cases stop development. My understanding is that currently people can still do what they want.

A perfect example that is HRM approved - I think it’s Queen’s Marque, just down the street here. The one that they built literally out into the harbour and filled in. My understanding is that, although I know it’s a wonderful development for the tax base of HRM, with what we’re looking at in a climate emergency, the rising tides and everything else - we see aboideaux that are being washed out and we see berms that are being flooded now. Areas that years ago were never having an issue with water are now having significant issues.

I think that putting at least something in place, even temporarily, and getting those regulations through with the ability to amend them later would serve the public and address the issues that are here today better than waiting until the regulations are exactly in place the way they should be.

I also question whether or not, by not having those regulations in place and Acts like the Coastal Protection Act enacted and enforceable, aren’t we being somewhat - I mean, people could potentially build houses. I’m not just talking about development in respect to huge multimillion-dollar developments. I’m talking about people who are building houses in floodplains - regular families that are going to have problems within the next couple of years. We see it now with what’s happening with the rise in tidal waters.

Why are you not putting something in place - even a temporary measure - so that this legislation can come into effect?

GORDON WILSON: I understand. I do agree with some of your points. I have a few things that I think are important to point out. First, that level of ability exists right now with municipal government. Some already do have land-use planning in floodplains to address that. Our problem is that not all of our municipal units are doing that.

To your point, it already exists, but it is not happening. Should it happen today? Yes. It probably should have happened 10 years ago. There are a few things we need to consider in that. One is that anything we do bring in, there is a requirement that if there is any kind of adverse effect to municipal units, they need to adapt and get things in place, and we need to give them one year’s notice. We just can’t boom, bring a hammer down.

I think more importantly to the point, being the best comes with a price. It doesn’t matter if it’s renewable energy or your targets that you have on greenhouse gas emissions or having one of the best pieces of legislation in place that is going to protect your coastline. For us, that price is time and it is time to get it right.

We would rather make sure that we’re going through the right steps to get what comes out on the end as the right product, but also, as I mentioned just previously, we need to be cognizant of the fact that we can’t just sort of bring a hammer down without a one-year notice.

I think what it’s also doing is, any time you bring a piece of legislation to the House, any time that we - I appreciate the questions I get at Question Period. It raises awareness. It makes people think. Whether they think the right way or not, like you say, you can’t legislate stupid, but you can try your best.

I say that on a personal note as somebody who built a home on the coast of the Bay of Fundy 11 years ago. I was very cognizant at the time I built it, because my kids will probably want the house when I am gone. I want to make sure that that house is there. I did a lot of work and research myself on ensuring that coastal erosion was not going to affect my house where I was, but not everybody does that.

[4:30 p.m.]

I think we’re getting there. I think we’re almost there. Patience. We’ll have the right thing out the door soon.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you, minister. I appreciate your comments. I always value this particular time because it is an opportunity to ask questions and learn about things that, as an Opposition member, we don’t always get. I certainly appreciate your time and your straightforward answers on the questions I did have.

THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the PC Party. We’ll move on to the NDP.

The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Madam Chair. What do you think about having a three-minute recess so the minister and his friends and our other friends can just stand up and move around here?

THE CHAIR: Would you like a bathroom break?

GARY BURRILL: Well, surely there are other things to do in the three minutes than go to the bathroom.

THE CHAIR: That’s where I’m going. (Interruption) No? You’re fine? Okay, very good. Let’s continue.

GARY BURRILL: These discussions are surely taking place at a major moment of terrific investments that are needed on so many fronts: retrofitting, renewables, and efficiency. At the same time, there are such opportunities in front of us, from the point of view of addressing in energy and poverty in a serious way, probably for the first time. The opportunity to deal with this whole great door that is opening in front of us in terms of the possibility to create a new green economy. All of the challenges we have to face, from the point of view of the climate, are things that potentially involve lots of people working, lots of potential stimulus for our economy.

With the climate emergency in front of us, there is a great economic opportunity to move forward in a way that embraces the principle of climate justice. We’ve had discussions before, the minister and I, on these kinds of questions. This is the context in which I want to ask a series of questions about where the responsibilities of the department are.

First, I want to ask a general question about the budget. There is in the Environment budget this $14.3 million line of federal government money, under the heading Challenge Fund. I wonder if I could ask the minister to speak about what the framework of this Challenge Fund is. What is the general sense of what it is to be directed to?

GORDON WILSON: I appreciate your opening comment that we’re at a major moment. I almost have to say that from the day I became Minister of Environment, I said to myself, it’s a good time to be Minister of Environment. It’s not that any time wasn’t, but when we see the people who are out there speaking, the youth, when we see the conversations that are going on that have changed in the last two years - just in two years we’ve seen a radical awakening, I guess, in this world. That’s not a bad thing, although it comes with its challenges. An old friend of mine always said that where there’s adversity, there’s opportunities.

We’re very fortunate to have positioned ourselves a couple of years ago when the process started for the application for the Target 1 Challenge Fund. I believe our application went in for several million dollars. We’re talking about competing across Canada with a pool of other provinces that were vying for the money. The $14.3 million, which I am proud that we’ve received - if you look at that on a per capita basis, I think Nova Scotia won big time. That is a credit to the staff.

That is also a credit, I have to say, to our partners who partnered with us on this - the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, our Mi’kmaw partners, Ducks Unlimited - all of those ones we have out there that are part of this tremendous opportunity we have to leverage private money to buy private land.

In our work to do that, we have a plan on how that money - I shouldn’t say a plan. It’s directed by the federal government. In our application, we laid the groundwork for it and they came back and negotiated out the finer parts of it. Some of that $14.3 million - and again, that’s over a four- or five-year period - we have to go back to them and tell them exactly how we’re going to spend it.

It is broken out so that $9.9 million of that will go to grants to third parties and $2.3 million of that is going to go to land purchases by the Province - again, this is over the total duration of the four years. Then obviously when you think of the work that needs to go on to go out and not only collaborate with these groups but do the assessments - these are very detailed assessments that they do on these properties to ensure that they meet those ecological values that we’re looking for - the survey work, all of that, is $1.3 million of it. Again, that is spread out over the four years.

It was probably one of the most exciting announcements that I made. I’ll never forget that day over on the Eastern Shore when we did it. I really do thank our federal partners also for having the vision. The federal government has been key in driving this initiative and supporting provinces.

I think they do recognize also that we’ve done a lot of heavy lifting. Our job now - and it is a lot of work for staff - is to work with these groups and get that money spent. It is going to leverage a lot of opportunities for us. I’ll be excited to see some of our announcements as we start getting them rolled out.

It’s early years. Again, it was a very detailed application and a lot of work to prepare us on how we’re going to move forward with it.

GARY BURRILL: I’m not sure I quite got the addition - $9.9 million grants to third parties and $2.3 million to land purchase/protection. Was there a third number there that I missed?

GORDON WILSON: That’s $1.3 million for salaries and benefits to administer the fund.

GARY BURRILL: Could I ask the minister to characterize a little bit about the third parties that are in view on the $9.9 million? What are the sort of grants we’re thinking about here? I don’t mean in particular, but just to characterize a sense of it.

GORDON WILSON: I don’t have the actual exact breakdown of how much is going to each individual one. I don’t want to take a guess on it. My deputy says no.

I will tell you that it is there to support the protection of ecosystem biodiversity, landscapes, and species at risk. It will advance land conservation. It has to be used for all those rationales - private land protection, ecological integrity. Again, the partners we have that I have identified - the Nature Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the Mi’kmaq, Ducks Unlimited - are also key in this in areas of key interest they have that might have significant - not only ecosystem and biodiversity but some archeological and some traditional ancestry areas that they might want to work on.

I don’t have the exact breakdown of how much of that $9.9 million would go to them, but if it is something that is available, I can get it for you at a later date.

GARY BURRILL: I want to put in front of us a series of questions about greenhouse gas emissions. We know that there is scientific consensus about what is required in order to contain global heating within parameters of 1.5 degrees. This isn’t a matter much for debate.

We also know there are a significant number of scientific and expert organizations that look at our situation in Nova Scotia and say that the fair share of those reductions that are required from us here to remain within a framework of 1.5 degrees heating are greenhouse gas reductions of 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030.

In debate in the Fall, you and I had this exchange lots of times about this subject. I am familiar with the view that, okay, that might be the case, but nevertheless, this is the strongest target in the country.

Yet I want to say again, as I’ve said before, that the question in front of us at this sharp moment of the climate emergency is not “Are we doing better than our neighbours?” The question in front of us is “Are we doing what is needed?”

In that context, I want to ask the minister, as the goal that was put forward and has been adopted - when that was developed, what was the rationale or the basis of the reasoning through which the department did not opt for the stronger goal that would have had our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in Nova Scotia actually be consistent with 1.5 degrees? Why didn’t we do that?

