HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2021

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

6:15 P.M.

CHAIR

Keith Bain

THE CHAIR: I call the Subcommittee on Supply to order.

We’re meeting today to consider the Estimates for the Department of Energy and Mines as outlined in Resolution E5, which reads:

Resolution E5 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $70,768,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Energy and Mines, pursuant to the Estimate.

The honourable Minister of Energy and Mines.

HON. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Go Leafs. It’s great to be with you guys tonight, to finally get started. We’ve been waiting for a while now. I’ll make a few opening comments. It shouldn’t be an hour, by any stretch, but we’ll get started.

I’m pleased to be able to share with you today a little bit about the work currently under way at the Department of Energy and Mines. I’d like to take a moment to thank individuals here. I’ll mention a few of them. We have our Deputy Minister Simon d’Entremont, who I’m sure all of you probably know, and our Financial Advisory Services, Remi MacDonell. I want to thank those guys and many other staff who are here with me today, who helped put this all together, and to help, hopefully, answer the questions for you folks in the best possible way that we can.

There’s a lot going on here at the Department of Energy and Mines. We’re pretty happy with a lot of that work and proud of the work we’re doing in Nova Scotia. The work we’re responsible for represents a significant contribution to both our province’s finances and creating more opportunities for all Nova Scotians.

I’ll begin today by focusing first on what the department is doing to achieve its mandate. Our estimated budget, as it has been read is about $70.77 million. The Department of Energy and Mines is focused on advancing the clean energy ambitions of our province and strategically and responsibly managing and promoting our province’s resources on behalf of Nova Scotians.

We’re delivering on our commitments because we know that facing climate change while also enduring a strong and growing economy are priorities for Nova Scotians. They are the foundations of a vibrant and prosperous province; they mean revenues that support the services most important to Nova Scotia and jobs and opportunities for communities.

It allows us to support our young people so that they can start their careers here. It allows us to focus on diversity in the clean energy sector through programs like Equal by 30, a commitment to increase the representation of women in the field by 2030. As a signatory to the campaign, our department has committed to taking concrete steps to promote gender equity. We will serve as an example for others to follow. Integrating a gender equality lens into our work, will promote gender equality in all levels of our work, making it a natural part of organizational culture and process; setting high standards for the recruitment, promotion and participation of women and diverse groups, adopting more rigorous requirement where necessary; committing to reporting our progress on a regular basis to our Equal by 30 partners.

It also gives us the ability to invest in programs that reduce emissions and move us toward Nova Scotia’s cleaner energy future. On that point, I think it is a very important note that more than 70 per cent of the department’s budget is allocated to clean energy, emission reductions, and green infrastructure. I think we all understand that the world is in a period of transition.

Fighting climate change has become perhaps the most pressing social issue of our time. Our government has made that a priority in this budget and is investing millions of dollars to advance our ambitious climate change agenda. We know that we need to find a way to supply the energy the world needs in a cleaner way. We need to find cleaner ways to mine for the copper that goes into wind turbines; the silver for solar panels; the lithium needed for batteries; and rare earth metals that are part of cellphones, computers and other electronic devices. Doing so will open the door to many more jobs and help us capitalize on a growing green economy.

We also know that Nova Scotians expect us to be good stewards of the environment, ensuring it is protected for the benefit of future generations. That’s why we have some of the most robust regulations governing resource development. That includes resources on land and those offshore.

We work with our partners in the federal government to ensure a consistent and strong approach to regulating resource development. That has resulted in important initiatives like the Georges Bank moratorium - protecting a valuable offshore area for the benefit of Nova Scotians today and tomorrow.

I want to take a moment today to acknowledge that the moratorium is up for renewal by the end of next year. We know that a lot of Nova Scotians are concerned about that decision and want to be reassured that the moratorium will be renewed. I want to let them know that the provincial government understands their feelings and also wants to see the moratorium renewed; we are looking, with our partners in the federal government, to ensure the review required by legislation before that can happen is completed as soon as possible.

Nova Scotia is a national leader in fighting climate change. We met the federal 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 13 years early. And we’re not stopping there. We’ve set some of the most ambitious emission reduction goals in the country. By 2030, our emissions will be 53 per cent below 2005 levels; by 2050, our emissions will be [Inaudible]

All of this is essential to remain competitive in the global marketplace. To reach our goals, we need to work together with the private sector, Mi’kmaw leaders, academia, municipalities, and not-for-profits. If we face this challenge together, I believe we will meet and exceed our goals.

One of our biggest successes in continuing opportunities for growth is energy efficiency. In 2020, Nova Scotia was recognized by Efficiency Canada as being number one in the country for electricity savings and third overall nationally for efficiency programs. This is an achievement we can all be proud of. Nova Scotians have achieved the success by being the best in Canada at using less energy.

We’ve reduced our electricity use faster than any other Canadian province - a full 11 per cent since 2008. That means families in all parts of the province are saving money on their energy bills. We continue to expand our energy efficiency programs and Nova Scotians are using them enthusiastically.

Our home warming program is helping low income Nova Scotian homeowners receive free energy efficiency upgrades. As a result, they’re saving an average of $900 per year on their energy bills every single year. That’s money that is going back into the pockets of some of the people who need it the most. More than 16,000 low income Nova Scotians have had free energy efficiency upgrades since 2007. Thousands of Nova Scotians have received discounts on their energy efficiency upgrades.

There are now roughly 1.2 million energy efficient products in Nova Scotia homes. More than 120,000 heat pumps have been installed in communities from Yarmouth to Meat Cove. Nova Scotians are now saving more than $180 million each year on their electricity bills through energy efficiency. As a result, more than 300 businesses and 1,400 people now work in the energy efficiency industry. In total, our energy efficiency efforts avoid more than one million tons of carbon emissions every year. This only enhances our position as a national leader in the fight against climate change and we are building on these successes.

Over the next few years, we’re investing to improve almost 2,400 Mi’kmaw homes and 11,500 public housing units in communities across Nova Scotia. This will create work in every corner of our province and drive our greenhouse gas emissions even lower. Organizations like Efficiency Nova Scotia and the Clean Foundation are doing a remarkable job at delivering these programs. I want to thank them and congratulate them on their results.

The work that went into developing this industry has positioned Nova Scotia for success. Now other provinces and countries look to us to set up similar programs.

Solar energy is another area of success for this department. According to the non-profit energy hub, Nova Scotia is number one in Canada for installing a solar power system. That’s because of our province’s rebates, financing options and lower installation costs. It’s another achievement we can be proud of. We will continue to offer a rebate of up to $6,000 to homeowners.

Our significant investments in solar energy are paying off. Two years ago, there were only 13 companies approved in Nova Scotia to install these systems; today, there are more than 60. That’s hundreds of new jobs. More than 500 families have added solar electricity to their homes under the SolarHomes Program rebate, plus we’ve seen dozens of community organizations approve to add solar panels to their buildings.

Several communities have expressed interest in developing solar gardens; we have just introduced a bill to establish a Shared Solar Program that will allow that to happen. It’s an exciting time for the solar industry and we want to make sure the growth is sustainable for the future.

Renewable energy use in Nova Scotia is increasing at a tremendous pace. Since 2007, renewable energy has more than tripled. Increasingly, more and more people and organizations want to be part of our clean energy future.

That’s why we introduced changes to create the Green Choice program. This program will give large electricity customers, including the federal and provincial governments, the ability to purchase clean energy electricity through an independent and competitive process. This will make our electricity system more flexible while creating green economic growth and new jobs in communities across our province.

This project will invest tens of millions of dollars into our green economy, creating jobs and prosperity. It will create an estimated 100,000-megawatt hours of new, renewable electricity. That is enough energy to power about 10,000 homes for a year. That is likely just the beginning. We’ve heard from large companies, academia, non-profits, and municipal organizations. They’re all interested in pursuing similar projects and we want to help them get there.

Our work with the federal government continues with the Low Carbon Economy Fund and the Investing in Canada Plan, an infrastructure plan. These investments support our transition to a clean growth economy. Some of the projects supported through these investments include: a new bikeway project for Halifax and Dartmouth; the SolarHomes Program; expanded energy efficiency programs and the expanded smart products program.

[6:30 p.m.]

Working with our federal partners will only build on our climate change successes. Much of this comes from our electricity plan, which was introduced in 2015. Nova Scotians said they wanted predictable power rates and greater accountability. The electricity plan is delivering. We are in a stretch of unprecedented electricity rate stability. This has given us the opportunity to take a long-term view of Nova Scotia’s energy future.

Power rates are important, but they are only part of a much bigger puzzle that includes electricity, transportation, home heating, international commodity prices, incorporating more renewables into our system, and keeping it all affordable. Our plan is to achieve overall energy stability and our plan is providing that and more.

Today, Nova Scotia Power is more accountable than ever before. Performance standards are in place for customer service, reliability and storm response. Plus, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board has the tools to ensure Nova Scotians pay only the lowest and actual cost of fuel for electricity. Through the electricity plan, government is opening the door to innovation and development.

Our work to implement the electricity plan continues with other innovative projects. We’ve invested in the electric vehicle charging stations to lower emissions and make Nova Scotia more accessible to electric vehicles. We’re building on that with the recently announced Electric Vehicle Rebate Program that is being administered by the Clean Foundation, investing $9.5 million to encourage more Nova Scotians to explore the options of an electric car or an e-bike. These are innovative projects that will lead to better overall energy stability.

Innovation is what leads to the ideas that make our businesses successful and creates jobs for Nova Scotians. It also drives down the price of renewable energy. The result is cleaner, affordable electricity for Nova Scotia families and Nova Scotia businesses.

One of our greatest opportunities for clean, renewable energy is likely still ahead of us. The potential for tidal energy remains strong and our commitment to developing this industry is even stronger. The future of tidal energy is now. Over the past 12 months, we’ve welcomed new developers and new investment in this industry. We’ve seen new technologies and designs, and we’ve seen tens of millions of dollars invested by companies and the federal government.

Many Nova Scotia companies are becoming involved in the supply chain that could see Nova Scotia expertise exported around the globe. We fund the Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy, or FORCE, and the Offshore Energy Research Association will continue working to keep Nova Scotia at the leading edge of this developing industry. The department will continue to set the framework to help this industry to grow and thrive. We know this is a long race, but we need to move toward the finish line at the appropriate level of urgency. Our commitment to this industry is unwavering and the reasons are clear: tidal is clean energy for us, Canada and the world - it is lower emissions that help us reach our climate change goals, it is jobs in rural communities and in growing a green economy.

Commercial success can take decades, but we also know the value of being a leader. Technology is developed for the tidal industry with further applications in rain science, defence, the fishery, and many other sectors. It’s this kind of crossover that leads to commercial success, export development and economic growth. Nova Scotia is a testing ground for the world’s leading tidal technologies and home to some of the best marine researchers in the world. We will continue to build on these advantages.

On the subject of geology, the Department of Energy and Mines continues to invest in leading edge geoscience for the development of our offshore. The oil and gas resources off our coast continue to represent a significant opportunity for economic development in Nova Scotia.

Looking back over more than a generation of exploration and production, our offshore has delivered for Nova Scotians. Over the past 20 years, our province has received about $4 billion in revenue. That’s money that goes directly towards paying for hospitals, schools, roads, internet access, law enforcement and services Nova Scotians use every single day.

On top of that, oil and gas companies have spent more than $3 billion on goods and services in our province. We’ve accomplished this with a workplace safety and environmental record that is second to none. Oil and gas developments have safely coexisted with the fishing industry and other sectors for over 30 years.

We have one of the strongest offshore safety and environmental protection regimes in the world. We’re a model for other jurisdictions. When companies come here, they do so under stringent rules that are strictly enforced by an independent regulator. We have confidence in the abilities of our offshore board.

Results of our offshore research are clear. We know there’s more oil and gas out there. Play Fairway Analysis told us more than 120 trillion cubic feet of gas and eight billion barrels of oil potentially lie off our coast. We remain committed to working with industry to help find it.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to outline the important work of the Department of Energy and Mines. Staff at the department are focused on working towards a more prosperous and inclusive Nova Scotia. They’re helping Nova Scotia stay a leader in the fight against climate change. They’re setting the conditions so that the private sector can create jobs and grow the economy. That’s how we’ll pay for programs and services Nova Scotians can count on. They’re ensuring there are fair opportunities for all Nova Scotians and they’re giving all of the reasons to be optimistic about our province’s future. With that, I’d be happy to take some questions.

THE CHAIR: We’ll start with the Progressive Conservative Party.

The honourable member for Inverness. You have one hour.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you for your opening remarks. I’d like to also acknowledge your department for their work over the past year and their work in putting together this budget.

I did have a chance to look over the budget figures and I’d like to start out with revenues in the department. Just a few clarifying questions on a few numbers here. Offshore forfeitures - there was $2 million in revenue for that. Can you give a little background on that? That’s essentially companies that had bid to do offshore work that have decided not to. Can you give some background on why they may have chosen not to?

CHUCK PORTER: That is BP that pays that fee to extend their licence for another year. That’s where that money comes from.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Last year, there was about $400,000 less for exploration claims. Can you give some background on what that might have been? I’ve noted that under exploration claims there was $400,000 less than expected.

CHUCK PORTER: That is on the mining side. Given COVID-19, the exploration was down considerably last year, so that’s why that number is what it is today, at the $400,000. It would probably be quite a bit more than that in any other normal year, but with things quite slow, certainly in the early stages of COVID-19 and on through, that’s an impact it’s had on the mining sector.

ALLAN MACMASTER: I can appreciate it if you can’t expand further. I was kind of thinking that a lot of occupations did slow down for a bit, but things like trucking never ramped down, I guess. It was essential. A lot of these work sites - were there difficulties throughout the year? Did companies just decide to shut things down for most of the year?

CHUCK PORTER: A couple of different examples here. Atlantic Gold would have been one of the only ones that would have continued to work through the COVID-19 period. They could do that and meet all the necessary requirements that Dr. Strang would have put in place in the province at the time. They didn’t stop and, of course, gold being what it is, their revenues were quite good - they were up last year. Others - largely prospectors would be the other side of that - were given extensions, actually quite reasonable to do so. They would be on a smaller scale. That’s why you see that number there. Atlantic Gold was one of the only ones that would have continued as they were. Others wouldn’t be as big, and I’ll just clarify that once you ask your next question.

ALLAN MACMASTER: I might just move back to BP. Has the department spoken to them and determined why they left? Is it a global problem - the price of oil with less demand for it? They’ve got projects all over the world and they take a very long-term view. Why did they choose to leave Nova Scotia?

