HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2021

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:03 P.M.

CHAIR

Keith Bain

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will now come to order.

Today we are continuing the Estimates for the Department of Lands and Forestry outlined in Resolution E16. When we completed last evening, the MLA for Cumberland South had gotten his hour in. Now we will go to the New Democratic Party caucus.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham. You have one hour.

LISA ROBERTS: I am going to start just by going back to the department’s response to the Lahey review and wondering what the progress has been. Some of the commitments in the government’s response from December 2018 ‑ one of the things that was committed to there was that the government would conduct a review of existing Crown and private silviculture programs. I am wondering if the minister can give us an update.

THE CHAIR: The honourable Minister of Lands and Forestry.

HON. CHUCK PORTER: Welcome to the honourable member for Halifax Needham to the conversation this afternoon.

Just with regard to that, there is a jurisdictional scan that is currently under way. The review is under way. This would take in Crown land as well as private land. These would be two separate scans, if you will, as we look at this. Things are in the consulting stage and we will have more, as that is completed, to talk about once done, and the analysis is compiled, and recommendations come forward.

LISA ROBERTS: Is it safe to assume that there will be a shift in silviculture programs to support ‑ to quote the government response to the Lahey review - “the adoption of a new paradigm,” that being ecological forestry?

CHUCK PORTER: I think the answer is yes, in short. It does have to support ecological forestry. That is part of the triad as defined in the Lahey report, so we would expect those guidelines, as this is implemented, to be followed. Again, we will see where that takes us once done.

LISA ROBERTS: Again, going back to the December 2018 response to the Lahey review, at that time the government committed to within a year establishing options for an independent process for environmental reviews for proposed long‑term forest management licences that include the opportunity for public involvement.

How has the government made progress on living up to that commitment from December 2018?

CHUCK PORTER: Currently, we are working with the Department of Environment on the legislative framework. A consultant was hired in April of last year, 2020, to develop a stewardship and planning guide. As we move forward, there will be an EA ‑ obviously subject to an EA or an environmental assessment process. The Minister of Environment, certainly when he is before you in the Estimates, should that happen, you will all have an opportunity to obviously ask him questions as well. Direction will come from there and regulations ‑ consultation, regulations, and such will also be a part of all of that. That is well under way

LISA ROBERTS: I know that approximately half of the Minister’s Advisory Committee on Forestry wrote to the then Minister of Lands and Forests last November asking for a moratorium on even‑aged harvesting methods on Crown land until the silviculture guide was finalized and implemented. That is approximately the same call that we made ‑ I made - as the New Democratic Party’s spokesperson on Lands and Forestry in November ‑ sorry, in late October to the then minister.

Do you intend to respond to that call for a moratorium on even‑aged harvesting methods until that new silviculture guide is being used and there has been significant progress on Lahey implementation?

CHUCK PORTER: As a follow-up to the member’s question, silviculture consultations, as she would be aware and members would be aware, have just recently come to a close. That information is being reviewed now and the guidelines and recommendations will come from that. We also have the interim report that was done that we have been following. I can tell you clearly, the forestry practices in this province and how things are done by way of harvest have changed since that time.

The amount of work that goes into a harvest plan is quite substantial. I will be honest with you, only being in this department for a month or so and not having a lot of knowledge in what that piece might have looked like before I became minister of this department, there is a lot that goes into it. I review these plans. They are brought to me. There is a lot of science that goes into it. Many things are looked at before a plan goes into place: buffers, the kind of trees, and the science. The specialists are out there, and it’s not like oh, here you go, just sign off here, we are going to cut these trees. It is far from that. It is quite impressive, actually, how well that is being managed at this point. I’ve certainly learned a lot over the last couple of months, as we’ve been sitting in this office.

The other part of this is we are also expecting, very shortly, Professor Lahey’s report, his evaluation rather, I should say, which we will take into consideration, as well, as we begin to look at what implementation time frames and the status of that is on the Lahey report itself.

LISA ROBERTS: We were anticipating that independent evaluation some time ago, and then I thought it was coming imminently last Fall. When are you now expecting to release it? Is it in the department?

CHUCK PORTER: This is obviously Professor Lahey’s report. We expect this update will be provided in April to the department and released by Summer ‑ by June in all likelihood. That is what we are thinking at this point, but again, this is Professor Lahey’s evaluation to do, and our understanding is that it will be done in April.