[4:45 p.m.]

GORDON WILSON: I do remember back very clearly to those conversations. I appreciate the understanding that the honourable member does have for those goals that came out of what were fairly significant deliberations by world-renowned scientists. I don’t think anybody really questions the 1.5 degrees.

I think the question that we have here is on the definition of what we’re doing. I do have to disagree with the honourable member. I am very lucky to have some fairly knowledgeable people who look at our greenhouse gas emissions and can extrapolate the volumes of the tonnage of megatons - it’s big numbers - of CO2.

I’ve challenged them and I’ve looked at numbers with them several times. The 53 per cent, based on the 2005 levels by 2030 - I think where it gets a little bit confusing sometimes is basing it on a different time. It throws in different numbers - there’s some confusion there. When the numbers are worked out for us and we look at that projection out to where we need to be in 2030, we do feel that the 53 per cent puts us right on that mark.

To that point, everything that we do, as I mentioned to the previous member who was asking questions around coastal development - there’s nothing that you do that doesn’t have a cost, especially in the environment. There is an impact, be it economic development or ratepayers’ prices for electricity or how well our roads have ice taken off them. Everything has a direct correlation. Nothing actually correlates more with the economy than the environment, I don’t think, either on impact or on what potential harms could be put in place.

When we start looking at what we do as a province, we have to realize our size. We have to realize our limitations. We are not big, in the mix of things, when you look across Canada. What that means is that sometimes the suite of tools we have to work with is limited. We have to be more innovative. That’s one thing that we should pride ourselves on.

In regard to climate change and the continuation of what we, as Nova Scotians, need to do, I know there has always been the comment that, yes, this is a global mark and we should be doing more because there are some countries that don’t do enough. Does that mean that Nova Scotians should be the ones who take on a little bit extra on their shoulders? I don’t think that is so.

I think what we need to continually do is inform Canada and the world that we’re small, that we have limitations, and that even within those areas where we have not as many tools in the toolkit to play with, we can come out of the gate with something that still preserves and protects the quality of life of the people who are directly impacted by these policy decisions we make, either directly or indirectly. Sometimes there are unintended consequences when we try, for whatever reason it might be, either political or for actual stewardly things we want to do - we need to make sure that we are making the right decisions.

Throw on top of that the complexities there are in the world that we’re talking about right now, that world of the environment - he spoke earlier on the challenges we have in taking advantage of these things, when I said that out of adversity comes opportunity. Think not only of the changes that have happened but the changes that are going to happen in the next 10 years in this world - the green jobs, for example. Think of CarbonCure. Think of those folks down in my riding.

I’ll never forget the day that I was there at the opening of a house that was built with 620,000 pop bottles that were kept out of a landfill to build a super-efficient home - JD Composites. At that same time that I was standing there for the opening, talking to the owners, I’m looking out across St. Marys Bay, and what is being towed in but a tidal array from over in Petit Passage to A.F. Theriault’s. I took a picture, and I’m saying to myself, here I am in rural Nova Scotia with two of the most innovative things that you could think of going on.

Let’s go back to the 53 per cent. Today we can live there. Today we know that with the technology that we have, and as we develop our renewables more and as we move more towards cleaner innovation, Efficiency Nova Scotia - I sat in yesterday with the Minister of Energy and Mines. I am kind of envious of the fellow. When I came into the job as Minister of Environment, naive, nine or 10 months ago, I’m there thinking, hmm, Minister of Energy and Mines, that’s probably going to be - we’re going to butt heads a little bit. He has probably been one of my biggest - I’m his biggest fan because of the work that he is doing in efficiency.

When we set these targets - and again, we think they fit exactly what we know is going to hit that 1.5 degrees - can we do better? Again, let’s not forget that we have the most aggressive - although I know the member opposite thinks that it should be higher. I respect that. We always have to be cognizant of living within our means, of doing what we know is real. We don’t want to put something out there that is just perceived. I have a tremendous climate adaptation group that works not only with the cap and trade, but that whole greenhouse gas world. Ten years is not a long time. It’s going to go by fast. What is going to happen in 10 years? I don’t know, but to your point, I know there are a lot of different numbers out there. I’m very cognizant of it.

If we could both just agree that the 1.5 degrees is important, if we could ever come to a day where we both agree that our targets to get there are relevant, if there are other ways that we can do it - for me, one of the big things that I’d like to really put focus on is trying to have more conversations on how we as Nova Scotians can position ourselves. Not only with the cultural attitude that we have here, that we not only lead, but we can be even more innovative in finding ways to break down barriers for our small businesses, those people who think outside the box. Whether it be it regulatory or a funding thing, if it’s an innovation fund or whatever it might be - we can incentivize more people as we move into that next 10 years. We can find ways that we can not only take the CarbonCures and the JD Composites and the ones that are paving parking lots with plastic, but find even more things.

I think the culture is here in Nova Scotia right across the spectrum. To me, that’s the next big challenge. We’re very fortunate to have a federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change who comes from the clean tech sector and really gets it. We’ve had a few conversations there. He is also going to play an integral role in that, if possible.

Ultimately we also need to push out the message to our other provincial counterparts that they need to lift their weight too. I know it’s tough for them also, because some of their economies are based on fossil fuels, manufacturing, high-level polluters and that, but it is a good conversation. It’s one that I really do appreciate having with you.

I know that that was maybe a bit more of a ramble than you expected, but hopefully it leaves some thought for further questions from you.

GARY BURRILL: So 53 per cent below 2005. That’s what the government has established. If there’s one key word in the UN’s discourse around 1.5 degrees, it’s the word “pathways” - always pathways.

Given that this is the target the government has established, could the minister describe or characterize the pathway for the upcoming decade by which he anticipates we are going to get from here to there?

GORDON WILSON: Really good point. First off, we’ll go back to the debate we had around the Sustainable Development Goals Act - getting that Act out the door. I do respect the pressures that are put on us to consult. At the same time, we want to make sure we get it right.

To your question, that Act was a foundational Act. You’re right, it didn’t tell us how to get there. It told us where we wanted to go in a few areas. It did have some things in there, as I mentioned earlier, around key things that need to happen within government. Having sustainability in the mandate letter, in the mandates of the departments, and having them put that scan on environmental sustainability - we’re already starting to see some of those discussions.

Again, having the working group have access on an annual basis to not only the Premier but those key ministers in a setting where we sit around the table. Again, I think the honourable member does recognize the value of the working group and what they play in that. Getting that right is important also.

Truly, what we’re doing now - and will be kicking off next week - will be that consultation where we’re going to listen to everybody. There are a number of things in here that we’ll be listening for, but it’s not only ideas on how we can incentivize, how we can help low income, how we can find our way forward with a group of things. When you think of the changing technology - and I think that’s the other important part of it. Five years from now it might be important. We might hit some of these. It might be important, as new technology comes around, that we readjust those regulations.

[5:00 p.m.]

I know there was a criticism of us, of going into the regulations, but we did articulate the fact that it gives us that ability to change - whether it is our government or another government - and take advantage and push even harder, whereas a stagnant - that may not be the right word, but a piece of legislation that doesn’t have that ability.

On greenhouse gas mitigation, on adaptation, on how we’re going to mitigate economic and social impact - I think those are the ones that probably are as passionate with the member as any - and how we’re going to be able to participate in regional and international initiatives, we need to have our ears open to all these different things.

The research and development of innovative technology is the one that touches me. I think we can drive it down and at the same time find ways to grow our economy and to hold the pressures - be they electricity rates or whatever - as we transition in that world. Those are hopefully the kinds of things we’re going to hear in the next few months and then pull that stuff together.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you. I’m really asking a more practical question, though. From what sectors is the department looking to draw these concrete reductions over the next 10 years?

GORDON WILSON: That’s exactly why we’re consulting, to find out where those opportunities could be. When you say “sectors,” I’m not sure if you’re referring to sectors like agriculture or forestry or whether you’re looking towards the emitter sectors.

I wouldn’t use the word “sectors” for them, but we have some key emitters of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s obvious that we have the three big ones: our electricity, our buildings, and our transportation. We’ve already heard some initiatives to deal with some of those within the Department of Energy and Mines, but it’s the outside-of-the-box ones that we also want to hear about.

Again, back to those three that we have there, we know that electricity takes up around 40 per cent, I think, of our greenhouse gas emissions. Then transportation is another huge piece that eats up another amount there, and then our buildings for heat. We’re going to listen and we’re going to hear. We’re going to find those ways in those areas.