CHUCK PORTER: Just to be clear, BP hasn’t left. If I’ve given that impression in my first answer, I apologize. They haven’t left. They continue to evaluate their situation and the well and have valid lease claims. They haven’t gone anywhere. They are still out there.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Did they give any reasons why they forfeited the claims that they did have? I presume they just felt they had better prospects elsewhere.

CHUCK PORTER: Further to that, the $2 million that you see is a deposit that they would have forfeited for last year. They’ve also got an extension, though, for an additional $3 million stake through to January 2022. They are very much out there doing their exploration as they normally would. At what scale or how much of that they’re doing, I don’t have that answer, but they are out there. They are still here offshore.

[6:45 p.m.]

ALLAN MACMASTER: That’s good to know. Here’s one that I can maybe combine into one question. Coal royalties were off $1 million last year, yet other royalties were up about $700,000. Can you give some background on what was happening there?

CHUCK PORTER: The coal royalties being down would be because of Donkin coal closing. Obviously, that’s going to have a huge impact on that. The other would be - Atlantic Gold was a big portion of that $700,000 that you referred to earlier being an increase in royalties. That’s where that would be. They would be your biggest. Gold being what it is on the markets and such proved to be, obviously, quite profitable for them.

ALLAN MACMASTER: This coming year, there is an expectation that all this, I guess what you would call, ordinary revenue is about $4 million, and that’s without any expectation of any more forfeitures by BP or anybody else. Is a lot of this coming from Atlantic Gold? Maybe you can expand upon that.

CHUCK PORTER: On the $4 million, there is very little fluctuation from last year to this year - gold up, coal down. There is a variable there of a few hundred thousand dollars, I think, but that is where that is.

If you were to look at - the honourable member for Inverness and many of you on the screen come from rural areas, some of which have had some mining and others that maybe don’t - the importance of those jobs in rural Nova Scotia, the spin-off effect is huge. A huge percentage of the dollars are spent right there locally in the community. Those jobs, big and/or small, are very important to our local rural economies, certainly here in the province of Nova Scotia.

We will see some fluctuation with things like the markets with regard to gold. Gold is one of those ones that has been crazy for the last number of years. It’s unbelievable how much it’s grown - I think over $2,000 an ounce at one point. I don’t know what it is today, right off the top of my head - maybe even more - but those royalties are, obviously, paying big while gold was high. It’s obviously the reason that Atlantic Gold is here and they’re doing their mining out there.

I suppose if it wasn’t doing as well, they probably wouldn’t be doing as much, but that’s only a guess. They may still see it. Gold was, at its cheapest, maybe $900 or $1,000 per ounce at one time that I can recall. It’s still probably very worthwhile taking out of the ground, going through the processing, and creating those jobs. Still very beneficial. Of course, the royalty might be a little bit less, but right now they’ve been doing very well the last few years.

That $4 million might not seem like a big number to some. It is quite a big number for the province, obviously, but it does fluctuate. It will fluctuate based on things like Donkin closing. If somebody else were to open, you would see that fluctuate again in the years ahead, but there is a bit of a variation there that we should expect to see, solely based on that royalty and/or new mines opening and closing in that area.

ALLAN MACMASTER: This one may be kind of outside your area, but I recently read something, and I don’t know if it’s true or not, but Atlantic Gold - there was a suggestion made that they haven’t paid any income tax or corporate tax over the last three years. I can appreciate if you don’t have an answer for that because it’s really more for the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, but can you comment on that one?

CHUCK PORTER: I have no idea. I can’t comment on that, but I’m sure if you get a chance to question the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board you may raise that. He and his department would certainly have a better idea. I have no idea whatsoever. I couldn’t speak to it.

ALLAN MACMASTER: I just thought I might throw it in there in case there might be a comment. I might get over to the other committee later this evening and ask that.

I guess when I look at all these revenues - and I know the state of things, the way they are, a fellow almost feels guilty asking about resources these days because it’s certainly not the things that are popular in the media. If anything, you get criticized for talking about resource development but we’re still using a lot of resources.

I look around me - everything I’m working at here, it’s resources that made the stuff that’s in front of me. Of course, the pandemic has meant we’re doing a lot less driving, which is good. There’s a lot less travel. I kind of miss it. Tourism is one of our big industries in our province, yet we have to realize it causes an enormous amount of pollution and it consumes a lot of resources.

We are using resources and I guess that’s kind of why I’m asking these questions about - in the province here, if we’re using them, is there a way that we could safely extract without causing environmental damage? Even with projections of moving towards renewable energy, we still have a need. Not everybody has an electric car, for instance. Even if we did, we’re still not ready to completely come off coal tomorrow.

Do you feel that your department has a mandate to develop resources while meeting all the environmental requirements and regulations?

THE CHAIR: We are losing you at times there, member. Hopefully, the Minister of Energy and Mines got most of that question.

The honourable Minister of Energy and Mines.

CHUCK PORTER: The honourable member talked about the media and maybe some things that aren’t popular, but we are still looking at mining these critical minerals that we need, like copper for our wind turbines, as we talked about. I mentioned a few of them in my opening comments, how important that is, not only here in Nova Scotia but across the country.

There are many resources, as many of us who are rural members certainly understand and see happening across this province regularly, that provide a lot of jobs in rural Nova Scotia, and we are doing it. We are doing it in a safe way, a responsible way, an environmentally friendly way. There are a lot of rules and regulations in place nowadays. Just ask anybody who is in that business what they have to go through, not only to set up shop, but just to maintain over how different it is now from what it used to be. There is a lot of good regulation in place and the safety and responsibility - but these folks, I believe, quite frankly, are good stewards of the land.

We’ve had a lot of discussion about land in recent weeks. Those landowners, those businesses, I think for the most part, and anyone operating, are good stewards of the land. They want to do the right thing and I think that they are doing the right thing. We have a job as a regulator to ensure that where things happen, that we’re there to help fix problems and, most importantly, to ensure that things don’t happen. Those rules are extremely important.

We have the offshore that we haven’t talked about a lot yet tonight, but I’m sure we will talk more about it. The offshore gas, we don’t know what that will mean. We know what it has meant in years past. We believe there’s still a future in that.

Everything won’t be electric cars overnight, I think it’s fair to say. I think it’s one piece of what we’re doing as we move forward in the new renewable energy world, but there are a lot of pieces. As the years continue to go by, we’ll see much of what we’ve seen in the past - the changes in technology that have advanced us in certain areas. I never really thought as a kid I’d be talking here today about electric cars. It’s strange in some ways but it has evolved to be quite normal in others.

We’re looking at charging stations and investments we’ve made, and more investments to be made as we change the rules, as we invest in programs, as we change the the legislation that we’re seeing to help us advance these projects is a great thing. We’ll continue to see that.

The solar piece is another big piece we talked about with our solar program. We’re seeing an awful lot of interest in that. We’re seeing a lot more industry, a lot more companies - now over 60 in the province alone who want to be competitive in this field, who will be able to bid on projects as these kinds of investments are put out, as we go forward in the years ahead. It’s exciting times in that area.

The technology, as you and I both know, has changed so much in a short time. We’re all carrying a cellphone, as an example. Who would have thought about that when we were going to school? Probably none of us who are on this screen. You might have, you’re a little bit younger than some of us are. Mr. Chair would never have thought about carrying a cellphone when he was in school, I guarantee you, and maybe a couple of others who are on this screen as well.

It’s quite a thing as we advance in technology. The same holds true for our resources. Things are done a lot different than they used to be. Again, these are very important resources for Nova Scotia and we have to have a good balance. Electricity will play a big part. We have an ambitious climate change agenda where we talk about reaching certain points. We’re already well ahead.

We’ve seen our Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, as you all would remember, some of you back in 2007. I was in the House in 2007-08. I was in the House in those days. Although it has been talked about in recent days, maybe, as being something that was torn apart or gutted or being critical of, I actually look at it totally differently. It was the first building block as we move forward. It was a beginning, it was a path.

We continued, as successive governments continued, to build on that and I think you will see those things change as we further advance, as new technologies come along, to new ways of doing business. There’s a huge piece around all of that. The environment and the Department of Energy and Mines go hand in hand, really, when you think about what goes on in this province and probably across the country.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Well, we’re certainly using all these things, whether it’s energy or materials. If we can’t do it safely in this country, where in the world can it be done safely, you know?

I’d like to move on to Nova Scotia Power, a few questions related to what their energy mix looks like. There’s been discussion, especially recently, about if we’re moving away from coal, how are we going to do it? There has been some discussion about possibly having another transmission line connecting between ourselves and New Brunswick, and into Quebec, whatnot. Can you give some idea on what the department’s vision is for the future of the energy mix for Nova Scotia Power?

[7:00 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: Thanks for the question. A lot going on with regard to the topic that the member for Inverness has raised. I think the question was around what the goal may be. The goal is obviously more clean - the most clean as we can get. Most importantly, affordable for Nova Scotians. That’s always been - it has been an issue, as you would well know. We’ve done a pretty good job in Nova Scotia over the last number of years with a stable rate. We need to continue down a path that allows us to maintain that. That is first and foremost for me as minister, I think for government, and for anybody. I think every rate payer would agree. Keeping our rates stable is vital.

There are multiple things with new technologies that are on the horizon and things that have been worked on for awhile, and we continue to work on. I think you asked around the percentage of things now. Today, coal would make up 60 per cent, as an example; post-Maritime Link, 35 per cent.

You’ve already heard today’s Premier talk about getting off coal by 2030. Well, you’ve got to get to that path. That’s only nine years away and those years are going to go by quick, so how are you going to get there? You’ve got to get there by having a good plan and a good path to get there that’s affordable at the same time - always affordable and the best deal for Nova Scotians.

Wind is pretty popular in Nova Scotia today. It makes up 20 per cent. Post-Link it will still be at 20 per cent, but more wind development is in discussion. It’s now much cheaper than it used to be. It used to be the most expensive, if I recall, or one of the most expensive options was wind. It’s considerably cheaper than when it first came up. It’s still an option that we will continue to build on.

We have hydro. It makes up about 10 per cent right now, and gas is 10 per cent. That won’t change after the Link, or at least not in the immediate future.

We have the future, as we continue to discuss what the future looks like. What will it look like? What are the options that will be presented to Nova Scotians for clean, affordable energy? Some of those options - little to no coal, as you’ve heard about, by 2030. There’s an ambitious goal there to reach that target.

We have battery development, which is a very interesting piece. I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen what this looks like. They’re basically big containers but they’re battery backup, much like a generator would work, as I understand it. That technology is still relatively new, but I think we’re going down a path where that will have a purpose here in Nova Scotia, especially around some industry where it could be very helpful. You’ll probably hear more about that as we advance in that and we get to understand it a little bit better. I’m not sure what the cost of that is. I think it’s hard to put a price on it right now, unless you went out and did an RFB or an expression of interest to say, what’s out there around the world? What options do we have? What capacity in batteries could you add?

You’ve got more wind, which is something that when I was a kid you never thought of, or it certainly didn’t look the same. You saw the old windmills on farms and things from days gone by, but we’re certainly seeing now what we refer to as wind farms, some of them quite big, where you see a considerable amount of these wind towers. They are generating a fair bit of electricity.

More of that is, obviously, a plan as well. You have to have a lot of options. You can’t put all your eggs in one basket, as they say. You have to have these different options that are out there, and as the technology changes, so do they. I’ve talked about the solar program that we just put together and will invest in, and we have invested in over the years.

Solar will also be an interesting piece. I think I may have said it during the bill briefing and second reading, both. It will be something - we’re going to go out and consult with folks, as we’ve talked about, with regard to this new solar program. I’m quite interested to see what the uptake will be and the interest will be, not just from the industry players - those that like to install solar - but from the general public, not-for-profit groups, and others that might be out there. This whole idea of a solar garden is new to a lot of people, so I’m very interested to see what kind of input we will get through the consultative process.

I’m really hopeful that a lot of people will attend - however we do it, virtually or otherwise - that there will be a lot of questions around the understanding of it. People may not understand clearly. They see a solar panel on somebody’s roof and they may have an impression of that, but how does that really work? I think there’s a real definitive piece of - how will this work for me, how will I benefit from it? Those are the parts that we’ve really got to do a good job communicating. If you want to get the interest from something like this, it has to be affordable and it has to be available to them and it has to be understood. They have to be well-educated on what this means and how they buy in and how they benefit from it.

Those are a lot of options that we are talking about. The green jobs that go along with this over the years ahead, as all these different pieces are developed, there is a lot of opportunity for employment in this province around the green jobs as we move into God-knows-how-many years of development. I think as we are on this path and as we have seen certainly in the last few years with more wind going up, you see a lot of that construction. There is a big cost with jobs, as well as being constructed. There’s material and so on, so there is a big financial spin-off to each of these kinds of things. I think we’ll only see that grow in the years ahead.

As the technology evolves, it’s just hard to say what we’ll see next for options. It’s kind of an exciting time around the energy market. It’s just hard to say where it will go. I hope that covers some of it for you, at least.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Well, it certainly does. I’m glad to hear you use the word affordable because that’s something that was removed from energy policy back, ironically, when the NDP was in office, who would be proclaiming to the highest heavens themselves about the importance of keeping things affordable. It was they who removed that word from the policy. I’m glad to hear that.

You’re right, these things are exciting. I know I’ve looked at some of these options personally, including solar. I just didn’t find the economics were quite right at the time, and may still not be in my case. That doesn’t mean to say that I don’t think we should be open to them and to seeing what is possible.

You mentioned something about storage, some comments on storage there. It’s probably too early to ask you any questions on this but as we move towards possibly more renewable forms of energy, do we know what the economics would be of having more storage? Is it just really too soon to be asking these questions? I know the issue of storage is still kind of a mystery. It has not been solved. Any thoughts on that?

CHUCK PORTER: A very good question. You did touch on a couple of things there. The affordable piece is absolutely a must. We’re used to affordable rates the last number of years. We’ve been able to maintain that. There was a period, the honourable member may recall, where I was the Energy Critic back quite a few years ago, and rates were by no means stable. Things were up and down. There were huge percentages over a 10-year period. Many election battles, as you will recall, were fought on the energy side of things because of the instability.

We’re quite happy today in this province to have stability. It’s absolutely critical that we remain on that mindset and that path, especially with all of the new coming on board. When people talked about renewables a few years back, all they saw were dollar signs. They knew that there was a cost associated with it and they were afraid of what it might be, but what we’re showing is that we can maintain stable, affordable rates. The economics do have to make sense, to your point - very much have to make sense. This is part of what we’re trying to do. Solar is a good example, again.