LISA ROBERTS: Can the minister explain why it would not be released to the public in April?

[3:15 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: We are anticipating that it will not be done until that time. He is working on that and he will provide the department with an update, but the full assessment will come, we anticipate, by June or early Summer.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. Your mandate letter speaks about the choices of the past. This is a quote: “choices that led to persistent degradation of Nova Scotia’s forests - placed the entire forestry sector on a downward trajectory.” I am trying to square this with what you spoke about yesterday in Estimates which was good resource stewardship and robust regulations in this province. I would like to establish: Do you think that we need a drastic change in forestry practices in Nova Scotia?

CHUCK PORTER: Professor Lahey had obviously put his report out some time ago. The government has been clear ‑ our position has been clear that we support that and we will be implementing that. We’ve talked a lot about the implementation of Lahey and he refers to the triad as we’ve talked about it, which is a shift in how we do business today. We will look forward to his update of where he is as he moves forward, but one of the key pieces I think I did mention yesterday was along with that, we also have a view for a long‑term sustainable forestry operation in Nova Scotia.

There are changes that he has from where we currently are today written in his report, but it doesn’t say that forestry is done in Nova Scotia by any stretch. It talks about different forest practices ‑ improved forest practices ‑ as he designs and lays out his plan, but it doesn’t put an end to forestry practices in this province.

I am a supporter of good forestry practices, but long‑term, sustainable forestry practices at the same time. It’s a huge part of what we do. I’ve said this many times and I will say it again this afternoon: that the economy and the environment can co‑exist together and it can be done well. I believe we are on a path that can allow that to happen, and we will continue to work on that path.

LISA ROBERTS: Yesterday in this committee you mentioned that people have the wrong idea about the Lahey review and clear-cutting. Can you expand on that?

CHUCK PORTER: Yes. I think what I was getting at there is that we have talked to some people who may think that there is, within the Lahey report ‑ it ends clear-cutting, but it doesn’t actually speak to that. It talks about more defined cuts or harvest. The proper word here is harvesting.

I think people need to just ‑ you know, it’s a big read. The Lahey report is a big read. I’ve been through it a couple of times and I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Professor Lahey. The first week that I was named to this department, to get an understanding of what I was reading, was it how he had written it and, of course, it was ‑ I’m trying to understand this thing even in more depth. This is a very big report that talks about the practices of forestry in general.

My thoughts yesterday when I was talking about that are that this doesn’t put an end to harvesting in the province of Nova Scotia. It is, I think, about the practice ‑ how it’s done, how harvests are done, that will be high production, conservation zones.

There are a number of things in there ‑ that triad and the matrix. We have been looking in depth at that as it is implemented, and these are all parts of that report. When I asked about this, you know, are there pieces of this as I read this report. I did implement this over so many portions at a time or certain recommendations, and he was clear when I spoke with him. He said that this is something that you put in at one time and you work your way through it. You don’t chip a piece here and a piece there and go about it. You implement the report and you work your way as it’s designed to be implemented and that is what we are looking at. I think he clearly defines what he means by forestry practices in this province.

LISA ROBERTS: Moving on to the high-production forestry discussion paper that is part of that implementation ‑ the ecological matrix, the land in the proposed breakdown on Page 4 of that discussion paper, includes a number of categories of non‑forested, non‑vegetated land, wildlife, and water course buffers, et cetera that either do not have forest on them or where harvesting is not permitted.

From my reading of the Lahey report, and I think for many others, as well, when people pictured the ecological matrix, they pictured conditions conducive to forestry with a lighter touch, but forestry all the same. Can you explain the thinking behind putting these lands which will not, in fact, permit harvests, in the ecological matrix?

CHUCK PORTER: The ecological matrix, as we’ve talked about, with no forest or limited forest, the lighter touch that you refer to, I think were your words - right now, when I think about the practices for harvest and we look at those applications and those harvest plans that come through, using the Interim Retention Guide that exists as an example, these practices are already well in place that he is describing. You look at all of these issues around buffers and watercourses and species. All things are taken into consideration. Where there is no forest, it would be pretty hard, in my opinion, and maybe I’ve missed something and I apologize if I’ve missed what you were getting at, but where there is no forest, or limited forest, you would have no cut or very limited harvesting going on. All of those practices would be in place anyway and are in place today. We don’t go out and sign off on a harvest without recognizing that these specific areas could exist.