One thing I did want to also note earlier, toward our path forward, is our climate change plan for clear growth. That’s another big part of moving our path forward. We will be releasing that at the end of the year. There are a lot of moving parts here with this. We will be consulting on that. That is another key piece of our legislation that is going to help us find that way forward.

GARY BURRILL: Still thinking practically about 53 per cent below 2005 in the next decade, is the department operating with a set of annual or biannual benchmarks as we look to this coming 10 years - a set of interim goals that we will be evaluating our progress by? Is there such a framework in place or being developed?

GORDON WILSON: We do have a system in place now where we currently monitor all of our emissions. More specifically, the 20 that are key large emitters that fall under our cap-and-trade program.

We do have regulations that target specific ones. Again, those would be emissions that we would have within Nova Scotia Power. Those ones are key, so not only do we track them and have annual reports - I believe I just signed off on the release of the two-year report on those. I do remember signing it. I’m not sure if it’s actually out now. Those numbers are tracked very carefully by our staff. We do keep a good watch on those. Others would be liquid fuels within those 20 large emitters.

We do have targets for them. We’ve made more aggressive targets for us overall. We need to find other ways to do it. To be specific, our cap and trade touches on only 80 per cent of the emissions that we have here in the province, so other ways to get that other 20 per cent are key.

The other big partner we have in this is our federal government and working closely with them. Obviously, they have set some pretty aggressive standards across Canada and we want to ensure that we can collaborate and work with them whenever we have opportunities.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the other key area that plays in this. That is what EfficiencyOne and Clean Foundation and those folks do to help us reduce and drive that number down. There are a lot of players right now and we do track most of them. We have good numbers on them. Some of them are regulated directly. Some we incentivize. Homeowners in that area - again, outside of the 80 per cent.

I think the challenge is for us to try to go out and listen to and hear what other ways might be out there, to keep our eye on that and keep our pencil good and sharp.

GARY BURRILL: Again, I’m asking a very practical question. With 10 years to get from A to B, I’m asking, does the department have a plan, let us say, that at a five-year mark we will say to the people of Nova Scotia, here is where we are, we are this far 50 per cent down the road? Or will we do this annually, or every second year? Do we have a framework in place to do that measuring and is part of that framework a reporting mechanism on where we are relative to the benchmarks?

GORDON WILSON: We’ve always had a framework for measuring, as I mentioned. That has always been in place. Again, we’re at a pivotal point in our plan right now, where it is more important than ever, and because we value hearing and engaging not just with Nova Scotians but with those targeted groups, we need to hear from innovators. We want to hear from NGOs, the Ecology Action Centre. They presented a very detailed one. In fairness to all of them, there are some very pertinent voices out there.

Will we have a plan? Yes, most definitely, but at this point in time I think it’s also important, as government and certainly as minister - when we’re in these kinds of conversations, there are some areas where I feel it is important for me, through advice that I get from my staff, to make some comments on things, but it’s equally important that I don’t prejudge or predetermine. I remember somebody had said, what’s the definition of not consulting, and it’s when you have your own ideas made up before you go in - that type of thing. I butchered the way it was said.

I want to make sure that as we do this - one of the greatest values we’ve had that has gotten us where we are here today is the work that Nova Scotians have done. We need to recognize that. It’s the opportunities we have to engage them and have them as our partners as we move down the road.

Municipalities are equally important. We’re going to have an opportunity for municipalities to leverage money through our Challenge Fund. That is going to be key. We know what has happened in places like Bridgewater - a tremendous story on what they’ve done. There is a lot of things that we’ve done already too. Some of the things that we already have in our existing legislation that is still in with EGSPA - we’ve exceeded a lot of those targets.

As we develop it, we want to make sure that we have a realistic plan. My message has been pretty consistent. It doesn’t matter what it is, whether it is climate change or whether it is protected areas. I went over 3,000 comments on Northern Pulp. I want to hear what Nova Scotians have to say. It’s important. I don’t want to come out with a decision until then.

We’re working toward one. We will have a plan and that plan will get us to where we need to be in 2030. I assure you of that.

GARY BURRILL: I would say that one of the parts of the Sustainable Development Goals Act that has been most enthusiastically received across the board is the net zero 2050 provision. This is an exciting commitment.

I wonder if the minister could characterize for us the department’s and his picture of the pathway by which we’ll get from where we are to there over these three decades.

GORDON WILSON: Over three decades? (Interruption) Okay, right, 2050.

[5:15 p.m.]

Adding that net zero to 2050 was like putting the icing on the cake. A lot of people are getting it because 10 years goes by fast. In saying that, the net zero brings in a little different conversation. To my mind, that also shows that incentivization on the other side of it, on offsets, on carbon capture, on ways that we can be open to new ideas.

I think we saw a few other places. I haven’t heard too much lately. I know in Europe the British came out with a net zero there. We’ve heard a few others. What’s encouraging is, I haven’t heard an awful lot on a political basis from many other countries in the last six months, but what we are starting to hear in the net zero world is that word being used with industry, which is exciting. Some of the largest industries in the country are starting to say we’re going to have a zero-carbon footprint, that we’re going to be net zero.

Goldman Sachs comes out with huge statements in their world around investors. The net zero 2050 carries as much weight on what it truly is going to do, in a physical sense, is what it means on a cultural and on a political and on a lens. They are using that new phrase now: triple bottom line. It builds on every single thing we’re doing to say that we need to do this together. We’re not going to get to net zero by 2050 if we don’t have industry, if we don’t have all of our governments working together, if we don’t have all of our citizens thinking that way. It was the icing on the cake. It fits.

The plan to get there is a little bit bigger than the plan to get to 2030, obviously. Do we have that plan yet? No, but again, when you build a house, you draw a picture of what you want that house to look like. Some people start from the outside in. Some start with the floorplan. Either way you start with a vision of what you want.

From my perspective, that is what the net zero with 2050 means. I don’t want to diminish in any way, shape, or form the physical goal we have of reducing CO2, but I think the statement also needs to be looked at from the other side, that hey, we had better smarten up. We need everybody to work with us to do it and this is where we are going to be in 2050.

Ten years is quick, but we can remember back 30 years ago. It wasn’t that long ago. That is our grandchildren today sitting around here where we are right now. It’s the same principle as the 2030, but it’s a different meaning, I think. The 2030 is more of a physical thing. It’s more of a thing we can measure - which the net zero is too, but I just looked at it a little differently.

I’m very pleased and I think it’s astute of you to mention the fact that it is as important or more. It wasn’t picked up an awful lot in that sense, but it is important.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you. What I’m thinking about is not just the question of how we are going to get there but the more specific and prosaic question of how we are going to track what we do. How are we going to measure what we do? What will be the framework of the benchmark?

To use the minister’s analogy, if one is building a house, one doesn’t just sit in a chair and say, well, my aspiration is to have a house. I’m going to have some pictures of a house. There are very concrete plans.

I appreciate the answer that we don’t have the plans yet, but we will be developing the plans. I am asking, what is the means by which - over these next three decades - we will track and measure the big progress that needs to be made to get there from where we are now?

GORDON WILSON: We do track extensively right now. We’ve been doing that for a while. We can quantify home conversions, for example - the work that is being done there. That can be directly extrapolated into what that means as far as greenhouse gas emissions.

We track our large emitters very carefully. They report CO2 emissions to us on a regular basis. The federal government is very involved in that also. If anything, what we’ve done has been a negotiating tool, something that has enabled us to have accurate information. I think the framework is already there.

On the other side of it, one of the harder things right now that we need to find a way to is when we talk about the 2050 carbon neutral target. Not only will we be tracking reductions in actual outputs, but we need to find a way to define what offsets might be and define where credits might be and define how that balance sheet is going to work in getting to that 2050.

To your point, there’s an extensive amount of tracking work that goes on right now. I can get the figures - say, for example, under our cap-and-trade figures that we will have that show those greenhouse gas emissions for the major contributors, if you are interested in getting it.

GARY BURRILL: Whatever is available in the way of the department’s tracking framework, both about the 2030 goal and the 2050 goal, would be very helpful if the department could make that available.

I wanted to ask about - and my understanding of this is very partial - the Green Fund to do with the cap-and-trade program. Did I understand rightly in your answers to my colleague an hour ago that this is at a very initial stage right now and that there are not yet contributions, prior to the auction, being made to the Green Fund?

GORDON WILSON: Again - early years, early on, first time for us - for cap and trade, our first auction is coming up in about June. We’re actually having a mock auction in preparation for this, I believe in a few weeks’ time, because it’s a very complicated process to go through these.

Our Green Fund - conservatively, we know that we’re going to be bringing in $24 million through cap and trade. We can’t spend it until we get it - my mother always taught me that, and we try to follow that also.