Educating the public, going out, consulting, getting their input. We’re really hopeful - I’m very hopeful - that they’ll ask these questions. These are important questions. What does that mean for me when I get my bill every month or every second month, however it may work for you. Am I going to see a savings? How does that energy flow? Do I make money selling back? I’ve heard a variety of different questions already asked, just by way of introducing the bill. The media were on it and asking different questions. I expect the public will do the same. Again, their number one concern is going to be stable and affordable rates, no matter what kind of source we’re building from.

On the storage piece, we’re looking at a number of things. The global trends certainly matter. We don’t have a definitive answer. You’re right when you mention that - is it early to ask the question. It’s never too early to ask the question; it may be too early to give you the answer, though. We haven’t been able to really define what that does mean. There are a lot of things that the world is looking at by way of - what exactly is storage, how many options for storage are there? There are multiple options. Are they affordable? We don’t know because we have not yet been able to define that price.

Once we do, though, it will certainly be something that the department talks about in great detail and make clear that this is not a path that we can travel. When it is, and it makes sense, we may see that, like other forms of renewable energy, options go down in price as it becomes more popular and more people desire it. Wind is an example of that. Solar has been something that has been expensive, or more expensive, in the past but we’ll see where this goes as well.

Really, there is no definitive answer on storage yet, but something that we certainly have our eye on, we’re heavily involved in. We’ll work with our partners, Nova Scotia Power and others who wish to - if we go out - for example, batteries. If that was something that we wanted to do by way of storage and to have, we would put that out in all likelihood to a competitive market, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves. When I said this earlier to staff - we should always be cognizant that Nova Scotia Power is the provider in Nova Scotia. They own the grid. The electrons have to get there and they have to move them, so there’s always a partnership that we have with them. I think we have good partnerships with them, strong partnerships.

At the same time, let me be clear, they understand Nova Scotia’s desire for stable, affordable rates in the long term. That is where I am and that’s where I’m sure that they understand we all are, so they have to look at all that as well. Maybe others that bid on things as they go out - if RFPs go out, for example, for other things like batteries or other options, we’ll see as we move forward in the renewable world. Again, we’ll always be on the path of affordable rates for Nova Scotians.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Last May, I was paying 73 cents per litre for home heating oil and most recently I was paying $1.08. It certainly pays to have eggs in more than one basket because fuel oil was much cheaper last year. It has come right back up in price.

[7:15 p.m.]

I’d like to switch now to clean growth and climate change. This is [Inaudible] In fact, I think it’s about 75 per cent of your budget. EfficiencyOne is probably the most significant part of this section of the budget. I’ve always liked the work EfficiencyOne does. I think in a practical way, it makes a difference for people. I think it has done a lot to help the average Nova Scotian to reduce their energy usage, and simple things like LED bulbs and heat pumps and whatnot.

I want to just take maybe about 10 more minutes and then I’m going to turn it over to my colleague, the member for Cumberland North. I think EfficiencyOne is pretty much par for the course again this year in terms of what they’ll be doing, but also in this part of your budget is sustainable transportation and carbon reduction. Can you give us some examples of some of that activity that’s planned for the coming year?

THE CHAIR: I think in order for us to provide the minister an opportunity to give us a correct answer - we’re only one minute away from our COVID-19 break, so maybe at this point we’ll take our 15-minute COVID-19 break. The minister could get an answer while he’s on break and we’ll return at 7:32 p.m.

[7:17 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[7:32 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: Order. The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will resume. We have 19 minutes left in the Progressive Conservative caucus before we turn over to the NDP caucus.

We finished off the round with the member for Inverness asking a question to the minister. We’ll turn it over now for the minister to give his response.

The honourable Minister of Energy and Mines.

CHUCK PORTER: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the honourable member for Inverness. He was asking about the climate change initiatives and the kinds of things we have going on. There’s a lot going on. We have EfficiencyOne. I think he touched on that a bit and the programs that we offer. We have 2,500 people working across the province. All of you in this room, or virtually tonight, as MLAs would clearly understand the benefits of what those folks are doing out there by way of programs. We all have them come into our offices - I won’t speak for everyone else. I’ll speak for me.

Over all my years, there have been many people who have taken advantage of these programs. We offer them up a lot, whether they’re wrapping your water heater, looking for a heat pump, putting in new bulbs, whatever it might be - shower, faucets, and so on. It’s been a big uptake on this in my area and we’re keeping a lot of people busy, to the tune of about $70 million a year being invested in a lot of these kinds of programs through EfficiencyOne.

We have the sustainable transportation, or active transportation, that was asked about as well. I’ll get to that in a minute, But one of the other things that we’ve invested in heavily around the efficiency pieces is housing. I know that housing is now under Housing and Infrastructure or some new name, but as someone who was involved in that through the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing at the time, a short time ago, I know that we shared an announcement with the Department of Energy - maybe two years ago, a year ago Fall now; time goes so quickly here - around the investment we’re making in our housing stock.

In my opening comments, I talked about the investment in Mi’kmaw housing - certainly our housing, we own near 12,000 units. We have nearly 12,000 public units in the province of Nova Scotia, the Department of Infrastructure and Housing - a lot of investments are being made there.

The other part of that is normally as residents, you could apply for the Efficiency services. That’s now available to landlords for their rental units, which is great. The benefit has to flow to the renter, not to the landlord, which is a key piece of this saving them hundreds of dollars annually and their energy bill. That’s a great program.

We will continue to partner with other departments on the active transportation side of things, whether it’s electric vehicles and things along those lines or whatever may come along. The trails piece was an example of what active transportation - the Connect2 program, it was called at the time. I know that we had a few announcements out my way back some years ago - probably as recently as a couple of years ago - of new trails, trails being built - parts of trails - connecting the others and so on. Another great program when it comes to active transportation.

I think you’ll see a lot more of those kinds of programs as we move forward with the new technologies that come along - other ideas for energy savings. Those are always things that government is certainly interested in doing. It keeps coming back to one thing, and that is affordable rates and sustainable rates and options for Nova Scotians to reduce their energy consumption. Some of these simple little things like replacing bulbs and some of the other stuff that I talked about does help through energy efficiency. You will see a direct savings in that.

Whenever government can support programs like that - I know I’ve certainly been very favourable over the years, regardless of where I’ve sat in the House - to these programs and to promote them. We spend a lot of time promoting these programs to constituents when they come in, whether they’re talking about their electricity bills and they’re having problems - we’ve all dealt with constituents who have had some problems from time to time - for one reason or another, their energy bills are high and maybe we set them up on a budget program or we worked with them, at the same time asking them, are you aware of this program or that program through Efficiency Nova Scotia? We’ve done an awful lot of work around that and continue to do that, because there is a direct benefit to that individual or their family in their home.

It’s very much worth doing. I look forward to seeing what else comes in budget years ahead and the amount of money, but we are investing heavily in that right now. We’ll continue to do that, solely on the belief that it’s good programming.

ALLAN MACMASTER: I have one more question before I turn things over to my colleague for Cumberland North. What is the government doing to reduce its energy consumption? Is there anybody monitoring and in charge of that? I think about travel - as we know, this year with the pandemic, a significant reduction in travel, which has been a great thing for the environment.

I remember when the pandemic first hit, hearing stories that the canals of Venice were clear for the first time in hundreds of years, I think - just one example of what it means when there are fewer people travelling. Office buildings - I know they’re trying to improve efficiency all the time - even small things like the printing of reports.

What is the government doing to reduce its consumption and usage of energy and materials?

CHUCK PORTER: I would say a few things. The member spoke about travel being reduced. Yes, it certainly has. I know in the departments that I’ve been part of so far in the last 12 months, there have been huge reductions - very little with regard to travel because that has been the safe thing to do - staying home. I think most people have done that.

Segueing from that, staying home and working from home have also created energy savings. People obviously aren’t driving their cars every day. There are things like that, so we’ve seen that. Outside of that, this is the greater part of that climate action plan that we’ve been talking about that. We look at our fleet as government is coming out with electric vehicles. I think we have a couple. Minister Mombourquette at the time, I think, took a tour from Halifax to Cape Breton in an electric vehicle, if I’m not mistaken.

Maybe it wasn’t him. It wasn’t ours, I’m being told. Anyway, we drove this vehicle. As the fleet evolves - and we have a lot of fleet, as I’m sure you’re aware and can appreciate, within the provincial workforce - those are options we have.

We have in our buildings - doing more for green electricity in our buildings, whether they be new buildings we move into or construct. The green electricity by 2025, we have a date set around trying to get our government buildings more energy efficient.

Certainly, working from home, which we’ve all been doing, and a lot of us are still doing - if not every day, a lot of our days - a lot of people are certainly doing it outside of government. There are probably more people working at home over the last year than ever before. I’ve only just recently noticed - since I travel in and out of the city - in the last week or so, in the morning I see traffic starting to build back up a little bit, more than it was in the last year actually. It was well reduced.

I think we’re learning that working from home with the technology is certainly something we can do. It has worked very well. I’m actually quite impressed at how well it has worked in this session. It’s something new for us, but we’ve been able to make it work. If we can do it, anybody can do it, I would say to you. I think it’s something that companies will probably start to look at as a huge savings, both on an energy front and a financial front. With a lack of travel, the world is only a click big, as I say. You can be anywhere in the world online now and have these kinds of conversations. It’s quite amazing.

Again, one more piece of technology we have that allows us to do what we need to do, regardless of the kind of work or where you work. If you look at job postings, it’s been interesting, because if you look through them, you’ll see a lot of remote or availability to work at home now actually being posted right in them. It’s kind of unique. You’ve never seen that before, but now you’re seeing companies that are reaching out, looking for people and offering them, almost as a benefit along with the rest of your benefits you would normally get, the option to work at home, realizing the savings there, the energy efficiency that is there, more time with your family that is there. There are a variety of pieces to all of this now that are part of that greater climate change action plan. I think whether you believe in that or you don’t, there’s a part of that that actually holds true that is real. There is a savings there in energy, time, money, and everything else that is truly there. I think that’s great.

I said it earlier and I’ll say it again, the energy piece of what’s going on around the world is quite exciting. What will happen in the next 10 years? I know there are some people now - the member for Antigonish is probably talking to his watch or something. He’s a pretty tech-savvy guy. You see all these new advances. What will that mean? We talked about resource development - the things that you need to make those little things work, our cellphones or these computers that we’re talking on tonight. It’s all part of this greater efficiency that we’re trying to craft, not only here in the province of Nova Scotia, but across the country and nationwide and around the world.

I think we’re right out front. I used to say around technology, I don’t want to be on the bleeding edge, but certainly on the leading edge. I think we strive to be on the leading edge on many of these fronts as we move forward.

ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. Mr. Chair, I ask that you turn the remainder of my time over to my colleague for Cumberland North.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cumberland North with seven minutes left in the first hour.

[7:45 p.m.]

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague. Minister, you likely are very aware that we’ve got a lot happening up in Cumberland North with regard to both energy and mines. We have the Wallace Quarries as well as two active salt mines in Cumberland North that we’re very proud of.

I want to talk to you a little bit about energy first. As you know, we have a large wind farm when you enter the province of Nova Scotia at Fort Lawrence. I’m wondering if there are any future plans for another wind farm on the marsh.

CHUCK PORTER: I appreciate the question. Welcome to the debate this evening. You mentioned the salt mines. Yes, it has been there for a long time. I’m very familiar with those - great for our province.

As for the wind farms on the marsh, I would say the Province will create the options and the opportunities for wind, but for the private investment, they’ll pick the sites. They’ll do that siting and look at all of those options through the regulations and things like that, which are in place and the rules around that - environmental friendliness and things. Our Province has investment in things like bird studies. We would know in some areas where maybe there were issues or not, a bit of risk, and that kind of stuff. We would leave that to private investors that are interested in taking part in those kinds of investments themselves and creating more wind farms - totally up to them.

We certainly create those options. We’ll go to an RFP. We said we wanted to increase by X number of megawatts, we would certainly put the RFP out. The private industry would bid on that, and they would do so with knowledge of all the necessary pieces that they would need to be aware of, whether it was environmental, and all of the rules that are currently in place.

All of those bidders, given that we are fairly far advanced for a little province here in Nova Scotia - we have lots of wind here now, and room for more. Most of those bidders would probably be very well aware of all of those factors to bid. They would have that knowledge. These folks are highly technical and professional. They would be well aware of what the requirements were to meet a certain RFP.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: As you are aware, wind is one of our biggest assets coming off the Tantramar Marsh. I know there’s a lot of investment for solar through the government through rebates. Has the government considered doing any rebates for individual residents for wind or even geothermal?

I’m asking because I’m looking for ways - and my colleague referenced the price of oil. The fact is, there are a lot of people who would love to move to a more renewable energy source, say, for their homes. However, the cost of the capital to do so can often be too much. I’m wondering if the government has considered rebates for individual windmills or geothermal for residential homes.

CHUCK PORTER: I know we’re running a bit on time, but if it’s okay, I’ll take the time to answer the question - just a couple of minutes.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. Sorry to interrupt, but the time for the first hour for the PC caucus has expired.

The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Surely it would be polite to let the minister answer the question while he’s got the answer present to his mind. I’d be happy for the minister to do that.

CHUCK PORTER: Thank you for the opportunity to answer. Wind is certainly something we’re all very familiar with in the Tantramar Marsh. I don’t know if there has ever been a time that the wind hasn’t been blowing through there. Whenever I’ve crossed through, you can feel the car moving, that’s for sure.

On the rebates - solar you also talked about. We have the new program that we’re just talking about introducing now before the Legislature. That’s part of that. You will see things like that solar garden are an option in there, where individuals have an opportunity to buy in and actually have a direct impact on savings.

Wind is a little bit different. Small-scale wind, they would argue, is not as beneficial as what we’re seeing like the Tantramar Marsh. The benefits are coming by that massive energy creation from bigger-scale projects that are putting electrons on the grid. That’s where the savings are. We see that being done quite efficiently and at a good cost.

History, from what I’m told, will show that small-scale has challenges and is not necessarily cheaper or - I don’t want to say not worth investing in, because anything is worth investing in, but maybe not quite as efficient or as economical to invest in. We would really need to look at that by way of scale, but your efficiency is in the larger-scale project like you see in your home on the marsh.

Thank you again to the honourable member for Halifax Chebucto for the opportunity.