I should also mention that in these harvest plans - there are spots within, not only for the science piece to get done that I’ve just described ‑ options for public comment which we see sometimes or not a lot of times. Sometimes there are no comments, a chance for others to comment, or myself to ask questions, which I do every single time that one of these are brought before me. I go through these with the person who is putting them in front of me to sign and I ask questions. I look at every one of them. When maps are shown, I get a fairly good description of what I’m looking at by way of a parcel of land as an example.

The topographical view may show where cuts or harvests may have been done previously, or nearby, or maybe not, but it does show things like sometimes roads that already may exist or trails, waterways. I will often ask questions about each of these as they are placed before me before I sign it off. The best part of this practice is the gentleman who brings that before me expects exactly what I am asking. He knows. He comes very well prepared and he will explain in detail if there was some issue that may have occurred, or may not have occurred, or the reason why we are doing it. He will describe it ‑ my questions about what a certain map may look like, the colour of a map, what is indicated, and what is not indicated.

So these are not things that are taken lightly or just signed off just because we want to, you know, cut all the forests down. That’s not at all how this goes. I believe, from what I’ve learned, as I said a few minutes ago, a great deal about how harvest practices are done in this province and the Lahey report and implementation will only further build on the work that we are already doing.

LISA ROBERTS: Just to clarify my question a little bit, on Page 4 of the High Production Forestry Phase 1 - Discussion Paper, there is basically a breakdown of provincially‑owned land considered part of the triad into conservation matrix or high productions. This is in Table 2. Basically, the table kind of adds up the hectares that will be placed into the ecological matrix versus the conservation leg of the triad versus potential high production. One of the categories of land that is placed into the ecological matrix is watercourse buffers where harvesting is not currently allowed ‑ where trees can’t be harvested now ‑ and that adds up to, it looks like, 2,300 hectares of provincial Crown land.

I guess a follow‑up question to the minister is: Would the watercourse buffers in otherwise high-production forestry areas be classified as part of the high-production forestry area, or would they be classified as part of the ecological matrix area?

[3:30 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: Just a quick question for clarity back to the member. You referenced a table there, Lisa. Can you just confirm? We just want to look at what you are looking at. I think you said Table 2 on Page 4. Is that correct?

LISA ROBERTS: Yes, of the High Production Forestry Phase 1 - Discussion Paper.

CHUCK PORTER: Okay. I’ll come right back to you. I just want to clarify something to make sure that my answer is correct. So just for clarity, regardless of high production or otherwise, the same policy would be in effect. Those same buffers, if that’s what you were looking for in clarity and I think, by the nod of your head, that is exactly what you are asking me, but maybe not. Okay, I’ll leave the next one back to you. You can ask your next question, but those same rules apply.

It doesn’t matter if it is high-production or otherwise. You still have buffers around watercourses and any other things that would be measured within the harvest plan itself when we are out there doing that. We would have to follow those rules. That doesn’t matter. I’ll go back to you to further ask your question.

LISA ROBERTS: Just to try to clarify one more time, my question is that on this table, it says that watercourse buffers will be 2,300 hectares of Crown land. My question is: Is that 2,300 hectares of Crown land including the watercourse buffers that yes, by regulation, you are required to have around watercourses in high-production forestry areas?

CHUCK PORTER: Mr. Chair, if I can try to clarify this a bit more for the member: If the land is protected now, it will remain. So, it doesn’t matter what the number is. Those policies that are in place for buffers and where harvesting is done, all of those policies remain in place. So, I am not sure if that is just a question for clarity or if you think that is not the case. I know what the table says. We’ve just been looking at it here trying to figure out exactly maybe what you are after there, but if it is protected, it will remain so.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. Well, maybe I’ll move on. I think there are some concerns that, in implementation, the amount of land assigned to the ecological matrix may not be as significant as it appears because included in that are things like watercourses in high-production forestry areas or sand dunes or cliffs. I think many people’s reading of the Lahey review is that ecological forestry should become the dominant practice across the majority of the forested land on Crown land. So including things like watercourses in high-production forestry areas or sand dunes and cliffs doesn’t quite jibe with the understanding of the intention of the review.