We are going to look at ways to spend that that are going to clearly touch on things like greenhouse gas mitigation. We’re going to look at areas where we can spend money on adaptation. We’re going to hopefully find areas where we can participate in some regional and international opportunities, ways that we can mitigate the economic and social impacts we have. We’re going to attempt to look at research and development.

There are going to be a lot of vultures at the table for the money. There’s no question about that, but it’s going to be targeted. I think in all fairness it has to be. We’re going to develop frameworks around key areas where we think we’re going to get our biggest bang putting this money back out into the economy. We’re also going to listen and hear on ways that we can spend it.

I wish I had a real direct answer for you on how much was going to each one. I wish I could tell you exactly how much money - $24 million or $34 million, or a base price of - I think $200 per ton is what we’re looking at. No, $20 per ton - $200, that would be nice.

It’s a very anxious time for all of our staff, but very exciting at the same time as they prepare us for that. We’re going to be ready and we’re going to be nimble as these auctions roll out on having ways that we know are low-hanging fruit - vulnerable people. I know that probably touches you the most.

We will find ways to target and identify all those different areas that we can. I’ll assure you that I will be keeping my eye on that as it rolls along. It’s a lot of work.

GARY BURRILL: I’m understanding clearly then that to today, Green Fund - zero balance, zero disbursements?

Then could I ask the minister to speak to how that fund is going to be administered, how those decisions about the disbursements are going to be made, and what the framework for its management is?

GORDON WILSON: A fair amount to unpack there, really. To keep it very simple, there will be a manager who will manage the Green Fund. Through hearing where these opportunities for spending it are, we will definitely be running the decisions on setting up the framework through Cabinet. They are not going to give me the sole authority and ability to do that, so Treasury Board and Cabinet will play a big part in that.

[5:30 p.m.]

GARY BURRILL: Does the minister then envision a structure of something like a board, that a board will be established with a CEO, that it will have that kind of - I’m just wondering about the structure in general.

GORDON WILSON: At this point in time, I think it would be a little presumptuous of me to try and think that far. It’s new, so we’ll try to roll it out as best we can and work within the administrations we have and make changes if we need to.

THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the NDP. We’ll move on to the PC Party.

The honourable member for Dartmouth East.

TIM HALMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, minister. Good evening, staff. Thank you for your ongoing work on behalf of Nova Scotians.

I have a couple of questions of a local nature to Dartmouth East. I’d like to start off with Barrys Run, which is a stream contaminated by mine tailings. The minister is probably aware that in August of last year, the HRM warned of arsenic contamination in Barrys Run.

Could you provide an update as to the progress of the Department of Environment in monitoring Barrys Run and what the plan is moving forward?

GORDON WILSON: Your first question out and I don’t have a real definitive answer for you. What kind of a start is that?

Barrys Run is under the Department of Lands and Forestry, so it’s early on. We provide support. They are the lead department on that. They’re also working with the Department of Energy and Mines on it. We are in the process of working with them to review that and apply some standards there.

I’m not sure exactly, because we’re not the lead, where in this particular instance it is. It might be one that if you want, we could circle back with the Department of Lands and Forestry to get a better update on that for you.

TIM HALMAN: For purposes of clarity, what are the agencies or departments involved in the monitoring of Barrys Run?

GORDON WILSON: Again, the Department of Lands and Forestry will be the lead, and then working with them would be our department and the Department of Energy and Mines, because it’s coming from a mining type of operation. The other one that would be involved would be Nova Scotia Lands. They have some involvement there. I thought it might have been TIR, but it isn’t. It’s them. I do believe that HRM is also potentially there.

TIM HALMAN: Certainly, minister, I think you’d recognize that that’s a lot of moving parts to this issue. I do recognize, of course, that no doubt throughout the province there are a lot of agencies involved. I totally appreciate that.

What position, I guess, quarterbacks or coordinates all these different agencies on an issue like this? Is there a specific person in the department? Is there a specific role?

GORDON WILSON: On this specific one, because each one is different - I’m not sure if you have a question on Dartmouth lakes, for example, which is a little bit of a different scenario with a multi-stakeholder group.

On this one here, again, the Department of Lands and Forestry would be the lead agency. It falls under their area of responsibility and they do a wonderful job at that also.

We would be there as the regulator. Again, that’s a pretty clear box that we would have. Nova Scotia Lands carries on the responsibility of the tendering work that would be going on. The Department of Energy and Mines are the experts on the tailings and the actual physical things that would be coming out of the ground there.

I also have the Department of Health and Wellness here. They do play a role in that because there are some health-hazard issues they would come into, so there’s another one that’s there. Then the Department of Finance and Treasury Board would also be involved. There is an advisory group that clearly works under that framework. So there are a couple more departments that I didn’t mention earlier that do play a role in that.

TIM HALMAN: Clear as mud. Minister, do we know what other tailing sites out there could be impacting freshwater systems? Does the Department of Environment keep data on that?

GORDON WILSON: The inventory of those sites is kept by the Department of Lands and Forestry, so they would be the holder of them. They would be the ones that would set the priorities for work that would need to happen.

Generally, as these sites’ funding becomes available to deal with them, the structure is pretty well the same for each site. It would be the mandate I rolled out earlier to you on Barrys Run, so all those other departments would still play a role, assumedly, as they come together to deal with them.

I guess the answer to your question is that the Department of Lands and Forestry would be the ones that hold that list.

TIM HALMAN: I appreciate that clarification, minister. Obviously with this issue in Dartmouth East, and I think for any community, getting clarity is where to go and is the best point to start to get answers for folks. I can tell there’s a multitude of layers here in terms of responsibility.

Talking about Barrys Run, we also have to speak a bit about Montague Gold Mines, which of course, as we all know, is owned by the Province and is beginning the process of cleaning up. From the perspective of the Department of Environment, can you give us an update on the remediation of Montague Gold Mines?

GORDON WILSON: Again, my apologies. My track record isn’t really great here with you right off the bat. Again, that is one that is very similar to Barrys Run, where we play a role as a regulator there.

To give you real specifics on where that actually is should probably come from the lead department. Again, if you want, we can keep a list of these and circle back around through that department and get it for you at a later date.

TIM HALMAN: I’d certainly appreciate it, minister. That’s on two occasions you’ve said you act as a regulator. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

GORDON WILSON: Our department is a highly-regulated department. That’s our job, I guess, in a big way. The contaminated sites regulations fall within our department, so that would set the standards. These standards are basically the ones that would have been set by the CCME - the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Those standards would cover right across the spectrum, from water quality right straight through to air to emissions and all that. Our role would be to ensure that the standards in those regulations are followed and to provide advice on how that would happen.

I can give you a little bit of an update here also that Goldenville and Montague Gold Mines that we are involved in - in total there are 69 abandoned mines on Crown lands that are being reviewed. We play the role of reviewing their submissions when they come in, again under that responsibility that we have under the regulations.

TIM HALMAN: I’m curious, how are those standards or regulations enforced? Obviously you have people on the ground. How many are assigned to ensure these regulations are being followed when it comes to the mine tailings?

GORDON WILSON: Depending on the region - we have enforcement staff throughout the whole province. They would be assigned on a case-by-case basis. Our enforcement staff are the ones who would actually be going out and doing the inspections on the sites. To have a specific number for each one is difficult. It depends on the situation.

TIM HALMAN: Thank you, minister. I’m just trying to get a sense of how this operates. I’ve noticed the multiple layers that exist when it comes to environmental issues, whether it is boathouses, the safety of our lakes, or mine tailings. It’s trying to punch through those and get a sense of clarity and to explain it to constituents. Okay, thank you.

With respect to lake protection, which has been brought up by my colleagues, and I’ve certainly brought it up in the House before - I am from the City of Lakes. I realize that in the last few days we’ve been known as the City of Shakes, given the earthquake that happened the other day in Keystone Montebello.

It really is very much a point of pride for folks in Dartmouth. Whether it’s weeds growing in Lake Micmac or sediment going into Lake Charles, which has been an ongoing issue for many years - I’ve certainly heard from residents around Lake Charles with concerns about that.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m curious, what steps is the department actively taking to develop a systematic review of how we’re monitoring our lakes, not only in Dartmouth but throughout the province? Is there an ongoing discussion taking place? Could you give us an update on that, minister?

GORDON WILSON: I appreciate that you recognize that these things impact not just the problems and stresses that we have on our urban lakes, that it goes right across the whole province, for whatever reason. Some of them could be agricultural. Some of them could be, for whatever reason - water quality and things that go on in these watercourses are important to all Nova Scotians.

We play a lot of roles and there are a lot of other entities, as I explained, that also play a role in this.