GARY BURRILL: I’d like to begin by asking the minister a few questions around Atlantic Gold. Thinking first about the fact that way back in 2008 when Atlantic Gold received its environmental assessment, one of the things that it was required to do was to purchase some land nearby for conservation. The time limit in the EA was four years.

We haven’t heard about that in the interim, but recently, a spokesperson out of the Department of Environment and Climate Change spoke about how a draft agreement for the purchase of 200 and some hectares worth of land protection with attractive biodiversity had been reached.

I want to ask the minister first: Does the minister know whether this land swap, in effect, has been carried out and if the purchase to this point has been made?

CHUCK PORTER: I thank the honourable member for the question. Unfortunately, that is a question for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, not something that falls under my purview. You would be advised to perhaps ask that question when the honourable Minister of Environment and Climate Change takes his place in Estimates, honourable member.

GARY BURRILL: Well, the development of Atlantic Gold’s multi-sited proposal - one of the key questions related to it is how it relates to protected land. I think a key question for mining development in the province at the moment is: Where protected land is related to proposed mine development, is this kind of land swap that we see about the Moose River Atlantic Gold project the kind of picture that the department has in mind?

CHUCK PORTER: I don’t have any details around land swaps like this. I’ve just been asking staff here if there has been anything that we’re aware of; we’re not. Our job is to regulate the natural resources in the province, not to deal with the land issue. There would be protected parts. If there were protected lands, you would be looking at the Department of Environment and Climate Change.

Obviously, we work together as a government through a variety of departments when it comes to these things. There would be applications that would need to be made for expansions and things like that, that again would have to follow through on environmental policies and procedures. We would all work together on that, but I’m not aware of that.

If there is information that I can get, I would be happy to provide it to the honourable member, but in this room this evening, I am not aware of any swap with regard to that land.

GARY BURRILL: The whole question of development of the Atlantic Gold proposal is one of the most important questions in mining development of Nova Scotia today, of course. People are looking at the Beaver Dam and Fifteen Mile and Cochrane Hill proposals - their applications - very closely.

I’m thinking about the fact that that company, as I said, Atlantic Gold - that’s its previous name - St. Barbara - that company, in fact, was not in compliance with its 2008 EA to get that land in place within four years. It took them 12 years to do that.

[8:00 p.m.]

What I would like to ask the minister is if that non-compliance is a factor at all to the department in his evaluation of the three new mining proposals that Atlantic Gold is bringing forward?

CHUCK PORTER: Any of these assessments that are done are obviously done through the Department of Environment and Climate Change, but I can tell you that I think there’s a federal piece as well as a provincial piece of the environment that has to be done by way of the EA, and expansions would fall under that based on size. There would be a lot of very rigorous things to go through. The application process would be very stringent.

I can tell you that when we talk about our agenda on climate change and all of the things we talked about, whether it’s biodiversity or other things, we know that there are good stewards of the land in this province. We believe that the Province is also very supportive. In fact, we know the Province is extremely supportive of that good stewardship of the land.

There is a very rigorous part to getting an application to open a mine or a quarry or a pit or any of that. Again, I would say that the minister more responsible for this - now, we would partner on this, obviously, in some ways, but the minister more responsible for this would be the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. When you get to that opportunity, I would suggest he’s probably going to be able to elaborate a bit more on that.

These things don’t pass easily. There is consultation that takes place. They are lengthy to get through. You have to be very definitive about the kind of application you’re making. Are you expanding? Are you creating something new? There would be all kinds of things around the environment that would have to be done.

From my experience from these kinds of things that are - whether they’re a slate rock quarry or they’re some other kind of gypsum mine or what have you - I can recall back some years ago, where I come from in West Hants, the gypsum expansion that was trying to happen there. Many years went by and still permits weren’t offered for those expansions because it was very, very rigorous.

Then, unfortunately, the price of gypsum and things around the world - and sheet rock was being made elsewhere - synthetic, new styles, new kinds coming from other parts of the world. That business has closed and has been closed, as you’re probably aware, for many years.

Trying to get a permit to do any of that kind of work in this province is very, very rigorous, and so it should be. I think it’s safe to say that the province is tough on these things. We need to be tough when we’re talking about environmental issues such as these.

GARY BURRILL: I think there is a great deal of public interest about the Department of Energy and Mines’ position toward Atlantic Gold. I mean, Atlantic Gold has the four projects - one operating, three pending approval.

I guess what I really want to ask the minister is: Are the deficiencies in fulfilling the conditions of its original environmental assessment of Atlantic Gold in its operating project in Moose River Gold Mines - I’m thinking in particular about those 39 environmental charges that Atlantic Gold has sustained in Moose River. Are these relevant to the thinking of the minister’s department as the department looks toward the pending applications in the future for approval of the three proposed sites? Does this make any difference? Is it in the equation or not?

CHUCK PORTER: Along the lines of what I spoke about a few minutes ago, Mr. Chair, I think Environment and Climate Change and government as a whole, certainly our department - all departments - are supportive of very rigorous procedures before you would ever be permitted. If there is something going on by way of charges or wrongdoing, there’s a process for that. Environment and Climate Change enforces these rules. Again, this would fall under them.

When it came to offering up new with the same company - you’re referencing Atlantic Gold here, so what you’re trying to get at - I think what I’m reading into this is that there’s an issue with Atlantic Gold and the process and procedures that they have followed. Should they be permitted to expand and go farther if there’s some infraction? That’s the word that you’re looking for.

I think all things are probably considered, quite frankly. I can’t speak for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, but I would suggest strongly - again, this is a question for him and the folks in that department, but I would think any of us as Nova Scotians, as government departments - certainly our department works closely with Environment and Climate Change when it comes to mines and energy. All things would be assessed, would all be part of that. I can’t tell you what the outcome will be without that happening, because I can’t predict that. That’s part of it.

We have to also realize - and I know that not everybody is a proponent of mining, whether it be gold or gypsum or rock quarries and what have you or coal or any of the things that exist today in the province - all may not be favourable to that, but the reality also is that there’s an economic piece to that. When done correctly and following the rules and meeting all of the necessary environmental requirements - take Atlantic Gold as an example. There are 300-plus people working out there. Tens of millions of dollars would be the spinoff effect for that part of the province. Those are good things too.

Along with that is this balance. You have to be able to have an economy, and you have to be able to have a climate around the environment that works together. I think that we have worked strongly at that over the years and have made those comments. I think there’s a place for both, that they can exist. I will agree that the environmental piece is a big piece. I don’t think that anyone in this government has ever said differently. Certainly our new Premier has charted a path for the Environment and Climate Change action plans with strong goals. I would say that he would very much agree with where we are at.

I’m sure you may get a chance at some point, as the Leader of the NDP in this province, to stand in your place, as I know you will, and you will ask those questions as they are relevant to you and to the folks who you represent as well. That’s okay. That’s good. That’s the way it should be. Debate is healthy, as we always say.

Those options exist for you, but again, your other option, honourable member, is certainly the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who would probably have more to say around any infractions that might exist, EA processes and policies, enforcement rules, and potential outcomes that may occur because of that.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, minister, for answering those questions about Atlantic Gold.

I would like to ask you a few questions about the Electric Vehicle Rebate program. In the announcement for the program, I think the figure was $9.8 million that the rebates were going to come to. In looking in the budget documents and trying to understand where that comes from - I’m looking in the Clean Growth and Climate Change section, Page 7.6 in the budget - am I to understand that that $9.8 million is a component of that $52.949 million Budget Estimate on Page 7.6 - after your staff is able to see where I’m looking. I’m trying to understand where in the budget the $9.8 million comes from or belongs.

CHUCK PORTER: To the honourable member, a couple of things: $9.5 million. You were close - $9.5 million is the number involved in that EV program. That money is coming out of the final forecast for 2021. It’s not in the actual number that you quoted by way of the upcoming budget. That came out of the 2021 final forecast.

That’s a great program; $9.5 million is a substantial investment in this. New electric cars - $3,000 in rebate; even a used can get a couple of thousand dollars. E-bikes, which is something new again - an interesting piece of equipment, if you will - $500 you can get rebated on that. Hybrids are available as well. That is an electric/gas and a plug-in. It has both - you actually physically plug it in. Those also are available.

Just to be clear on the $9.5 million, honourable member, the final forecast is where it is from.

GARY BURRILL: The minister was mentioning the subsidy for used vehicles being part of it. My understanding is that part of the difficulty here is that there’s not a parallel subsidy from the federal government on the used electric vehicle side. Has the department been doing any advocacy with the federal government or interfacing with the federal government in any way to try to make this side of the EV rebate program more effective?

CHUCK PORTER: I think it’s clear that federal advocacy is something that happens every day. You are right when you talk about the feds not having a program, that same rebate. Our focus is not necessarily - although some will buy new, I don’t know what the number will be. This is something new. There will be new vehicles purchased.

From what I hear, from calls I have received, there’s not much available. These are very hard to come by. I think the rebate is part of helping to drive that, but these cars are also expensive. I don’t know the figure right off, but I know they’re quite expensive.

Our focus, as we talk about climate change and our action plan and more cleaner and greener and friendlier opportunities, is in the used, obviously. That’s why there’s a rebate available on that. We want to encourage folks who can afford to buy those used vehicles as they present themselves for sale. Certainly the e-bike is another option that we’re quite interested in that we want to be able to provide to folks, that $500 rebate that goes along with that. We talk to the feds every day when it comes to what program and money they can bring to Nova Scotia. Any dollar that we can bring to this province and any community is a good thing. We’ll constantly be talking.

[8:15 p.m.]

As the green agenda moves forward with the federal government, and their ambitions as well, nationwide, there will be a variety of conversations that will happen. We will try to take advantage of every opportunity that we have in every department and every market that’s out there, certainly on the energy side. We know that there’s a lot of growth to happen over the years ahead when it comes to cleaner, greener types of energy and development - again, whether that be wind or batteries or more of something else, potential hydro with tidal development.

The tidal development discussion has gone on, as you would well know, honourable member, for all the years that you have been in the House and around, from the days that you first came in. A lot of years, it has gone on. Before I was elected, there were discussions about tidal energy, and I come from around the area where some of that and Minas Energy at the time, which is in my backyard, was part of the development of some of the first that were out there.

It has proved challenging so far, but I am hopeful that one day we will see that very, very strong current out there in the Bay of Fundy, that massive tide, be taken advantage of and we can win, as I call it, out there, and we can create some really great options for electricity here at home, which I think would benefit this province greatly as well.

We’ll continue to advocate and to work with our federal partners every single day toward making every program that we can and every dollar that we can through programs benefit Nova Scotians, certainly on the green energy side.

GARY BURRILL: I think about the used vehicle side of the rebate program, that it speaks to part of the priority of the program. I think it was included in the announcement that the program is intended to apply to people of varying income levels, yet we know, as the minister has said, that electric vehicles are an expensive proposition. We know that one of the concerns that’s expressed the most about electric vehicles and about the rebate programs is that they are tending to support those of upper-middle incomes and higher incomes.

I would like to ask the minister what kind of analysis the department did prior to the EV rebate program about who and what income brackets would really be impacted and would benefit from the rebate program. Are there projections about this?

CHUCK PORTER: The honourable member’s question was around whether there was any assessment, if I’m not mistaken, in the area around the income levels of people. Yes, some of that analysis has been done.

There are a few points I want to make. One might look at this program and think you have to be wealthy to be able to buy one of these cars. There is a cap on the eligibility, so if a vehicle costs more than $55,000, the cap doesn’t apply. We’re not funding Porsches, as an example that might be electric. There is a limit to that. That’s still a lot of money, we would both agree, to buy a car. There is some interest in that, obviously. There are people buying them, but again, this is a scale/volume issue. As that changes, it will drive the prices down, like it does most things. That’s certainly what we would think and we would foresee.

One of the other key points here that we have to remember is the cost of ownership. You own a vehicle today that’s a gas model - I’ll say I do, because I do. It costs a lot of money to fill that with gas. Even when gas prices are down, it costs more to run it. With electricity, the substantial is about a third to run in a cost to purchase electricity, if you charge your car up to take it to work and to drive, et cetera, than it would if you were on a fossil fuel like gasoline. You would have a reduction in your gas, obviously - a huge reduction. Again, as gas fluctuates, we look at electricity rates as being stable and affordable for Nova Scotians. Again, part of our green journey, if you will, our more cost-effective, climate-friendly agenda that would continue to help motivate folks who are able to afford it.

Certainly new is wonderful, but there’s nothing wrong with - many of us buy used cars. Again, we have put the rebate on the used vehicle, a still-substantial rebate of $2,000. I can’t tell you this evening what the price of a used vehicle is because I don’t know right off. I haven’t looked at that myself. I’m sure there’s data out there that would be provided for us by way of statistics. I’ll see if I can find what that might be, just to have an idea. Perhaps one day I’ll get a question in the Legislature about it. It is something we’re talking about, this whole move toward some of the electric vehicles out there.

It’s quite interesting, as I said, I think in my last answer, about the lack of availability for purchasing. I think initially these were being purchased online. There was one model you could purchase online. Others had to be onsite.

This is, again, available in Nova Scotia, so we have had a few questions. Just for clarity I should touch on that a bit too, while I think about it. I had a caller from home in my area ask me about the rebate, and because of the lack of availability in a certain EV, it was in Prince Edward Island, and there was only one there. These things were such a hot commodity, the dealership had a Sold sign in the window, but it wasn’t really. He was trying to keep it to promote more and more and more how valuable these cars are and the fact that people wanted them and the kind of item they were and to have something to showcase.

The question was around, if I buy that one on the Island and I bring it to Nova Scotia, do I still get the rebate? The answer is no. The purchase has to be done in Nova Scotia. You would have to arrange with your dealer - like we do many other cars that you buy, they bring them in. I know my local dealerships bring them in from all over the Maritimes or wherever you might be able to get your hands on it, so the deal happens in Nova Scotia. In that case, it would be the same, and the rebate would be applicable.

Again, just to cap on that, it’s a very good question around the income base. I appreciate where you’re coming from on that and understand it clearly. The cap is $55,000. These cars are a lot of money, but again, if you really looked at this, it’s probably your middle-income earner perhaps, maybe a little better, at least to buy new. I’m not sure, but I think I’m probably close, in the ballpark, on those figures.

The other is, unlike when you buy the gas-model car - I don’t know about you, but when I buy the car, I look at that, and I think about the efficiencies of it. If I’m buying an SUV, it’s going to cost me more than my Volkswagen costs me to run. That’s just a given by way of fuel. It has, quite frankly. It has.