Maybe I’ll move on to a different question about the High Production Forestry Phase 1 - Discussion Paper. One of the three considerations given for where high-production forestry will be practised is proximity to mills in order to reduce transportation costs. A question I have is whether communities will have a say at all in terms of assigning of Crown land to high-production forestry areas. I ask this because, of course, the criteria suggest that some communities could have a very high concentration of industrial forestry happening on their surrounding Crown lands and we know that people value Crown land forests for many different reasons, as is now reflected or will now be reflected in the Crown Lands Act.

CHUCK PORTER: To the member’s question, public consultation around the criteria about how these sites are chosen has been done. There has been a lot of that done. There are documented times when this has happened. However, when a sustainable forestry plan from someone or a business, et cetera, is put forward, that will automatically kick in the environmental assessment process, which will, again, include an opportunity for public consultations. So there will be quite a bit of consultation, actually, before anything would be set up. That’s a public forum through the EA process which is quite rigorous. Any EA process is, and that is fine, but that is a further step before something would be approved that you would have to go through.

LISA ROBERTS: How much will it cost per hectare to establish zones of high-production forestry, and will the government be subsidizing the preparation of those sites - for example, mechanical site preparation or competition control with herbicides?

CHUCK PORTER: I would say this ‑ we’ve already set the criteria for how this works through the public consultations I talked about a few minutes ago. We are very much in the early stages of this and there will be much more information to come with regard to that kind of detail that has not yet been defined.

LISA ROBERTS: Given your answer, I wonder if you could clarify a little bit more. The discussion paper that I’ve been referring to is Phase 1 in the development of high-production forestry. Where are we in the timeline for actually firming up and establishing these triad zones so that somebody could look at a map of Crown lands and understand where the high-production forestry areas are versus the ecological matrix lands?

CHUCK PORTER: With regard to the high-production forestry and the reference the member is making, consultations just wrapped up on that. We are finalizing the report on the criteria and we will have to make some decisions, I would expect, in the near future about the balance of that.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. Well, I guess we will look forward to that.

Turning to the third leg of the triad, which are protected areas, during the leadership race the Premier committed to protecting the remainder of the areas in the Parks and Protected Areas Plan. I am just going to quote a response to questions from Nova Scotia Forest Notes:

“I believe our current mandate of 13% land protection is not sufficient. Therefore I would be mandating the following actions for the Minister of Environment and Minister of Lands and Forestry to action in my government.

(1) I have already committed in this campaign to fully implementing the remaining list of lands from the 2013 Parks and Protected Areas Plan. That puts us just over 14 % in this calendar year.”

Your mandate letter uses slightly different language. It says that you will work with the Minister of Environment to designate sites in the Parks and Protected Areas Plan. Is it your understanding that it is your job to ensure that all of the remaining sites are designated, or just some?

[3:45 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: The wilderness and nature resources piece is done obviously by the Department of Environment and Climate Change, although we certainly work with them because it is on Crown land. As far as this department goes, we are looking at a number of parks. We are doing an assessment currently that is under way. The Premier has made the statement to be clear that we are within that plan and we are doing our part in the assessment of land that we have and those are parks right now.

It is easy to say we’ll just go ahead and put them all into that plan, but there is an assessment that has to be done to make sure there are no other issues that might occur or other things going on around them, more importantly. We are doing an assessment to see how the number grows. We are working on them. That’s where we are at.

LISA ROBERTS: We asked a question in the House recently but perhaps it wasn’t directed to you. We were wondering if the same thing could happen to other areas that are widely understood as protected. For example, there is a park on the coastline in Herring Cove that is as protected now, as I understand it, as Owls Head was. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether such a site is as vulnerable as Owls Head apparently was?

CHUCK PORTER: First of all, I would say that as far as Owls Head goes, I am unavailable. I cannot make any comments. It’s before the courts and I am sure the member and others understand that. I won’t make any comments in reference to that. As far as assessing other sites, we are doing that. So if there is a specific site the member wants to talk about and ask about, then by all means, but we are assessing a number of sites.

LISA ROBERTS: Can I confirm what time my hour concludes?

THE CHAIR: At 4:03. You have 14 minutes left.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. In that case, I am going to ask one last question and then I will turn over my time to the member for Cape Breton‑Richmond.

Minister, you were asked to have a meeting with Jacob Fillmore, who was protesting and then hunger‑striking outside the Legislature and I understand that you missed that meeting. Do you intend to reach out to Mr. Fillmore and those who were intending to accompany him for a meeting with you to discuss his concerns?