Again, to talk right across all of them, it’s not just the Dartmouth lakes, for example. In some cases we would collaborate with utilities and municipalities to jointly address any potential runoff issues that there might be in areas, because there are a number of things that cause the stresses that we see on these lakes.

We would also monitor key lakes. We provide resources and expertise for erosion prevention and stormwater management when these new developments happen. That’s important so that we can try to address these issues up front. Now unfortunately there have been a lot of developments in some areas where maybe these standards weren’t in place and the result is that today we are experiencing these.

The one area that we hear an awful lot about are the complaints also, and we do provide response. One of the challenges we have is getting there when the problem is a problem - runoff and that. It’s no good hearing it two or three days later. Our response times are good, but it’s important for people to let us know as soon as they can.

We’re continually providing training and upgrading and understanding for our inspectors who audit this. It’s a challenging area sometimes, but there are new things that you can bring to the table every now and then to make sure that we can do better. The blue-green algae complaints are another interesting one, for example. The problem we have with blue-green algae is that in the time it takes to test to show that it’s there, we’ve lost the window we have. It is approximately a two-week delay in getting a test. We try to promote no swimming, no pets, those kinds of things in dealing with it. Don’t drink the water. Don’t use it for cooking. Public information is important.

The challenge is that when we have these blooms, by the time we get the test, the bloom might be over with. We know there are some areas that are susceptible to it, so education plays an important role. We encourage people not to shower or, in some cases, bathing or brushing teeth. The most important thing is that people tell us when they see this. That’s another area we work hard at.

We also keep valuable information on our website. I appreciate the work that has been done by some of our colleagues on the other side of the House in raising awareness. Every time we ask the question, hopefully somebody listens and gets a better understanding. We need to know about these things sooner than later when we can. It’s almost impossible to prevent them in some cases.

Invasive species are another one. They are very difficult to deal with. Invasive species do not come under our department, but I understand and respect the frustration that the Department of Lands and Forestry, and all of our folks who see these invasive species that come into our lakes, have with them.

Research on how we can deal with them and move them forward - not only municipalities but also universities play a role in this in partnering with us. It’s important for them and other government departments to continually get together. I know sometimes it might seem like finger-pointing - I’m not responsible, you’re not responsible. I think the most important thing we can do is try to educate. If it’s stormwater runoff that they see, call us. We want to know about that. If it’s an invasive species, Lands and Forestry need to know about that. It’s also important for us to pass that message down to our front-line staff who also can play that role in assisting that.

These are complicated areas when you add municipal land-use bylaws or developments or non-developments and encroachments that we have there. Ducks and geese play a big role. I got educated on challenges that we have in pollution in our lakes. Dog parks - there’s a myriad of things. I mean, who is responsible for ducks and geese? How do you deal with those? And dogs - having some as dog parks or not.

I think ultimately, we all want the same thing. I always keep the door open. I know that in your area I’ve met with our colleagues for Dartmouth North and Dartmouth South. My door is always open. I’ve had municipal councillors in to see me to talk about strategies and how we can coordinate and collaborate on efforts in those areas. The federal counterparts have raised it - they play a lesser role, but it’s obviously things that they hear, and then I’ll take it.

I’ve been involved with groups in my previous days when I was with the Department of Lands and Forestry - at the time it was the Department of Natural Resources - and worked on things like TREPA, the Tusket River people. They’re a great stewardship group that worked very hard and took on that role as a community to raise awareness of some problems we were having in the mink industry and some things that we had to try to advocate for and work with there.

Watercourses and lakes, in particular, and all the nuances around them - I wish I could say it wasn’t a multijurisdictional area, but it is.

Community participation is the biggest thing - a way we can make sure that our doors are always open to hearing what they have to say and assisting them. I think we play that role ourselves just as MLAs. Sometimes it’s a good thing for us. Coming back to the Dartmouth lakes, they’ve hosted some open houses there where we’ve been able to provide some good information on roles and responsibilities.

We should also understand that although sometimes with invasive species we are concerned that our lakes are degrading, overall our lakes are fairly healthy, considering the pressures that are put on them. It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be healthier, but we do also always look at it that way.

I am always open to any suggestions that we can have. My door is always there. I’d appreciate it if you did want to ever come in and talk about - even with the members for Dartmouth North and Dartmouth South. The more the merrier.

TIM HALMAN: I really appreciate that, minister. I was at that meeting in August last year about Lake Micmac and Lake Banook. Specifically in my area, with respect to Lake Charles - I know staff is aware of the concerns about sediment over the years - I do really appreciate the invitation to meet, specifically on runoff in Lake Charles, which has been an ongoing issue for many years. The residents I have the honour of representing would like to get some clarity, so I do appreciate that, minister.

That being said, I’ll pass the torch to the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Sackville-Beaver Bank.

BRAD JOHNS: To carry on, I wanted to have a quick discussion in regard to the Parks and Protected Areas plan. I wanted to find out about a couple of particular pieces of property and where they are standing currently. Coffin Island, which I believe is located in Queens County - I’m curious to know where it sits - if it’s on a list, where it sits on the list - and when it will be considered a protected nature reserve.

GORDON WILSON: We have a large inventory of protected areas. Right off the top, I’ll tell you that Coffin Island is not one I’m really that familiar with at this point. After the session is over, I can do more to get some information for the member on that one - specifics, you know.

If I can talk generally about the protected areas, it might help give the member some understanding of that initiative. We do have a number of sites that are out there right now. We have a piece of McGowan Lake, Pleasant River, Silver River, Ship Harbour Long Lake - I don’t know if any of these are going to pop up on your list - Terence Bay, Archibald Lake, St. Margarets Bay Islands . . .

BRAD JOHNS: I’m sorry, just for clarification, minister, are those ones that were just announced recently or are those ones that are on the list and kind of sitting there? I’m just curious.

GORDON WILSON: These are ones that we are actually now considering that have not made it through to the final approval. There’s also Peppered Moon, River Denys, St. Marys River, and Barra Forest.

The development of the Parks and Protected Areas plan was in my mandate when I came on as minister. It is one file I can say I was very interested in. I can also say I was very fortunate to have a colleague who also had responsibility to work in that area, the Minister of Lands and Forestry. My job was to continue to move that plan forward to 13 per cent. To do that, we had an inventory of a number of properties. It’s one of our biggest assets and it’s one of our biggest challenges at the same time.

[6:00 p.m.]

This is a beautiful province. To find that balance of how we can get to our 13 per cent and pick those areas that, for whatever reasons - I mean, they always have to have that ecological value. That’s important. But then there are always other things that we take into consideration, like connectivity.

I also looked at ways that I could find three areas within the province with some fairly large significant groupings of properties in the plan on how to move forward. Then, through a lot of discussion with staff, I saw that there were a number of properties we had that were acquired by the Province or through a legal obligation to protect them. I’m trying to find a way to rationalize going through this list of a lot of beautiful pieces of property and bring forward what would be a thought-out next step for us.

We put together a plan under that framework that I mentioned to you. These are properties that were purchased with legal obligations to protect them. There is the expectation - and some of them do consultation; that’s why we’re still sitting. We had not only targeted stakeholder consultation but Mi’kmaw consultation as well. Some of the definitions and descriptions of the boundaries had to be done. There were a number of different things that needed to be done.

There were some that were ready. I think the day we made the announcement was probably one of the proudest days for the Minister of Lands and Forestry and me. We had 17 sites. It was also a great message to the community. We were coming down the road with another initiative and that was on Target 1, to access money from the federal government to leverage private land. It was a great day.

In doing that, we packaged what we thought was the next step. We are now going through the work of the 60-day public consultation on those other sites that weren’t ready. Those ones that are doing 60-day would be McGowan, Shingle Lake, Silver River, Ship Harbour Long Lake, Terence Bay, and Archibald Lake. There’s targeted stakeholder for almost all of them. Those will be packaged up and coming out.

Again, the most important thing that I can say - it has been a recurring theme that I think you would have heard, regardless of whether it is the Sustainable Development Goals Act or our climate change strategy. Whatever it is, we want to hear from Nova Scotians what they feel, right across the board.

We are always cognizant of trying to find that balance. I know the member said that he didn’t want to talk about Owls Head, but these are the kinds of challenges we have there. We have a beautiful piece of property in the middle of the member for Inverness’s riding that just came on the market. I don’t know if he wants to ask a question about that. Our province is peppered with these opportunities. At the same time, we need to make sure we’re not doing something that - if there are other interests or opportunities, it’s hard decisions sometimes.

That is going to get us to 12.75 per cent, but we need to get to 13 per cent. So, with the myriad of other things that we’re doing and the pressures that I’m putting on all of our staff in Protected Areas to go out and do all the work that needs to be done on the assessments and the public consultation and preparing them to get them through, in the near future I’m probably going to be looking at that other small - and again, as you think about it, the closer we get to the 13 per cent, the harder the decisions to be made get.