You take all those things into consideration, so if you actually look at the data that shows that the electric vehicle is going to cost you a third, that may increase the option for affordability, even though a car may cost more. If you can drive that car for eight years or 10 years or whatever a lot of us drive our car, you have probably saved a substantial amount of money, and you have had some certainty because of the stable electrical prices. There are some benefits that way, but it’s about budgeting it and costing it out, obviously, looking at pros and cons, like you would look at for the purchase of most any big item that you would buy.

GARY BURRILL: And yet, presumably, the reason the Province has extended the rebate program to used vehicles is to try to broaden the income range - the income base - of people who are going to be able to receive the subsidy and participate with - in - electric vehicles.

I’m wondering, since that’s plainly one of the policy objectives of the department with the rebate, why not tie the subsidy directly to income levels? I’m wondering if the department gave any consideration to that option.

CHUCK PORTER: To the honourable member’s point about broadening that base, he’s 100 per cent correct. If you look at means testing, as he is suggesting, by way of income levels, I would tell you any consideration could be given to anything. Part of the issue here, though, is how do you do that on a point of a sale? The rebate is at the point of sale.

Just because you maybe have a certain income or not doesn’t mean that you won’t necessarily be able to afford certain things. There’s a lot of things at play there. I would argue, and maybe wrongly, but I would argue from my experience and working in the job as an MLA. I consider myself a good constituency MLA in looking after the folks at home. We would deal a lot with them on a lot of means-tested kind of files. You would have an idea of what people can afford and can’t at certain income levels.

You or I may be able to, honourable member, say that if you earned $15,000 a year, you probably aren’t driving a brand-new car. Well, that may or may not be true because you may have other budgeting abilities whereby you’ve earned that for a lot of years. You know how to save money, or you don’t have as many expenses, may be a better way to put it, as other families that might be similarly in that means area.

There’s a lot of variables there that you could speak to and use examples by. The challenge is that this is a point-of-sale rebate. Are we always open to discussions? I think as the program evolves and we see more cars, and the pricing hopefully coming down in the years ahead, there would be a lot of options.

I would never say we would never look at those things. I think those are all very important. I think the honourable member raises very important issues around that, and our goal, as we’ve stated many times, is to create energy efficiency to sell vehicles and other things - e-bikes are another option that are obviously cheaper than a car. The used market is something that we hope is around for a long time. We want these vehicles to be purchased used and new, whatever’s affordable.

Our goal clearly leads us toward cleaner and greener options into the future. I think it’s fair to say that we would always be looking at these kinds of things. Whether they’re a reality or not at the end of the day, when policy and programs are developed, has yet to be determined, but I think I agree with you. These are all things that should always be considered as we approach any program.

In some programs, as you would know, that is done, because they are done differently. The program is not like a point-of-sale rebate that I referred to. You know, things like - whether they be housing programs or whatever they might be, you generally fall under some sort of means test. I think about when I was at Municipal Affairs and Housing. There are formulas that are designed and followed to determine qualifications for certain programs.

It’s not something that couldn’t be looked at in the future, I would always argue that.

[8:30 p.m.]

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Chair, and thank to the minister for answering those questions about the electric vehicle program.

I’d like to ask some questions about oil and gas and where oil and gas are in the vision and the life of the department. I was kind of surprised, frankly, to read the minister’s mandate letter. Unless I missed it, I don’t think the words “oil” and “gas” appear there. Yet we know that in terms of the budget of the department, there’s a significant expense, particularly related to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I guess initially I’d like to ask the minister just to reflect some, if he would, on where he understands the place of oil and gas to be in the present life and vision of the department.

CHUCK PORTER: I’m actually looking at a copy of that mandate letter which the honourable member has referenced. I knew it was in there, I just didn’t know what the right language was. He may have a copy as well in front of him. I believe on Page 2 near the bottom paragraph, it says, “promoting the efficient, effective, and environmentally sound use of energy and mineral resources.” That’s exactly what we’re doing.

We continue the offshore - things have been, I won’t say “in decline,” but slower. COVID‑19 has played a role in that, as well as the demand over the last 20 years, though it should be noted that $4 billion in revenues have come into this province in the last 20 years because of the offshore royalties and the opportunities that we have. That’s not including the economic spinoff that would also be over and above that. It’s important to note that. It’s a very important piece of what we are doing.

It has been - I don’t want to say “quiet,” but certainly there’s exploration that goes on in the offshore. We expect that that will continue to happen. There’s a process that we go through. I would see that carrying on. We would expect that there will be interest, and that interest is a way of creating revenue sources for the province and some of them are quite healthy. We’re happy to be involved in that process.

I’ll leave it at that for now and will expand if the honourable member has further questions regarding that.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, minister. With that, following protocol, we’ll take our required 15-minute COVID-19 break. We will return at 8:50 p.m., and the member for Halifax Chebucto will have 16 minutes left in his first hour.

[8:35 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[8:50 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will resume.

We’ll go back to the honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party, with 16 minutes left in your hour.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to continue in the line of questioning about oil and gas in the department. I’m thinking about the department’s accountability report, the most recent one. You placed a lot of priority on the Offshore Growth Strategy. Part of that is that multi-year collaboration with Morocco state oil and gas. I would like to ask the minister: How long is this collaboration expected to continue, and what is the department looking for out of this collaboration, by way of a result?

CHUCK PORTER: The collaboration agreement, as I understand it, is an investment in geoscience. It is for four years, with an investment of $12 million. That would run from 2018 to 2022. With COVID-19 delays, some likelihood of into 2023. We would certainly be able to consider that based on COVID-19 issues.

What this is about is not only finding resources but safe extraction of the resources and those procedures. These are partnerships, as we’ve done with universities and researchers. Yes, it was 2018. That’s the correct date on it, and for $12 million by way of an investment.

That, I think, answers the question that you’ve asked me, honourable member. If there’s more, I’m happy to try to answer that.

GARY BURRILL: Thanks for that information. Just related further to that, I understand that Nova Scotia is going to be participating in the upcoming conference in Morocco and that we are - we have - the standing we have at that conference is, as I think the title is, a mega sponsor. Can you tell us how much Nova Scotia is paying to do that?

CHUCK PORTER: This conference that you are referring to, I want to touch on this a little bit. The mega sponsor title was done by a promoter, not by the province or anyone else, for that matter. This is something whereby we would partner with the offshore energy resources. This was originally set up in 2020, pre-COVID-19. Obviously, this didn’t have - actually, it would have been 2019, probably. Two years ago, if my math is right. This was set up two years ago and put in place but due to COVID-19 it didn’t happen. We did not attend - and approvals have not yet been given for this to happen this year - from this department. This is something that we’ll have to look at and see if it’s even going to happen.

It was - I think you asked me about the cost of that. If I’m not mistaken £18,000 pounds - which, if our math is right, is around $30,000 Canadian dollars, honourable member - is what would have been invested in this. This is about partnership, it’s about research. This is a value to promote. Obviously, our resources and our industry here in Nova Scotia, we have some similarities.

It’s an exhibition space - if you want to refer to it as that - for us. It gives us a chance on the world stage, as we are on many other topics, seeking opportunities when it comes to research and development around the energy sector. Again, as I’ve said many times this evening, when we talk about the energy sector - the potential for growth, the new technology, the geoscience portion of this that we’re in agreement with and working on our offshore, and many other factors - you collaborate with people from this sector, not only here at home in Nova Scotia and in Canada, but internationally. The energy market is big worldwide, as you would certainly know. I think it’s important that we maintain those relationships.

It is unfortunate that these things weren’t able to happen due to COVID-19. There is an expense to anything that I have ever known that we have been involved in by way of these kinds of conferences. There would be expenses over all the years that I can recall, whether you are travelling to an energy-type conference or you’re travelling to some other conference that you may be on. I’m sure in your years sitting around the government bench, you would have been very familiar and, perhaps, maybe have even been able to take in some of those things, and for good reason. There’s a lot to be learned there.

[9:00 p.m.]

Now, with things changing noticeably in the world that we’re working in tonight - this virtual world - we’ve certainly learned a lot in the last 12 months. I would anticipate there would be a lot more of these. I know that I’ve done a lot, both in my former role as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, over the last year and we’ll certainly be encouraged to be doing a lot more of this, even post-COVID-19, one day when that happens.

I will be quite happy to come back together socially and businesslike and so on, but I think with the technology that’s evolved, it allows us - whether it be Teams or Zoom or some other technical support yet to be developed. I’m sure there will be people out there working on it, on systems that allow these things to happen. Again, the world is small when we look at the internet. We’ve come a long way. We have other ways of doing business. I would expect this to go on for some time.

Are we still going to make investments in things that value our province - support our province - by way of research and development? I would argue yes, we are. To what degree, I don’t know, but these approvals that you are looking at are not yet done for this year, just so you know.

GARY BURRILL: Does that mean, then, that the plans - which I understood the department had previously, to send speakers to that conference - that those plans are no longer at the status of plans? That’s under a question mark?

CHUCK PORTER: The conference has been postponed yet again. It may or may not happen in 2022. If and when it does happen, first of all, we would make the decision at that time around approvals. One, with COVID-19 on, even though we’re doing - compared to the rest of the world - we’re doing very, very well here in Nova Scotia, managing this issue. I would suggest travel will be something that will be taken very seriously. Nobody would be supported in going anywhere if it wasn’t safe to do so. It may be next year, it may not be. I don’t know, I can’t predict that.

If it’s safe to do so, we may have folks that go there to present the geoscience information and to learn. If not, if this conference were to be cancelled, our funds would be returned. We will wait to see what happens there, but certainly, around decisions on if we’re going or who’s going and when we’re going, no idea. It’s really the most honest answer I can give you, honourable member. I can’t predict what the world would be like in 12 months, especially when it becomes - or it’s around safety and travel. We’re not going to jeopardize anybody’s health and safety for a conference. I can certainly guarantee that. If I’m sitting here, it would be something that’s looked at extremely seriously.

GARY BURRILL: I’m thinking, to the minister’s comments - opening this evening, where we were speaking about the moratorium on oil and gas activity on Georges Bank and speaking in general about how the government is also in favour of that moratorium. We know that that requires some legislative initiatives - mirroring legislation - federal and provincial.

I’d like to ask the minister: Has he been in touch with his federal counterpart about the renewing of the moratorium, and are there plans going forward for that renewal on our end?

CHUCK PORTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I know that time is getting short, so I won’t take a long time here.

Just to answer the honourable member’s question, there is a legislative process, as he has mentioned, that is in place that requires a review. That is certainly under way. My comments were very clear in my statement that I did make tonight going in. We would work with NRCan to ensure that they were in agreement with us. We would put that into place, but we have no intention of lifting the moratorium.

I don’t mind saying that again very clearly. That would not be our intention, but the legislative process does dictate a review at a certain point. That is what is going on right now.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. The time for the NDP caucus for their first hour has expired.

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

ELIZABETH SMITH MCCROSSIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to ask a few more questions to the minister.

When I was finishing off, minister, I was just asking about any possible rebates for - we’re seeing rebates for solar, and I had asked if it is possible, is the department looking at all for rebates for individual residential customers for wind? I also had asked about geothermal. Has that been considered at all, to give any sort of incentive to move toward geothermal energy for individual residential homes?

CHUCK PORTER: Geothermal is something that certainly there’s a lot of research going on in. We have no current program for individuals to access. There’s still a lot we don’t know about that, but certainly a work in progress, I would tell you.

As we talk about the energy streams - ways of the future - where does geothermal fit? Yeah, there’s probably more development that will come from that, and those who are much more knowledgeable, obviously, than me in this would be able to speak more clearly to it. At some point, I’m sure we’ll probably make a case that such rebates may be something that should be considered. Again, very much a work in progress, as are other options in the energy world.

At this point, though - just to be clear - there are no individual rebate programs that exist.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: I would go down another path, but I’ll just save that for another day.

I am concerned. We have a lot of power interruptions here in Cumberland North. Recently - just in the last month - on two individual Saturdays within a four-week period, power outages and loss. I was contacted by several business owners. They’re quite frustrated.

I’m bringing this up with the department because I’m wondering - as there’s a move toward individuals producing their own power sources, potentially, I’m wondering, is there any concern about how we keep Nova Scotia Power accountable to ensure that adequate investments are made into capital infrastructure as well as vegetation management?

Back in Hurricane Dorian, I’m sure we would have had power outages even if proper vegetation management had been done with that hurricane, but there’s no doubt in my mind that we had a significant amount of power lossage due to inadequate vegetation management by Nova Scotia Power. I’m just wondering what we can do to ensure that adequate infrastructure and vegetation management is being done?

CHUCK PORTER: Just on the reliability that the honourable member spoke to, a few years back, this government put in place legislation whereby the utility has to meet performance standards. If they don’t, they pay a price for that. The URB holds them accountable. Their ratepayer advocacy and advocates are involved in this. Those fines, for lack of a better term, are paid by the shareholders - not the ratepayers, the shareholders.

Performance is a big piece. Nobody likes to be without power for any reason, but it does happen, as we all know. Sometimes through storms and other things that happen, we can have power loss. I will say that, although there may still be some issues around that I’m hearing about tonight from the honourable member, I think Nova Scotia Power has also stepped up their game a bit. I think about back in the days when I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which also took in EMO, which I was responsible for - I think back to the hurricane preparation and the work that they did. Even in big storms now, you see the readiness in the movements that are happening.

I wouldn’t argue that anything is perfect, because it’s not, but I think that some of the performance standards - because our government has put that in place - have driven them into a new mindset whereby we don’t want these long power outages. We don’t want any if we can help it. How do we mitigate that? We mitigate that by putting staff in place early. We’ve seen that happen, not only with Hurricane Dorian but in other storms that came along last year, and the potential for great storms, where they’re bringing resources in to react quickly.

Are there still issues even in those circumstances? Yes, of course there are. We see how those impact us during those big events. From what I’ve seen - and I think I spoke in the House; it may have even been you, honourable member, who asked me the question around the response during the time of Dorian and post-Dorian, and how they were prepared and the value of that preparation. You talk about vegetation. Perhaps it’s the issue for the outages. I’m sure that’s something they’re probably working on.

If they’re having constant issues with outages, that means that they’re having issues with performance. That means that’s costing shareholders money. I would argue that any company - not just Nova Scotia Power - whose shareholders are putting out funds, they have to find a way to mitigate that. By doing so, what are we going to put in place?