CHUCK PORTER: I am not sure how nobody seems to know, but I can assure you that Mr. Fillmore and I had a conversation outside of the Legislature on the 29^th day of March, I believe it was. That was two weeks ago today on a Tuesday at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning. I believe it was the very afternoon or the very day that he spoke later in the afternoon about how he was ending his hunger strike. It was the 30^th maybe. I’m looking at the calendar and it was right in around there and he did not want to have further conversation with government, or something to that effect. I am paraphrasing now. I remember reading something in the media.

Mr. Fillmore and I did have a conversation. As a matter of fact, he recorded that conversation on his phone because he assured me that he would do that. I told him to feel free. There was nothing I wouldn’t say to him or anyone that I wouldn’t be prepared to share publicly, but I guess he chose not to share that publicly. This was not a political event for me - it was a conversation. As I had assured the media when they asked me on previous days, at some point I will have a chance to chat with Mr. Fillmore.

The day that I was in town, and I think my deputy spoke about it, there was some meeting that was set up. Just to be clear, there was no defined time nor place for a meeting ever set up and that’s fine, you know. As I had said on multiple occasions, I am sure that Mr. Fillmore and I would get a chance to say hello to one another and he could ask me questions, which he did. We had a great chat and I enjoyed the opportunity. I wished him well, to stay healthy, and to look after himself. Those are very important points, and I would say that if you have further questions about how that went, honourable member, by all means feel free to ask Mr. Fillmore exactly about that.

LISA ROBERTS: I will turn over the rest of my time for this hour to the member for Cape Breton‑Richmond and I will look forward to asking some other questions after the Progressive Conservative caucus.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cape Breton‑Richmond.

ALANA PAON: Can you hear me okay? Thank you and thank you to the member for ceding some of her time.

Minister, it is a pleasure to be able to ask you a few questions with regard to forestry. Obviously, as you know, we have a wonderful paper mill still in existence in Richmond County and want to be able to keep it that way.

I am wanting to ask some questions, though, not directly related obviously with the pulp mill, but directly related with, on a very smaller scale, questions that have come into my office with regard to the non‑issuance of permits to small, basically private people who are wanting to go on Crown lands to be able to harvest some wood for themselves.

As I understand, the issuing of these permits was stopped in 2018. There used to be the possibility for members of the public to go in and harvest on Crown land for their own purposes in the central and eastern zones in Nova Scotia in the past and that has stopped now. I’m all for obviously being able to manage forests in a proper way. I understand from speaking with them that they were given information that it was due to safety reasons; however, we do live in a province where I am hoping that not everyone has to have their own wood lot to be able to access fuel, and fuel is, like the cost of everything else, on the rise, so even getting a cord of wood and having it delivered and split and all those things is definitely on the rise. Many people in rural Nova Scotia, as you know, utilize wood as either a primary or secondary source of heat. Certainly, many of us - I know I’m one of them - keep a wood stove as that secondary source of heat in case all else fails.

Can he please tell me why permits are no longer being issued for private people to go on Crown lands to be able to harvest just a moderate amount of wood, basically, even just for their own use?

CHUCK PORTER: You talked about a couple of things there. The wood is certainly an important source of heat, whether it be secondary or primary, for folks in this province, and a lot of us have been used to that over the years. There was a point in time, yes, you are correct, where you could walk in through the local office and get a permit to go and harvest a bit of wood for your personal use. That has, indeed, stopped and it has been rescinded. In 2018, that did happen. You are correct on that as well. That was done based on the safety of individuals and liability of folks on Crown land.

ALANA PAON: Again, I just wanted to ask the minister ‑ and I knew that it was likely due to safety and liability - however, unless the regulations have changed in the last little while, the last time I had checked under the regulations, the section actually still exists for a private person to be able to go in ‑ a private Nova Scotian to be able to go in and access small portions, again, of being able to cut down or even forage for downed trees, to be able to utilize for their own purposes.

I guess I am asking the minister: Being that this has been a longstanding tradition and that in rural Nova Scotia, as he well knows, many homeowners are on fixed incomes and do utilize wood as both primary and secondary heat sources, what is the minister going to do to be able to open this up again to the public? Is it a safety and liability issue? Is it a matter of getting them access to the insurance that they need or making certain that they have the courses that they need in order to be able to go in there and take advantage, obviously, and apply for these permits again?