Coffin Island is one that I am being lobbied for right now. It is on a list. There is no decision. But like all the other sites, I need to find a way that, through collaborating with the Minister of Lands and Forestry, we can appease, as best we can, our ability to make sure that the ones we do pick are the best ones.

Sometimes you need to weigh the other factors too. Sometimes one might not score quite as well in its ecological factors and ratings, but it could be a connectivity thing. It could be a small piece that just brings two other pieces together.

Then, on top of all that, I also need to always keep my eye on, now that we have $14.3 million to spend on private land - that, again, will go toward that 13 per cent - that we’re making decisions and working with those partners. That money needs to be leveraged by lands that we protect. There are all those considerations to go in there.

I cannot say enough on how important it is to hear from all the stakeholders, not just the ones that are outside of the area we’re talking about but from the communities, too. Sometimes they are more silent than they should be.

I will find out information, if the member wishes, specifically on the significance of Coffin Island and what some of the values are there and get some more information for the member down the road.

BRAD JOHNS: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that. For the record, I am not lobbying for Coffin Island - I don’t even know where Coffin Island is. One of my colleagues at caucus asked me if I would ask for the update on that so I could pass it back to her. Thanks.

It’s not that I don’t want to talk about Owls Head, but I think we’ve had an opportunity to talk about Owls Head quite a bit lately and I know there are a lot of other issues and lands that we should focus some light on too. I want to ask some questions to those.

I am going to turn things over in two seconds. While I have your ear, I do want to - and we are talking about the Parks and Protected Areas plan. I am not lobbying. I’m just going to clarify.

I know you had an opportunity to meet with representatives from the Sackville Rivers Association in regard to some lands that are up in my constituency in Upper Sackville, in the Lewis Lake area. They are lobbying quite hard, I believe, to get the Sackville River-Lewis Lake Wilderness Park up there in Upper Sackville. I am certainly supportive of where they’re going and that they want to preserve some of that land. I don’t know where it sits on the list. That’s okay.

I do want to ensure that I clarify for the record what the wants of the residents of the area are, versus the wants of any lobby groups that may be around - I do want to do that while we have a second. If and when those lands were ever to be considered as a wilderness protected area, I believe residents would still have an opportunity to kayak, and I think there are a couple of ATV trails there - to do the recreational things that are currently done there.

There was a discussion at one point in time - and I don’t know who initiated it, but I just want to clarify it. Somebody at one point in time talked about turning that land into a nature reserve. I believe that under a nature reserve definition, what you can do on those lands is very limited.

I just wanted to go on record and say that although I and the residents who live within that area are acceptable to those lands becoming a wilderness protected area, I think there would be a lot of opposition from the residents who live there to it becoming a nature reserve. I just wanted to clarify that so that you knew.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Inverness.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Madam Chair, I have just one question tonight. It involves the fees for run-of-the-river hydro. It was something I wrote to your department about recently. I made the point with the Minister of Energy and Mines last night.

Most people who have these projects care about the environment. I realize the sites have to be inspected. I think the fees can run to the tune of maybe $500 or $600 a year. If they are generating power of maybe $1,500 or $2,000 a year, the fees are sucking up a lot of the benefit. I know there is a cost to inspect. The answer that basically came back to me was, well, we need to pay for our costs and we need to do the inspection. That’s how I took it.

However, I know the government does a lot of things in terms of subsidizing energy. This is one where I think these costs are already - I mean, they are going to be spent anyway. People working in the department are going to inspect the site. If they’re not inspecting that, they are inspecting something else. They probably have other duties. In a way I would almost question if the true cost is really $500 or $600 a year per site.

What I am asking is if you would take another look at that and consider the benefit it would be. Maybe there could be more of these projects. If they are not interfering with the waterways, if they have been assessed as being safe, and if they are not interfering with fish life, why not look at reducing the fees to encourage the people who are doing this to keep doing it? That is something small that could be done by the government that I think would make a tangible difference. Thank you.

GORDON WILSON: I do remember your letter - well thought-out, well written. I believe I responded, and you did capture it. I think if I can add a little - so it’s a water withdrawal we’re talking about, and the fee is based on the amount.

I will say that I’ll go back and have another look. It’s interesting - we always have to be cognizant of the unintended consequences, how when we make a judgment over here in this area, it could affect the judgment over here in this area.

Any adjustments we might make in regard to your issue - because there are others out there - I’ll give you an example. There are people who withdraw - Artesian, for example - to use a geothermal-type application. It falls under a similar thing.

I’m not going to say that this is the case, but sometimes it is not particularly the money and it’s more the understanding of the volumes and that. There are potential effects that they could have aquifers and different things, and there is a cumulative thing, you know, if there’s another one upstream and that.

To the member’s point, I will go back and have another look. I’ll get a briefing from staff on that whole world and see if there are ways. One thing that we do pride ourselves on, and I think this might be an area where it could be looked at, is reducing our regulatory burden. The work that Fred Crooks has done in that department sometimes isn’t something that we see a lot about in the papers and stuff. It’s real.

[6:15 p.m.]

Reducing regulatory burden and the cost to people and stuff like that, and at the same time improving the efficiencies - I think we have $25 million that we’ve taken off the backs of - now, that’s more targeted towards businesses, because we’re an entity that loves to create regulations and then step back. It adds up. Whether this one would fit in that world, he might be a resource that I could look at from a different scan.

But well said. I appreciate it. Give me a holler in a month or so. You’ve got my number.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, and thank you, Madam Chair. My colleague will continue now.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Sackville-Beaver Bank.

BRAD JOHNS: I believe I recall that last year in the budget the department hired a solicitor who was new last year. I’m curious to know how that position is working out, whether or not you can provide a few updates in regard to prosecutions, and whether or not you’ve seen an increase in compliance and fines, now that you have in-house representation there - or in-department, I guess.

GORDON WILSON: Yes, that position was one that was created and works for the Crown Prosecutor service. It doesn’t really work directly with us. It works with them. We just fund that position. I wouldn’t have any really direct information on how busy that is.

It’s an important position. I think it was recognized by previous ministers that these are specialized areas, and specialized areas like that need support and to have specialized people who deal with them. It doesn’t fall directly under the auspice of our department. We just fund it and have created the opportunity for it to happen.

To get information on activity, I’d have to go to another entity outside our department.

BRAD JOHNS: I don’t believe you were the minister last year, but last year when I asked about this, I was kind of under the understanding that that prosecutor was being hired to do prosecutions and provide legal advice directly to the department. I guess my assumption was that although they would probably fall under the provincial legal department, they would be more aligned to your department, particularly given that you were funding it. That’s not the case, then?

GORDON WILSON: He is dedicated to environmental work, but he’s not under our direction. He works independent of us, but would take on the role of helping and training, giving advice to other lawyers also on environmental issues. His speciality would be environment. He is independent of our department but funded by us.

BRAD JOHNS: And you don’t receive any updates on what he is prosecuting or what he is doing?

GORDON WILSON: We could get you a list of court actions and activities that that person would be involved in, but we’re going to have to reach around to another entity that is independent of us to get that.

BRAD JOHNS: I’d appreciate that, if you could, minister. Thank you. I guess I misunderstood last year, but I was curious to see what an update was on that.

Moving on to something a little bit different - and please forgive me if I stepped out when the member from the NDP caucus was talking. If it was something that you talked about, I can certainly go back and look it up through Hansard at some point in time. I’m curious to know what is currently in place in regard to discouraging e-waste.

I know that you did touch on a few things earlier and gave a list of some of the e-waste that is trying to be diverted from land sites. I’m wondering what we’re doing to try to ensure that that doesn’t go into a landfill. At the same time, I’m kind of curious - a lot of the things you mentioned early on could still be put into a black bag. I know you said there are Enviro-Depots and things that are now trying to accept those, where they weren’t before, but there is still the ability for people to put - I think you said video game cartridges and there were a number of things there that could still go into a green bag.

As a province, how are we looking at encouraging that being diverted away from the landfill?

GORDON WILSON: As I mentioned in our opening remarks, we do have one of the most aggressive diversion programs - bans and oversight, as far as that goes. Specifically, there are a number of things that we have under EPR for electronics. I’d list those out. I should also say that we’re always continuously looking at what new opportunities there are coming down the road. I am constantly meeting with entities that are working toward better stewardship opportunities for us.

I can get the member the complete list of products. I have it here. Again, it was an extensive list. I believe he is interested in the electronics side, specifically. As I mentioned earlier, there are laptops, desktop computers, peripherals that would go with those, printers, monitors, and televisions. That is in Phase 1. In Phase 2 we have the computer scanners, telephones, fax machines, cellphones and other wireless devices, audio/video playback recording systems, VCRs, and DVD players.