I do know that they have ongoing work in that area. Nova Scotia is a very forested place. There are lots of trees, old and new and down and windblown damage and stuff. They are a very technical-based company. They can tell where the outages are. I’ve had the opportunity to visit the centre out there, their emergency set-up. Very high tech. Great for performance. It enables them to see where the issues are.

They will always have - I think as long as we have the lines that are out in the air, as they are right now, and not buried - wouldn’t it be wonderful if everything was buried? That’d probably create new problems for us, digging and so on. As long as we have the kind of infrastructure that we have, I think you can expect that there are times when we’re going to see power outages for one reason or another, whether it’s storms or other issues that impact power being interrupted.

[9:15 p.m.]

I can’t imagine that they would want to have power outages at any time if they could prevent it. I can’t speak for that organization, but I would like to think that they’re working in the best interests of all Nova Scotians. During those storm preparations when they knew something big was coming, they’ve certainly showed that they were prepared to invest heavily in early response as soon as it was safe to do so. That was a good response, although there were areas, as we would all argue and know, that were still out for what some might consider an extended period of time - more difficult, more challenging.

I think it’s in their best interest to continue, and we have that legislation. That’s important. It was put there for a reason. It’s about holding our utility to account. Nothing wrong with that. As I said, that costs the company money, that costs shareholders money, not the ratepayer.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Thank you, minister. If you ever want to apply for a Nova Scotia Power job, you could just clip the last couple of minutes. It sounded like you’re quite a big supporter.

My role as MLA is to support the constituents of Cumberland North, and that’s why I brought it up. It is an issue here. Every time I’ve contacted Nova Scotia Power, they have been very responsive. They have fixed some issues. Although I’m surprised at how forgiving our local citizens are, business owners are not, because every hour that they are closed, they have lost revenue, they have to send staff home, and staff lose wages. It is an issue.

If you drive around Cumberland North, you will see very clearly that vegetation management has not been maintained. If you look at the workforce for Nova Scotia Power, I think the - I don’t know if the minister was just rolling his eyes at me or who he was rolling his eyes at, but this is a serious issue for Cumberland North.

If you just drive around Cumberland North, you’ll see that vegetation management has not been done adequately based on the standards. If you look at the workforce for Nova Scotia Power, you’ll see there have been significant cutbacks in the number of people that they have hired to keep the work maintained. That’s why I brought it up this evening.

My next question is for the department. There’s a lot of talk around reduction of emissions around energy, but not a lot of talk about absorption of carbon. When the department talks about net zero emissions, I’m wondering how much of the focus is based on lowering emissions and what percentage is based on absorption of carbon.

CHUCK PORTER: This is on the lines of the Climate Change Action Plan, but this falls more under the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. When you get a chance to question Minister Irving, I’m sure that’s a question that he will be much more clear on with regard to that path.

Your comments around my employment with Nova Scotia Power, or potential employment - I want to be clear. Maybe a decade ago, maybe a little more than that now, I was a Critic for Energy at the time. If anyone went back to look at my comments, you would probably think just the opposite. I was a strong supporter of my constituents, as you are, honourable member for Cumberland North. I was also a strong supporter and outspoken, as I still am to this day, when there are issues.

At the same time, I would argue that my comments reflect what I see, and as the minister responsible in this government at that time for EMO and the interaction and the work with senior staff, staff on the ground, conversations that were being had, I think it is most appropriate, if you’re going to talk to them about mitigation and a strain on Nova Scotians - and I take your point with regard to the business community and others - it is also appropriate to say, you know what? That worked pretty good. Some of those things, maybe you should concentrate more on.

It’s not just about throwing a bouquet or a brick. It’s about having a common-sense approach and a common-sense conversation with people, and respecting what it is they do every day - the dangerous job that they have in situations of storms when power goes out. We all hate to lose our power, I’m the first to admit that, but all of these things have to be taken into consideration.

I guess the only other thing I would add, to be clear: I’m not looking for a job with Nova Scotia Power and they don’t think I am. Thanks.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for clarifying that, minister.

There was a lot of hard work done after Hurricane Dorian. I also had constituents who were without power for eight days and people who lost all the food in their freezers that they had for that Winter. There’s more work that could have been done and a lot of those power outages could have been prevented if adequate vegetation management had been done in Cumberland North.

Moving on, one of my last questions is with regard to electric charging stations. I know there’s a focus by this government on electric cars. Cumberland County is a very large geographic physical area. There are only three electric car-charging stations in the entire county. I recently had a constituent who works here in Amherst contact me because he actually went out and purchased an electric car before he did his research to find out where he’d be able to charge it. Now he’s quite concerned.

I’m wondering if there’s going to be any investment to make sure that there’s actually a place for people to charge their vehicles when they have these electric cars?

CHUCK PORTER: Thanks very much for the question - an important topic. You know, a few minutes ago with the honourable member for Halifax Chebucto and the electric vehicle programs - the hope for purchases, and as we move into the future, we’ll see more electric vehicles.

Really good point on the charging stations. A couple of things with that. Huge investment in Clean Foundation, who I believe are partnered with Dalhousie. About $700,000-plus that we will use, also, to leverage more from our federal partners and look at options around government buildings, where they can be located, mapping this out. These are all very important pieces as to how, when, why, and where, et cetera, we put such things.

All of that will have to be done, and probably - you would consider things like, how many cars are we selling in rural Nova Scotia or Truro or Yarmouth or Halifax? The very fact is, if you’re going to sell an electric vehicle, you have to be able to have a place where you can charge it. We know this. We know that’s why we have an investment in it. We know we have thought around the leveraging of more federal dollars, and as we know, they’re also very interested in green and clean and climate change initiatives. We expect that we’re going to be able to even raise more. I think as the years go by, we will see more investment in infrastructure like this because it will have to be there.

As communities, as organizations and not-for-profits, municipalities, we will look to partner with anyone who’s interested in helping us get adequate needs met for electric vehicles right across the province, from one end to the other.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Just to clarify, who pays for these electric charging stations? Is it Nova Scotia Power or is it the Province? Is it private sector? Just curious who’s actually responsible to get this infrastructure in place.

CHUCK PORTER: Good question. A couple of points here. The $700,000 - it’s over $700,000 I spoke of a few minutes ago. We will hope to leverage more with that money, but that is public funds that go into that. To be clear, there’s a breakdown of this, and I should have given you this the last time.

With your electric vehicle, 70 per cent of the time is home charging. You are paying for that on your rate. You plug your car in like you would plug anything else in. Twenty per cent of that would be at work, so your employer is helping to cover the cost of that. There are people who are building and adding these chargers as well in their places of business.

Ten per cent of this would be where that money that I referred to a few minutes ago goes. That would be on the road. You’re travelling, you’re running between here and home, honourable member. You might need to stop in Truro if you felt the need for that, or what have you - or somewhere. There would be charging infrastructure available to you or anyone else travelling along the road. That would make up about 10 per cent.

That $700,000-plus and any other money we can leverage would go into trying to figure out where the best locations to put this infrastructure are. Those are the investments that we are making as a government. It’s mostly the on-the-road stuff, like your means of travel.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: I won’t continue because I know other people have questions, but I did have a call in to your department just to see - so maybe we’ll be able to talk offline. Just trying to find ways of getting some more electric charging stations here in Cumberland.

This concludes the questions for the PC caucus. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

THE CHAIR: You said that concludes the PC caucus time?

ELIZABETH SMITH MCCROSSIN: It does, yes.

THE CHAIR: We’ll turn it over to the honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask a couple of questions about a subject we hadn’t had a chance to explore, and that’s LNG. You know that in 2018, the then-Premier, along with the Deputy Minister of Energy, were at that oil and gas conference in Texas, and that the project was to look toward potential development of contracts for LNG in Nova Scotia, including the Goldboro project. We know that federal MPs from the province are meeting with Goldboro’s lobbyists, and we also know that Pieridae has its present ask in to the federal government for just short of a billion dollars.

First, I would like to know: Is the department communicating with its federal counterparts about the Pieridae proposal now?

[9:30 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: We are in constant contact with NRCan. We would talk with them regularly about any number of projects and opportunities that may exist for the Province. Specifically, the one that you’re referring to is potentially a big opportunity, creating much-needed jobs in rural Nova Scotia, which are important, as I’m sure the honourable member and all members would understand. In the province of Nova Scotia, any jobs, whether they be here in HRM or, certainly, out in rural Nova Scotia - are all extremely important. They offer an awful lot to those communities.

Having said that, there is a rigorous process. They would have to go through the environment process and others. It’s not easy. It’s a big commitment, this particular project - the LNG plant out there. It’s certainly something that we have been open to and watching progress, and we’ll continue to do that.

GARY BURRILL: I guess the key thing I’d like to understand the minister’s thinking about is his understanding of how in Nova Scotia we are concretely - practically - going to meet the government’s GHG reduction goals when Goldboro comes online with an estimated 3.7 megatons of emissions. How is that circle to be squared? A lot of people are wondering about this. I’m wondering if the minister could share his thinking about it.

CHUCK PORTER: A couple of things. The Department of Environment and Climate Change obviously is more the area of expertise here. They’re the ones who designed the current cap-and-trade program. You asked me a question specifically, though, about my thoughts on how we would get to this point.

This has certainly been something the Premier has been clear on: an aggressive agenda toward climate action with confidence. This is led by the Department of Environment and Climate Change. I think it’s imperative upon all of us to ensure that we are working hard, partnering with our Environment and Climate Change Department and others that would be required if we make our way into a cleaner, greener future.

I would say the Premier has a desire - and I think Nova Scotians have a desire - to do all we can to make the environment a great place here in Nova Scotia, as well as our economic development piece. We have this balance that we always have to be cognizant of. We will work hard, as hard as we can as a government - along with being led by the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Premier - on our objective. I think that’s a fair statement. We will do everything that we can to get us to the goals that we have set.

GARY BURRILL: Well, I don’t think there’s any question about the sincerity of it, and I don’t think there’s any question about the intention to work hard, but there is lots of question about the practical possibility of how we can remain within the legislated GHG goals if we have a 3.7-megaton project.

I’m presuming that in the department there must be an answer to this question, but it is not an answer that has been shared. I would presume that the minister would have an answer to the question, and I think it is much germane to public discussion at the moment. I’ll ask the minister simply: Does he have an answer to the question of how we can square 3.7 megatons in Goldboro with maintaining the legislated target?

CHUCK PORTER: I would suggest that when the honourable member has the opportunity, he talk to and question the Minister of Environment and Climate Change who is leading this file. They certainly have the ability to answer the question that you’re asking in a more detailed way.

GARY BURRILL: I’d like to go back to the budget itself, to that place where we were a couple of hours ago on Page 7.6 about Clean Growth and Climate Change - that $52 million. Would it be possible for the department to provide our caucus with a breakdown of what is represented in that number?

CHUCK PORTER: Just quickly back to the member, I’ll ask him a question. We can give you some detail now, honourable member, or is it something that you would like by way of a document sent? Is that what you’re asking me for here?

GARY BURRILL: Yes, thanks. It’s not necessary to go through it now. I just wonder if we could get a document with that breakout sent to our caucus from the department.

CHUCK PORTER: Yes is the answer to that, in short. We’ll see that you get a copy of that broken down for you.

GARY BURRILL: I’m also thinking about - under this fund, does the department’s support for the Offshore Energy Research Association - is that one of the things that’s funded under this $52 million - I guess it’s really $53 million - line?

CHUCK PORTER: No is the short answer to that. That money does not come out of that figure, honourable member, that you have mentioned. We have been able to leverage through the federal government - in our climate change initiatives and theirs - a fair bit of money to help cover costs of such things outside of our numbers that you are looking at or quoting - the $50 million-odd there.

GARY BURRILL: I want to thank the minister for answering my questions this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes the NDP’s questions for the Minister of Energy and Mines.

THE CHAIR: Okay. We still have an hour to go.

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Mr. Chair? Are we able to ask the minister questions?

THE CHAIR: Yes, you are. This might be an ideal opportunity.

The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.

BILL HORNE: Yes, I’d like to ask the minister a number of questions. I hope he has some answers for me.

I’m curious about the updates that might be for Churchill Falls and the problems they have of overbudgeting and - well, overbudget, overspent the budget - to kind of know where Nova Scotia stands on that issue.

CHUCK PORTER: When this deal was signed, we paid a fixed price at that time. Any of the cost overruns don’t affect the ratepayers in Nova Scotia, to be clear.

BILL HORNE: Maybe you could also indicate whether they are producing electricity right now. Is it passing through Nova Scotia? Is it going to the United States, or is it finding other locations where it can be sold?

CHUCK PORTER: Very small amounts right now for us. Until the third unit comes on, we won’t see what we would consider our big block of that energy at that time. There would be very small amounts at this point.

BILL HORNE: A question on, maybe, affordability. I think that’s kind of relevant, I guess. There are some things that may be more affordable than others. Maybe burning wood is more affordable than burning oil. Maybe - it really means nothing, the word “affordability,” I guess.

How do you choose, or how will we choose, the cheapest, if there is a cheap affordable form of energy production? Would tidal be the easiest? Solar or wind? Is there any way of you deciding, as the minister, which process or what energy types that we should have in Nova Scotia?

Just leave it at that and maybe you can make some sort of observations.

CHUCK PORTER: Pretty broad question, honourable member.

BILL HORNE: Yes, yes.

[9:45 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: I would say this. In some ways, nothing has changed. In other ways, a whole lot has changed. What I mean by that, quite frankly, is that you have the option as a consumer. If you think wood is the best option for you - and for multiple reasons, it might be. You may own a woodlot and you cut your own wood, so the wood is considerably cheaper, but if you’re buying it, say, in the Valley and shipping it to Halifax downtown, you may be paying a considerable lot more.

There’s a variety of examples there. Our goal, as you would know, with our climate change objectives and moving to cleaner and greener types of energy - whether they be wind, solar, batteries, something yet to be named, tidal - that would be great, as I said earlier, if that was an option for us, those kinds of things. But really, this is a - we’re trying to create those options that exist, or to increase more options by way of more renewable energy to meet the targets that we have and our goals that we have in mind.

What you choose in this day and age is consumer choice. It may not be possible to suggest that you would buy one or the other based on your income. I don’t know. There’s any number of reasons why you might.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, minister.

It’s been brought to my attention that agreement has been made between all three Parties that when the NDP finish their questions, we would move into Lands and Forestry.

I notice that the Leader of the NDP, the member for Halifax Chebucto, has his hand raised. I’ll turn it to you, sir.

GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Chair. I was just going to bring that understanding to your attention.

CHUCK PORTER: Thank you very much, honourable member, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

THE CHAIR: Shall Resolution E5 stand?

Resolution E5 stands.

Okay. We’ll take our 15-minute COVID-19 break and resume again at 10:03 p.m., and we’ll go until 11:03 p.m. for our final hour of the evening.

We get together again at 10:03 p.m.

[9:48 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[10:03 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will come to order. Now we’re moving to consider the Estimates for the Department of Lands and Forestry.

E16 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $79,033,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Lands and Forestry, pursuant to the estimate.

THE CHAIR: The honourable Minister of Lands and Forestry. You have one hour for your opening remarks.

HON. CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chair, how about I take about ten seconds to say I don’t have any opening remarks, and I’m happy to go right to questions.

THE CHAIR: That is appreciated.

The honourable member for Cumberland South.

TORY RUSHTON: Thank you to the minister and the staff who are with you here this evening, who prepared with you for the budget here at this late hour to answer a few questions tonight and then tomorrow.

I want to first speak a little bit about the mandate letter that was addressed to the minister. We know out of the department that they’re the stewards of the Crown land, the forestry aspect, the wildlife, biodiversity. There’s park resources. There’s herd counting, if you will. There’s many aspects to this department that are under its responsibility.

There’s a report that many people on all sides of the spectrum of forestry have talked about, and that’s the Independent Review of Forestry Practices in Nova Scotia, the Lahey report. The first question - I guess I want to go to something I asked last year during Estimates, and it was due in 2020. That’s the one-year review for that report, the ecological forestry model. Is there an update on that? When can we expect that the public may be able to review that report?

CHUCK PORTER: That report will have an update in the very near future - sometime this month, I believe, in April. A full report, I believe, will be available to us by summer, likely by June.

TORY RUSHTON: In line with a little bit of that, when will longer framework be completed in response to this report? I know that we passed the update to the Crown Lands Act, which was one of the first major steps out of the Lahey report. When can we expect some more major hurdles to be overcome by this government to be in line with the Lahey report?

CHUCK PORTER: We are working, as you know - at the Department of Lands and Forestry, we have just altered the Act recently. We have been working on the Crown lands, as we have indicated. We are waiting for the evaluation from Mr. Lahey, Dr. Lahey, Professor Lahey - however you would like to refer to him at this late hour. There’s a lot of work to be done.

You are right, honourable member. There are many moving parts, a lot of aspects to Lands and Forestry - a lot more than I certainly understood in the early days, but I’m learning every day. There are a lot of pieces to this.

Significant progress has been made on Crown land. We will be continuing on that first. We will await the evaluation from Lahey. Progress on the majority of the recommendations that have been brought forward - we think a lot of that has been done. There’s a lot of work to do.

I have been asked many times, as you’re probably aware, by the media and other sources about some of these things. It would be nice if I could just say that next Tuesday everything will be implemented, and we would be on our way. That’s not the case, but we are working on the recommendations and making progress. We are working with Dr. Lahey, and we are seriously standing by our word, as we said, around the implementation.

More to come is what I can tell you by way of detail. It’s not all worked out yet, but we’re getting there. We’ll have more to say on that, I’m sure, as we move forward this evening.

TORY RUSHTON: It’s something that the report, that after review, when it was released by the government in 2018 - which is nearly three years ago now, believe it or not, when we sat there and we had a response to it. We actually had an opportunity to sit with Mr. Lahey and ask questions and get a response. We certainly endorsed it as a Party, and this is something that we can look at as a positive from all sides of the spectrum that are encouraging the progress of this report. I look forward to that.

Part of when the Lahey report came out was the implementation of the Silviculture Guide for the Ecological Matrix. When will the results of that public feedback be made public and that guide available to the general public?

CHUCK PORTER: You talked about Dr. Lahey, honourable member. I met with Dr. Lahey, I think on day three after being appointed as Minister of Lands and Forestry. I spent an hour with him in that first meeting to just get an understanding. I had been through the report a couple of times myself. There’s a lot in that. If you have read it, the way that it’s written, the recommendations and everything just flow. He makes his comments and he makes his recommendations. He talked about his triad. There’s a number of things in there - a very, very interesting read, actually. A lot of people may not enjoy reading reports, and I’m probably one of those people, but I did learn an awful lot from reading that.

The reason I met with him on that first week was to say: I read your report a couple of times. This is what I took from it. Did I take from it what you meant? Is it how you wrote it? It was a chance to have that interaction, and indeed I did understand it very clearly. He also spoke in depth about some points of this. It was around recommendations - can you do part of this and part of that - really all about how the rollout of all of this could go or should go and is meant to go. If you actually read it, you can define that in reading it, how it can go.

The silviculture piece that you asked about - very technical document. There are a lot of comments. The public consultation is finished. We are working right now on compiling what is coming from that, what the comments reference and the consultation references, what recommendations may come from that. I’m not sure how long that will be. I wouldn’t think a long time or much longer.

There will be a period in the near future when this information should be available, I would think. I just can’t put a date on that. I know staff are working hard on compiling these recommendations and will present it to me at some point.

TORY RUSHTON: As Critic, it’s one of the things that I hear about from the people who did have input into that silviculture process. They’re waiting for that feedback. I guess I’ll share that comment with you, that they’re anxiously awaiting that feedback.

I want to go a little further into the mandate letter to the minister. There is talk of “develop a wood charter that supports turning residual wood materials into value-added products, using wood for construction, and for heat.” What type of projects are you partnering with Atlantic WoodWORKS! on this?

[10:15 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: Atlantic WoodWORKS!, as the honourable member has mentioned, is a coordinated Maritime Lumber Bureau, who are designing and providing specific pieces of lumber for certain projects. They’re not your everyday building-your-home kind of projects - innovative kind of things. We know that there have been certain projects already in Nova Scotia that they have been used for. It’s an interesting piece again as to how we’re evolving in the world of forestry and lumber in this province.

We’ll be looking at lots of options, I think, in the years ahead when it comes to value-add in this industry and in forestry. Forestry is changing, to some degree. We’re looking for long-term sustainable forestry objectives, and value-add is a part of that. This is just one example of the kinds of things that are possible for us here in Nova Scotia.

TORY RUSHTON: Just to elaborate on the minister’s answer, can the minister enlighten us a little bit on what projects and what products might have been used in Nova Scotia, just for the benefit of the House?

CHUCK PORTER: Just as an example, out in East Hants, the aquatic centre out there. The roof structure was produced here locally. That’s an example right off that I could give you that was done.

TORY RUSHTON: That would be the type of cross-laminate timber similar to what the new Rainbow Bridge in Nappan would be, if I take that correctly.

I guess to go a little further with my questioning, was FPInnovations involved with any of the process or setting up where the province may be headed with some of these projects or ideas of how we want to get the value-added products?

CHUCK PORTER: Yes, to the honourable member’s question, the laminate design is exactly what was done there. The research is supported, so we’re exploring many aspects for opportunities and innovation on any number of projects. Again, as I said, we need to look at all kinds of options in forestry innovation, and we’ll continue to do that going forward. This is just one example of that.

I think it’s important that we need to have an open mind when we’re thinking about options and opportunities for folks who can innovate and create these products locally here at home that we can take advantage of. As we build more unique structures - the one I mentioned is only one. There may be others. Hopefully there are others. I don’t have the list in front of me, but there will be more.

We know that as we move forward with - God knows what may be built next, but there may be interest. The lumber has to come from somewhere. We’re operating and engineering and looking for aesthetic looks, and can that be made here in Nova Scotia? We’re very open to that.

TORY RUSHTON: There are other projects, and I agree 100 per cent with the minister. We have a great resource here in Nova Scotia. We not only need to manage it but we need to manage it in a way that we can also turn it into an economic spin. I live in Cumberland County, and the large majority of the wood fibre comes out of this area of Nova Scotia. We want to manage that properly, but we also want to get a rate of good return, and not just for the landowner. We want to be able to keep our value-added products right here in Nova Scotia. I’m with the minister on that. We should be developing those devices here.

Everywhere I look - and I’m not being negative about this. I’m just trying to get the information out and dig into it a little bit, where FPInnovations is involved with this whole process, and see if we’re investing all in one group or spending it around.

I’m just curious - a little bit of information that we shared in the last little bit. We see FPInnovations is involved with it. I’m just curious, how much provincial money are we sending to FPInnovations? Should it be going to other spots as well, or is the Province satisfied with what they’re getting with FPInnovations? What role are we going to play out here in the year to come with some other projects?

CHUCK PORTER: A couple of pieces here. If I’m not on the path that the honourable member is, we can certainly go to that. I think I am.

The innovation piece that he is maybe talking about, we cover things like annual membership fees - provides the department access to confidential data technology related to forest harvesting, wood, paper product processing, science technology. That’s around $20,000 annually that we would put into that.

Some of the other stuff, just on the comments that you made, honourable member, around the economy, and the economics and the environment - I have said this many times - in long-term sustainable forestry, there’s a place for both. We can have good stewards of land - not could, we do have very good stewards of the land, in my opinion. This is a balancing act. At the same time as we’re trying to do all of these many aspects to forestry operation that goes on, and all of the other kinds of spinoff that come from that, all of the other innovative ideas that might come from that, all the value-add that may come from that - we’re constantly looking at and have to be always looking at changes, how the industry will change, what kind of value-add product.

We just talked about one example, some of the special lumber for design. I think as we go forward and we move forward with things like Lahey and other things that will come along, these are all out-of-the-box thinking that we have to have all the time and change with the times. I think it’s vital that we’re there around the innovation part when somebody comes with an idea and says, hey, have you thought about this? We need to be open to having those conversations, and I think that we are. We’ll continue to support them as we’re able.

I’m not sure if that’s the innovation dollars you were referring to or not, honourable member. If not, you can let me know.

TORY RUSHTON: I guess in a nutshell, FPInnovations - I was looking at how much we spent on that group. Also, in my next question, while I’m there, the mandate letter from the Premier to the minister talked about a wood charter. Maybe the minister could speak a little bit about what he believes the wood charter may look like for our province.

CHUCK PORTER: This is really about government’s commitment to working with all of our departments and certainly our partners with the applications, if you will - the use of wood products, whether it be biofuel production or whether it be something else - construction and other options and opportunities that may exist. That’s really what we have in mind there by way of the charter, if you will. It’s really everything and anything to do with our options for wood products and part of what we do.

TORY RUSHTON: Just for reference, I have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last few years going to FPInnovations. Looking at what other sectors have done in regard to wood charter, I’m curious if FPInnovations are going to be writing our wood charter for us, similar to what they did in Quebec.

CHUCK PORTER: Just to be clear, the answer to that is no. We are working on that charter within. I’m just curious, maybe for the honourable member - I want to be clear. He’s referencing FPInnovations, which I spoke about a few minutes ago, and the figure around that was $20,000. I might have just heard him reference $700,000. Maybe I didn’t, but I thought I did. Are you talking about the information hub, honourable member, or are you talking about something else?

[10:30 p.m.]

TORY RUSHTON: In different aspects, not just maybe on this project. I know the Province has used this group different times. Actually, I don’t know whether everybody in my caucus would share the same idea. I’m excited about the fact that we’re trying to do something in-house rather than outreach. We’re trying to do something within the province, keep it within our walls, if you will - not that there’s not a need to go outside of our walls at times, but sometimes we don’t need to be recreating the wheel and we don’t need to be sending our raw materials away to get processed and buying them back at a later date. I think the minister and I can share the idea on that and the movement on that. Maybe we may debate on how we go about that, but I’m excited to hear that there’s a different flow.

Tonight we talked about cross-laminate timber. I think there was mention about maybe wood pellet. Maybe that was discussed a little bit in the energy aspect. We know that the province is looking at biochar wood pellets, a little bit of small-scale biomass. Is there anything else out of that forestry team that was developed after Northern Pulp? Are there any ideas that are coming back to the department that we may be looking at as a province? We could be moving more materials or developing more materials right here at home in Nova Scotia.

CHUCK PORTER: A couple of things. The honourable member referenced not reinventing the wheel, not needing to go elsewhere. We do have the skills, and we do have the talent within. In this province, we have a lot of great talent. This industry can offer us many options and opportunities, who knows what, things yet to be created. We’re excited about that. It’s important that we have that relationship to be able to do that.

As far as other projects go, I’m sure you can appreciate - you referenced the transition fund. There are things going on. Some of those are not yet done, so I can’t reference any specifics around it, but there are projects that are certainly in the hopper, as they say, that we are looking at and considering and working through.

TORY RUSHTON: Speaking about projects in the hopper and such, I know that transition fund isn’t sitting with the transition team anymore. It’s in a trust fund, where we have trustees who are taking care of that. Is there still a role - and I know it has been a short time prior to sitting in the House that the minister was sworn in, so maybe the minister hasn’t had a chance, but has the minister met with the transition team? Where they don’t have control over that transition fund anymore, what would the minister expect that transition team’s role to be, if they’re still in place?

CHUCK PORTER: I have been there a short time, but it seems like forever some days, I can tell you that. There’s a lot going on at Lands and Forestry. I would never have thought. When I drive by my own regional office at home, I never did think much outside of that little shop that sits there and all the great things that they do locally. It’s a big department with a lot of employees and a lot of great stuff going on.

You referenced that there is a board that the applications go through and are processed by. As far as the transition team goes, I did get a briefing by a couple of members of that team, I’m going to say two or three weeks ago now probably, just to sort of get a feel for that and understand the process a little better, how that works. You sort of referenced that flow as you talked there earlier. I have had a briefing. Lots more to go on that, I would say. There’s money there that’s available, and as we transition into things, it’s great to have that option and that money set aside for future innovation and what have you.

TORY RUSHTON: There is a lot going on within this department. It’s a huge aspect. It’s a huge undertaking. Mr. Chair, I must admit I was very surprised when the Premier named two departments to the minister. I was very surprised - two big departments. To the minister, hats off. It’s a big task.

Sticking with the transition, just a quick comment. Unless things changed, I don’t believe your deputy sits on that transition team at the current time. Will that be something that changes - you may change the membership of the transition team to have the minister’s deputy sitting on there? Unless it has already changed, maybe.

CHUCK PORTER: As far as my deputy goes, I’m not sure. You probably do understand, he’s also with Transportation and Active Transit as well as Lands and Forestry. You can imagine the kind of schedule he keeps as well. I’m not sure at this time. It’s yet to be determined whether he will sit on that or not. I would expect that sometime in the near future, though, a decision will be made about whether that happens or not. As of right now, “yet to be determined” is probably the easy answer.