It’s a number of things that we have. As the member can respect, as technology advances there are more and more different things that are coming online also. We’ll always try and keep our eye on electronic waste.

Ultimately, it’s through the industry and through the Atlantic Canada Electronics Stewardship. They are responsible for developing that program and making sure that it is up to date. It is administered, though, by the Resource Recovery Fund Board. They are the ones who actually do it for us. For example, more than 4,500 tons of electronic waste is generated in Nova Scotia annually - 4,500 tons. The encouraging part is that we have a very aggressive program that will keep the majority of that out of our landfills.

Divert NS also plays a huge role in that. Again, it is one thing to have a program sitting there that will take this stuff away. It’s important for us to educate our citizens that this is out there. Divert NS plays a huge role in communication and in the education of the general public, and I believe spent in the vicinity of $1.8 million in that area in fiscal 2019-20.

It’s a multifaceted thing. It’s going to continue to grow, and again, as technology changes come online, we’re probably going to have to keep adapting that program for e-waste.

On your previous question in regard to the environmental prosecution position, there is information there. It’s right on the website. It has a list of all the different sections of prosecution that have happened. If you go to our website and go to Compliance and Enforcement Action, you will see where there were charges under the Animal Protection Act and various Acts, by various people, that come under that area. That information might be available for you online, but if you have further information you need after looking at that, let us know.

BRAD JOHNS: I would say very quickly that I didn’t, in this case, but I do find the Department of Environment website very helpful - a lot of links back to old reports and stuff. As the critic, I have found it a really strong resource. I’m glad to see that even though there may be some reports up there that are not currently relevant, they haven’t been taken down. You can go back and look. I like that.

Very quickly, before we stop here, I want to talk about an extension to the e-waste thing. There was a recent poll done by the CBC that showed that 75 per cent of large household appliances last approximately 10 years or less. I know the EU is currently in the process of doing right-to-repair legislation. I don’t know if the department has ever looked at that or not. I would encourage that perhaps it might be something that might be fitting.

It’s requiring that parts be made available for seven to 10 years, thereby having - I mean, it really does protect consumers as well as the environment, because we’re not throwing things out because we can’t find spare parts to them. Perhaps the minister would be open to reviewing that legislation that they are doing.

It also talks about having a certain time frame, trying to get repairs done in a speedy manner. That discourages people from replacing things that really don’t need to go into the landfill, that can be repaired, unlike my grandfather who used to have like five different kettles because he might use the plug off this one and something off that one. I do think there’s some merit to that.

With that, I’ll close. I know my next one is here, minister. Thank you again for this hour. If the NDP take up the hour, I believe we’ll be done, so thank you.

GORDON WILSON: It was an excellent point. It was one that I hadn’t had a chance to maybe even mention here. To your point with that, under the manufacturers, that would be a federal area of responsibility, where those umbrella policy directions and legislation would come under.

[6:30 p.m.]

In saying that, one of the biggest privileges I had coming in as minister was to host the CCME here in Nova Scotia. I have to mention the work that our staff did. Hosting these are huge opportunities, especially the CCME. It’s a little bit different than the other FPTs, where it’s actually an entity of its own. Again, in the world we were in at that day and the spotlight that was on not only all of us provincially but federally, that was a real opportunity.

Those are some of the conversations we have in that world with our federal counterparts. A lot of great initiatives come out of CCME - the work that we’re doing on plastics and stuff, so . . .

THE CHAIR: Order. Time has elapsed for the PC Party. We are moving on to the NDP for 34 minutes.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want you to think I am obsessed with things other than work, but would you people not like a little break?

GORDON WILSON: We’re good.

GARY BURRILL: It must be an exciting place to work. (Laughter) Well, thank you.

I wanted to ask you about the gold mining proposals on the Eastern Shore. The proposal in Sherbrooke is unique in a lot of ways because of the central involvement of the St. Marys River - and not just the river itself. The river has been for some time such a central component of the community’s effort to redevelop a sense of itself and build a new future.

All the work around the St. Mary’s River Association has really drawn a lot of the real active people in the Sherbrooke area and the community for some time. This is the context in which the department is having to make the decisions it is having to make about the proposal for the project in Cochrane Hill.

Could I ask the minister to first give us an update on where the proposal stands and exactly where we are now in the department’s assessment process?

GORDON WILSON: A great question. As I think I mentioned earlier with some of the other questions that we had, our challenge is always to find that balance. Our challenge is always to listen at the same time.

I think one of the specific questions is around consultation. But I’ll step back even further. In my job to evaluate the number of sites that we had, I took a very purposeful step in identifying, first, those ones that had legal obligations.

There were a number of sites that we had around the province that, after going through all of them extensively to try to get the nuances of them, there started to be a pattern. We had a lot of sites where we had told the people who had either sold or donated them to the province that we would protect them. How could we drop that? Gathering all those sites together was one of the first steps I took in trying to put together how I can package up something for us to move toward that 13 per cent.

The next thing I felt was really important was that we had some fairly extensive large tracts. We had some large pieces in the McGowan Lake area. Up in the Mabou area, we had a lot of work that was done by the private and we had some fairly significant pieces up there.

The other one that stuck out, because it had a combination of legal and that, was the St. Marys River area. So I had these three: Cape Breton, sort of central, and then one down in western. I thought that would be a nice way to round out a nice package. Again, you are always trying to find that balance - not only geographically but what they represent, the potentials for them, connectivity, all these different things.

St. Marys River obviously has a lot of attention from a lot of people for a lot of reasons; very passionate. We are continuing to hear about things in that area. At the same time, we do know that Archibald Lake was on the list originally considered for inclusion in Our Parks and Protected Areas, but it wasn’t one that was right there. I received some correspondence, some pressure to consider that one.

The thing it did is, it also complemented the St. Marys River. It was a very interesting, unique piece of property, to say the least. At this point in my decision-making I said, okay, I’ve always laid my head on the fact that we need to hear what communities want or don’t want. I’ve always laid my head on trying to find a path forward and trying to find that balance between economic development and protecting areas. In saying that, I said, well, this one certainly would need consultation and it also would need a socioeconomic analysis on it at the same time.

That consultation is in the early stages. I don’t believe it is closed yet. I am anxious to hear all sides of all parties that would have interests in there. I know that it is also early on in a harmonized process with the federal government on an environmental assessment there that won’t be finished until 2021. No decisions have been made yet on any of those.

I do pride myself on the fact that I listen and I try to find that balance. In saying that, my whole thought toward protected areas is that at the end of the day, these are Nova Scotians’ properties that are going to be protected in perpetuity, forever and a day. I don’t ever see a government taking them off the list, so I take that responsibility very seriously. It’s generational and it’s one where I really have to try and find a balance.

Obviously, it has been challenging on all sides. We’ve been criticized for properties that aren’t on the list. We’re criticized for properties that are on the list. But in saying that, I have been very consistent that I’ll always keep my ears open. A decision won’t be made until the end of the day when it is time to make one.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you. I’m still interested in trying to understand better, though. Concretely, what is the specific timeline for the assessment process and the decision-making process on the Cochrane Hill project?

GORDON WILSON: Regarding that environmental assessment you’re talking about, that’s harmonized with the federal government. They are the lead. It has several starts and stops. The proponent would play a big role in when they are there and the federal government would be. We are a participator in that. But to give you an idea of when those - it’s very hard to determine that at this point in time.

GARY BURRILL: Is there no timeline in front of us for decisions going forward? It’s indefinite? It’s open-ended?

GORDON WILSON: We do believe there will be a decision by 2021 in regard to that, but there is still a lot of process to go through in that formal harmonized - again, to know when exactly that “start and stop” is going to be is hard.

Our general assumption is that we won’t have a decision until after 2021. (Interruption) No sooner than 2021. How would that be?

GARY BURRILL: Could you please characterize the difference between where the project assessments are, between Cochrane Hill and Fifteen Mile Stream and Beaver Dam, then?

GORDON WILSON: Those two in particular that you mentioned, Beaver Dam and Fifteen Mile Stream - Beaver Dam was registered in June 2017. They came in with their environmental impact assessment - their second revised. We are expecting that soon, in late March 2020. There’s really no determined decision date on that yet, but they are moved forward quite a bit from Cochrane Hill.

Fifteen Mile Stream was registered late March 2020. Their original environmental impact study never met the conformity requirements. That one, as you have probably heard in the news, has been sent back, so that one is a little bit later on.

In order of sequence of where they are in potentially coming out, we would have Beaver Dam that is a little bit further along, Fifteen Mile Stream that still has some work to do, and Cochrane Hill, we are not expecting that one for a while yet.