TORY RUSHTON: Just to wrap up a little bit on different products that we may be doing - and the minister could respect this, coming from his previous role as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which would have the building and fire inspectors under his department. Is there a wish or movement from the Province to be more active at the change of the next building code to be more inclusive of some new products that may be coming out from our province, as leaders within the sector? There are opportunities here, and I can appreciate also the minister’s outside experience in the fire service that I share with him. I was heavily involved in inspections prior to being in this Legislature.

Mr. Chair, I believe this is an opportunity for our province to shine and share what we may have with the national standards and an opportunity for us to lead in the codes. I’m just wondering if there are any ideas or processes that the minister may have now under his new role or past role in Municipal Affairs and Housing.

CHUCK PORTER: The member is correct. From a former department, I’m certainly very familiar with the national building codes and the standards. He is probably aware that we have always been out in front of where most are, right across the country. We are up on this. We’ve got a great team in the Fire Marshal’s Office who’ve also been part of this discussion, the building planners and others, but - I’m trying to think - in my time, near three years, at Municipal Affairs and Housing - at least twice, I think - we took changes in and around building code to Executive Council.

I think we lead the way here. Something that is always at the forefront - that safety aspect of that - and he’s right. We both have a background in public safety and it’s something that we think a lot about. It was always something I was very interested in, in my time there, and continue to be very interested in that regardless.

I think we will continue. There’s no reason for me to ever believe that we won’t continue to always be out ahead of where others are in this. It’s something that’s always on our plate. It’s an evolving document, as I know you understand. As the changes are made, there’s a lot that goes in.

There’s the consultation period, developers and builders - there’s a number of months that we put the current plans out in advance. We get their input on that, how it affects them. We do that around their work season, usually, so a lot of these things are done Fall through Winter because the builders are maybe less busy - although the last couple of years, they’ve been quite busy regardless, which is a good thing. A very good thing, actually.

An important point, one that’s always top of mind and one we’ll always manage regardless - at least I hope we do - and we’ll continue to be out in front, doing all we can to be ahead of where most are. Thanks.

TORY RUSHTON: Let’s move a little bit into more in-depth of the mandate letter. Maybe the minister could update the House on what was meant by a circular economy.

CHUCK PORTER: The circular economy - always interesting, the terminology - really, honourable member, this is really simple. This is circular within the province. The economy is simple. We’re working with our partners - I’ve mentioned this before multiple times. I’ve said it multiple times. We need to have a balance here with the economy, with the environment. We work closely with all of these other departments, regardless of what that is.

I think that we need to, while doing that, look at opportunities to continue to grow our province. The forestry - working with our foresters and those in the industry, on all sides of it, and continuing to have the conversations. I think that we move forward together here, but we’re doing it with a balanced approach. I don’t think there’s any other path, to be quite honest with you, if we want to have a long-term, sustainable forestry in this province. That includes working with all of our partners to help make that happen.

That’s where we’re at. When I think about a circular economy, you could nail down a lot more in-depth detail if you wanted to around that. I’ll leave it at that for now.

TORY RUSHTON: Maybe we can go a little bit further in depth. How and where will we start with this, and how will we educate the sector on the circular economy? This is new terminology that we’ve been sharing with some of our stakeholders that we speak to regularly. They’re looking for a definition of this. How are we going to educate the sectors to be involved with this, as we say, if we’re working with all of our shareholders - or stakeholders, if you will?

[10:45 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: Things like reducing waste, as an example. Using potential product that’s left for heating sources would be one example. Reusing by-products, developing biofuels - we’ve talked about that. It’s out-of-the-box thinking. It’s technology that we might think about today, but what does tomorrow bring? All the time you need to be looking and thinking about what’s next.

This is an industry. If you want it to be long-term sustainable and environmentally friendly while also creating an economy that is a big part of this province - a big part. A lot of people work in the forest industry. The spinoff effect is huge. Again, while at the same time that is all extremely important and a must-have, in the longer term, you have that environmental aspect to it as well. You think about the climate change action plans and all of this and that.

You have to take into consideration, how do you make it all work together? I think we’ve had a lot of discussion around that and there are a lot of opinions around that. Lahey speaks to a variety of ways of how we’re going to do business by way of his recommendations into the future. How does that play into what we’re talking about? Well, it’s significant in what we’re talking about. If you’ve read the report and you look at the triad model, examples of how he thinks or what he proposes versus what some might think he has proposed are often quite different.

Not everybody may understand exactly what is in Lahey. I’ve had conversations with folks who thought Lahey referenced the end of clear-cutting, as an example. If you really look at that, it doesn’t say that. It’s more targeted. It’s better forestry practices that take us forward. There’s more retention. There’s a variety of ways of looking at that, but it’s all part of maintaining a good, solid, strong economy in the long-term forestry sector, as well as balancing that with good environmental practices, good land stewardship.

There’s a lot of conversations we’ve had about that in the last couple of weeks in the Legislature. There will be more. We’re just getting started, really, and I think that with the Lahey report, there’ll be people on all sides who are talking about this for years to come and trying to figure out where we fit. We have an industry, we have an environmental piece, we have a government that has a climate change agenda, as you’re well aware, that creates a green economy.

How does this fit into that? Those long-term sustainable forestry practices must be better, and I think the better practices and the better cutting and harvesting practices that we have, the longer sustainable future and options we have for good long-term employment in this industry.

It’s a big piece. A lot to it. Again, this department is large and it’s one piece of this department - an interesting piece, I might add.

TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate those comments. It does have to be sustainable. I don’t come from a forestry family, if you will, but I certainly have worked in the woods as a fire technician for some of the operators and such. I appreciate what is going on in the woods - I may not necessarily appreciate what used to go on in the woods.

Mr. Chair, there’s an analysis in that Lahey report that in Nova Scotia, for that triad model that he argued about or debated to work, there has to be a market for that low-grade wood fibre. At the time of the report, that low-grade wood fibre was - if you cut a saw log, the top of the tree was actually the pulp wood that would go to the pulp mill. We know that we don’t have a pulp mill right now. There are many landowners I still hear from every day that the tops of those trees - the pulp wood - are lying on the ground.

Is the minister indicating that, with this circular economy that they want to educate and work with within the province, the landowners can expect that that pulp wood may be coming out of the woods now rather than driving on it, and that we may be able to put that into a product?

CHUCK PORTER: That’s a big part of exactly what you’re talking about there. There’s that waste that I referred to a few minutes ago. We need to look at those options that exist - what we are doing with that - so we did. Yeah, you’re right. You’re right on. We had a big part of that going to the pulp mill, so there was a place for it to go. We need to figure out, is it biofuel? Is it something else? I think that’s part of that innovation. You look at this idea of the circular economy - where does it fit in that, how many options do we have? Those are all things that are important to look at.

We’re willing to support those ideas, invest in ideas that make sense. I think that we have to have a market somehow for that. Very important that we find a market for that. I can tell you with every assurance, that is something that we are continually working on. That’s why we’re contributing as we are and investing in organizations as we are. The transition fund, as we spoke about earlier, was set aside, but these innovation dollars that we’re investing? I think it’s exactly why we’re doing it. We know what’s not happening with Northern Pulp and the current situation that it’s in, and what’s not happening is that waste is not going there.

It’s about what’s out there. What are the options? It’s time to get creative here and start thinking, what opportunities do we have for this product that we can create, and create an economy that maybe we weren’t thinking about before. These are all kinds of things where we need people in the room who say, well, how many options to work with this material do we have? Just as an example.

I think there’s a lot of work yet to be done. I don’t have an overnight answer. I’m going to be right up front. I don’t think there’s one sole answer. I think there are probably a variety of options that we might have. I think that innovation is yet to be put out there, but I think that there are people working very sincerely on this, trying to find us a market.

There are some ideas, and you’ve mentioned some. We’re aware that there’s the biofuel piece and there are the wood pellets you talked about earlier. How much of that can you turn into that? Those are a couple of examples. What else is there? What else is out there? We need to discover what else is out there and create a new product for Nova Scotia. That’s the stuff that you get excited about. You can work with the industry, you can work with landowners, and just see what’s before us. Let’s look at everything. That’s kind of where I’m at.

TORY RUSHTON: That’s sort of where I was going about not reinventing the wheel. Biofuel is not a new idea. It’s an idea that’s been here. We’ve used it in Nova Scotia for a while. Cross-laminate timber, on the other hand, it’s not new. When the Rainbow Bridge was replaced - and I did the study on that and talked to the engineers. They had talked about how many years it has actually been utilized in other parts of the world, but it was a new concept to use it for a bridge of that span in our area.

I guess that’s where I was going earlier. We don’t need to recreate the wheel, but we can utilize some of those ideas right here at home and have the entrepreneurs who want to get involved have the support of government, of landowners, and of everybody within that sector. We can move a little bit quicker to that model that Professor Lahey spoke about.

I do recognize a little bit of the time. I’m going to move down a little further.

I want to talk about the work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to designate some sites in Parks and Protected Areas. Is there a five-year plan for the park upgrades?

CHUCK PORTER: A couple of things you talked about, I just want to reference back before I move to the park piece. That is the innovation piece and the ideas in creating something new.

We’re very fortunate in this province. We have 11 universities. We have Professor Lahey, who did his report, but in those universities are people from all over the world who have seen different practices, who might have some things to offer. We need to really start thinking about - it doesn’t have to be you or me who will develop this great idea.

We have a lot of talent in this province outside of the universities. We’ve got our community colleges, we’ve got people who have worked in the industry, we’ve got people who have not worked in the industry, but they’re business-like. Just because it’s forestry or it’s this or it’s that doesn’t mean an idea won’t work. I really think this province is fortunate. We’ve got a lot of great people here who are certainly a lot smarter than me who we’ll look forward to working with and maybe create some ideas. I think it’s valuable to put that out.

For the parks, we have a three-year rolling plan for capital upgrades. That would be assessed regularly, much like our highways and other things. We would be looking at these and we would know where work would need to be done based on those assessments. That would get rolled into that three-year plan.

If there was a specific park or something you’re referring to, by all means, feel free to share that.

TORY RUSHTON: I guess it’s where I was going, to respond to the minister, about the entrepreneurs in our province. We have great resources here, and we really should utilize them. I agree 100 per cent. It’s a great opportunity that we have here in Nova Scotia because of the universities. We get to bring many families in here.

I sat in the House last Spring and maybe mocked government a couple of times when speaking about the population growth. I see the minister joke and said, believe it or not, I mock government about the growth of the population. I think we have to give credit where credit’s due. Our universities play a big part of that, and we’re able to maintain some of that within our universities.

I think of Mr. Dingwall in Cape Breton and what he’s done for that area. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Dingwall in Cape Breton. I can only imagine how much knowledge and how many ideas are coming from different areas of the world and are going through our university systems right now. May not be at that level yet, that they’re ready to step up and take on the initiative to work with the government, but you know what? The future’s bright. The future is very bright. We see that in every university. Everybody that comes within our borders of our province to share ideas, to share concepts - it’s a good thing. We should be doing more of it. It’s fantastic.

My argument about using entrepreneurs rather than government - I’ve always advocated, and I still believe, anything that we can take out of the government’s hand to make it work faster, give it to the private sector. I debated in December, when we found out that the vaccines were rolling out, to move them forward to the pharmacies. I’m glad to see that the movement’s starting now. We finally see some appointments in our areas in the pharmacies. I appreciate the minister recognizing that.

There are no specific parks that I wanted to talk about yet, but are there planned upgrades for all parks? We heard after Hurricane Juan that all parks were brought back up to standard, and I can certainly debate that point with having a few parks in our area. I know a park just down the road from my area that certainly was not completed after the damage of Hurricane Juan. We talked a little bit about that pre-COVID-19, a year ago, sitting and talking about budget.

I appreciate the fact that all staff were not able to get to all the parks last year because of COVID-19, but is there a plan to get up to all 150 parks and make them accessible by 2030? Or is there an earlier deadline for that to meet before 2030?

CHUCK PORTER: A couple of points there. Hurricane Juan and other major windstorms obviously caused damage in our parks, and we’ve got a lot of parks. A lot of parks. It takes a while to get there. As I said, we have a three-year rolling plan for capital, and I would argue staff are doing a great job, but they’re doing everything they can to keep up.

Some of the major things we’ve done, though, that you may be familiar with - beach-accessible parks, places we needed to do that, bathrooms have been upgraded. There’s a lot of those kind of things going on. Those are capital projects that go in.

[11:00 p.m.]

Some may look at trees falling as maintenance or regular maintenance or such like that, but depending on the event that takes that down, it may not be as simple as you think. There’s a lot of work every day. There’s a lot of staff. Parks are open - some of them not all year round, obviously. We need to make sure that these things are prepped and ready.

We’re having another great year for bookings of our parks. It’s amazing, actually. One of the things I learned about this - I never would have realized - is how many people go to parks, how many people actually go online now and book these things. I guess I always knew there were a lot of campers around. It’s big business, and that’s a great thing for our province. There’s a lot of beautiful parks - you’ve got a couple over your way.

I had a chance last year to travel around the province here at home and do what a lot of people were doing - the staycation thing, they call it. Spent a couple of days - one of those, two and a half days over your way. Went along all down through into Parrsboro and up back around and along the other shore and stopped at a number of parks. Five Islands, what a beautiful park that is down there. Really enjoyed some time in there. My wife had never been there, believe it or not. It was great to take that tour around and just have a look at what we have here in this province. It’s actually amazing what we have in this province, just in parks alone.

The people who work there are doing everything they can to do the regular maintenance, to keep up. I know the department, as I said - not only do we have the three-year rolling plan for the capital stuff - it’s not like that’s the only thing we do all day. We know that there are other issues out there in certain areas of the province. As an example, we saw weather last weekend. Where I was, it was beautiful. Maybe in Cape Breton - Inverness way - they had quite a bit of ice and wind and things like that. Not all parks are the same. They don’t all have damage . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The minister managed to talk to use up the rest of the time, so that concludes our four hours for this evening.

Before we give up for the night, I want to apologize for the confusion between moving from Energy and Mines and Lands and Forestry. There was a lack of communication there. Anyway, we got it straightened away. We got our final hour in this evening.

We’re back at it tomorrow, and we’ll continue debate on Resolution E16.

Thank you all. We stand adjourned. Have a great evening and a great sleep. Good night.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 11:03 p.m.]