[6:45 p.m.]

GARY BURRILL: Could we then put any time frame on the Fifteen Mile Stream and Beaver Dam assessments in a way parallel to what you’ve said about Cochrane Hill?

GORDON WILSON: Again, those are federally harmonized - it’s a stop-and-start thing. I wish I could tell you, but I don’t have an answer for that.

GARY BURRILL: Am I understanding right, then: Cochrane Hill after 2021, Beaver Dam and Fifteen Mile Stream, undeterminable? Okay.

GORDON WILSON: But they’re a little sooner along, yes, in the process.

GARY BURRILL: Thanks for those answers about Eastern Shore gold mining.

I wanted to ask you about something that the Minister of Energy and Mines was speaking about here last night, about the department completing a life-cycle analysis about GHG emissions at the biomass plants. This is in Brooklyn and Point Tupper. This is a subject of great interest to a lot of people because the answer to the question of the renewable status of burning biomass for energy hangs on the results of those life-cycle assessments.

I’m wondering if we understood correctly that it’s your department that is carrying out that work. Could you describe what is being done at the moment around a life-cycle analysis about the greenhouse gas emissions at the biomass plants?

GORDON WILSON: First off, I’ve had a few more questions on greenhouse gas emissions, and I do appreciate that. We can protect properties and we can divert from landfills and do all that stuff, but that’s the issue of the day. We’re very pleased and proud of what we’re doing in our cap and trade and the work that we’re doing to target and reduce emissions, and at the same time finding that balance, that way that we can hold our impacts that we see to our residents to a minimum.

In regard to the biomass world, I would like to also take an opportunity to weigh in on something I really do commend the Minister of Lands and Forestry for. It is something that I felt very passionate about also, and my colleague the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board spent a fair amount of time, early days, on the small wood-chip conversion.

I know the question is around Brooklyn Energy, but I think it’s important for everybody to understand that biomass can and should play a role in our overall strategy. We have to not just deal with greenhouse gas emissions and that and promote green renewable energy, but also - at the time, it wasn’t envisioned, but where we are in the forestry industry, it’s a win-win there.

Early days here - 2017 and 2018 - we took the time to take the key people over to P.E.I. and to look at the model they have over there, which is exemplary. They have 20-plus facilities that are feeding not only hospitals but long-term care facilities. This is where I look at it: it’s the low-pressure hot water taking off of fossil fuels. We hear from people like the Ecology Action Centre who will applaud us for that. Those are the areas where I’m hoping that, through time, we’re going to be able to see more and more opportunities.

In my previous career, I had the fortune - sometimes I look at where I am today and say, I gave up a job walking in the woods to be sitting here talking today. I had a great opportunity - I managed Crown land operations fairly extensively. That’s when Irving was operating in our area. They had an allocation of one million board-feet. E.M. Comeau had a half million. I did most of the layout work with them on that. At the same time, I did all the evaluations on old growth and travelled through some of the most beautiful pieces of property that we had in our backcountry.

What I saw and worked with at that time were some of the challenges and frustrations on us doing good forestry practices. Low-grade softwood in southwestern Nova Scotia, particularly since Bowater went down, has been one of our main challenges. We’ve always looked at ways with our folks down that way on how we can find that sweet spot, that area. I know district heat systems have been looked at. I know there’s been a lot of different things.

My background is in forestry. I’ve always looked at it as a garden. If you look at it from that perspective, if you simply look at it as you’re growing peas, beans, carrots - it doesn’t matter what it is. Trees are the same thing. If you just throw your seeds in the ground and walk away and expect to come back there in the Fall and pick something out of the ground, you’re going to be surprised. A forest is the same thing.

One of the interesting things that I was always challenged with was how we could do this work, especially in southwestern Nova Scotia. This low-grade product we’re talking about was so keen and instrumental. Where I found the challenges in particular - we would put pieces to be cut out for tender. Primarily, a lot of it was merchantable thinnings.

Think of your garden. To go in and take out low-grade wood - to incentivize somebody to do it, first off - is hard. To find a market for that wood is even harder. That’s what we’re facing right now. When you think of that garden and wanting to weed it, biomass played a big role. We didn’t call it biomass then. We called it low-grade pulpwood. We had Bowater going. We had a lot of different ways. We were shipping it to New Brunswick by barge and chipping it in Weymouth and things like that.

These opportunities to convert these buildings, from a Minister of Environment’s position - take Université Sainte-Anne, for example. How many times has anybody heard that that is the greenest university in Canada? Not very often. They’ve got to put that flag up more, even if it’s in French. They have wind power, solar, and biomass. That’s what they run that place on. I believe they have reduced their budget by $400,000 or $500,000 in their heating by doing that. It’s a great example.

When you look at how this can fit into our system, obviously it’s something I like to talk about. I think it’s something that sometimes gets mixed up a little bit by the general public. I think we’re almost past that now. I think we’re getting a better consensus around how it can play.

When you think on how it plays into those major prescriptions that you do early on in a forest to make it healthier, to open it up just a little bit so that regeneration - that next forest - can start coming in underneath it so that we don’t have to go out and plant. To me, that prescription that you do is the most important one, next to a pre-commercial thinning.

That’s a different story altogether. You don’t have to utilize the biomass that comes off a pre-commercial. You do have to utilize the biomass that comes off a commercial thinning. When we miss the opportunity to do that, we’ve missed a generation’s opportunity for that forest to be more productive and take pressures off others. The role that biomass plays in that whole sequence can’t be underestimated.

Again, when you look at getting rid of Bunker C, we have in the realm of 100 potential buildings in this province that we could - we’re doing a few. I really do feel that when we talk biomass, I wouldn’t be serving that little voice in the back of my head if I didn’t mention some of those things.

GARY BURRILL: The question I’m asking here is much more specific. If I understood correctly, the Minister of Energy and Mines spoke about an analysis being undertaken in the Department of Environment to determine net greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of a life-cycle analysis of, specifically, the Point Tupper and Brooklyn power plants.

I’m wondering if that analysis, which is a very important subject, is being undertaken. Are that information and the results of that analysis going to be made available to the public?

GORDON WILSON: Yesterday I did purposely sit in on the Minister of Energy and Mines’ opening remarks and probably the first half-hour of his questions. I will apologize - I had planned on staying for the whole thing.

As I had mentioned earlier, that synergy between the Department of Environment and Department of Energy and Mines was actually quite a surprise to me. I didn’t realize how much we had in common. I figured in preparing myself for today - I know a fair amount of what he does. Obviously, he knows more about what I do than I know about what he does, by your marks. Unfortunately, I did have to leave.

At this point in time, we don’t have any information on that that I’m aware of. I do know that the Department of Energy and Mines is key. I cannot understate how important a role they play in what we do to get to those areas and those targets that we talked about.

I guess it’s an envious position that I have in some cases. He gets a lot more money and I get a lot more pain because of it, is what typically has been happening. I’ll forgive him for that.

To answer, I don’t have anything specific on that. I do appreciate - we didn’t get many questions on biomass. I really do think it’s an important conversation. I did take up some time talking about how it should fit in from not only an Environment position, but a Lands and Forestry position. I do apologize for using up some of that time for that. It was the only chance that anybody even mentioned biomass, so I had a chance to capture that.

[7:00 p.m.]

GARY BURRILL: Thanks. With the couple of minutes we have left, I’d like to ask about the Province burning coal at the coal-fired plants. I understand that we’ve reached an agreement with the federal government to keep burning coal past the previous 2030 deadline.

Can the minister speak to what year we will now look to see the Province phase out the burning of coal?

GORDON WILSON: First off, it’s an important understanding to realize - we could even look at it as the history of the Province of Nova Scotia. When this province was electrified, it was built on a system that was built around coal. Our whole grid, our whole plan for heating your home and electrifying this province back in the day, was built around coal. I think the history of the province should always be recognized. That’s one of the challenges that we have.

We don’t have the benefits that Quebec had where they built their electrification around hydro. We wish we had the hydro that they had. We’re always reaching out to see if we can get it here.

In saying that, at the same time, we always have to be cognizant of where we can get there. The federal government has set some fairly clear goals for us as a country. I think it’s encouraging that at the same time they recognize us and what we’ve done. We are currently operating under an equivalency agreement with the federal government that will take us to 2030. I will say that the Minister of Energy and Mines and I, and our staffs, are constantly looking to find ways.

I will assure the member that the dependency we have on coal and the CO2 emissions we have is something I’m always working on not only with my counterpart but with our federal people. We’re working to find ways that we can move in that direction and get our dependency down. I think that’s for the best for all Nova Scotians.

THE CHAIR: Shall Resolution E7 stand?

Resolution E7 stands.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, minister.

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