Mr. Chair, if I may just say, it’s just a little bit disconcerting. There is a lot of dead air and it’s almost 4:01 and I think that is when my time is over.

THE CHAIR: I realize that the minister is consulting with staff.

CHUCK PORTER: With regard to your question, I would say that there are a number of private organizations that do cut wood. Yes, you would have to pay probably more than what you would ever cut, obviously, if it were down or if it was a product that you were cutting yourself, but those organizations or private individuals who would do that work, it’s got a market out there.

That is the access of which we have today. I don’t, at this time ‑ I’m just going to be honest with the honourable member - I don’t foresee a change to that at this point. Into the future, when we have some time, I will look at anything but right now there is nothing before me that we would be considering changing what we did in 2018.

THE CHAIR: The member for Cape Breton‑Richmond, with two minutes left.

ALANA PAON: I guess my question then will move on to ‑ well, I’ll make a comment on that first. I guess my commentary would be that, again, traditionally, Nova Scotians have had access to Crown lands to be able to supplement their heat. We have extremely high electric rates in this province. Not everyone is able to take advantage, obviously, of the energy efficiency incentives that are available right now through the province.

As much as I understand - and I am in full agreement of wanting to green our energy - most Nova Scotians, obviously, again, are living on a fixed income. Many of them who call my office are having to make a choice between staying warm and buying food. So when I see that something like this has been sort of cut off, and I’m not familiar with how much consultation had happened with regard to that because I was elected and was here in 2018, I would ask the minister: What kind of consultation took place prior to, and was a consultation done, obviously, with regular Nova Scotians who need access to firewood to be able to keep themselves warm? What kind of consultation was done before a decision like this was made?

CHUCK PORTER: Safety and liability issues within the government are not something that you consult on. Those are important issues. So that would not have happened. A decision would have been made within the department, within the government at that time and . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The time for the first hour has expired. We will take the required COVID-19 break for 15 minutes and return at 4:18 p.m. with the Progressive Conservative caucus speaking. Four eighteen p.m.

[4:03 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[4:18 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will resume. We will move now to the Progressive Conservative caucus for one hour.

The honourable member for Queens‑Shelburne.

KIM MASLAND: Thank you, minister, for the opportunity this afternoon to ask a couple of questions. Congratulations on your new portfolio.

Back in 2012, the New Democratic Party government of the day purchased 550,000 acres of land from Resolute Forest Products, formerly the Bowater lands, after the mill was shut down here in Queens County. The main intent of the purchase of the land was for recreational purposes and access for commercial use, but when the minister’s government came into power, the lands were gated. I am specifically speaking about the Lake Rossignol section in my constituency, West Brook Gate to Kejimkujik River Gate.

I am continuing to field complaints from constituents who are avid sport fishers who would love to get in there and go do some fishing with their grandchildren, but they can’t access the land, and this is land that was purchased with taxpayers’ dollars. I have written to the minister’s predecessor and have not received a response.

I would like to ask the minister: Can the minister please advise why these gates still remain on this property?

CHUCK PORTER: I understand your question clearly and I would say to you that, just in discussion here, I’m trying to figure part of this out. There is still access to this area, but motorized vehicles ‑ just a thing in question here that there is no permitted access at this time, if I am clear. I am not sure what those for and against are. There’s always this issue out there. I’m sure that there may be as many who are in favour of no motorized vehicles as there are the other. I’m not sure of those statistics.

I do appreciate the position your constituents have raised, though. I understand the taxpayer issue ‑ funded by that, purchased by that ‑ I understand it totally, but at this point that’s where we are. I will endeavour to look into it further. I can’t tell you that it will change, but I will tell you, just because I am new here, I have an opportunity to look a little bit deeper into that. I am not sure that will change. There may be more that I learn, honourable member, as I move along here, but why things are the way they are and that there is potential or no potential for any adjustment in that - it never hurts to take a look and I can assure you I will do that.

KIM MASLAND: I’d appreciate learning with you, which was the reason why I sent the letter to your predecessor, to try to find out exactly why the gates do remain. If there is a legitimate reason, I certainly can accept that, but it certainly would be nice to be able to communicate that to constituents as to why those gates remain on taxpayer‑purchased land.

I also recently had a constituent reach out to me. She had contacted the Department of Environment and Climate Change asking why Coffin Island, which has been on the list for approval as a nature reserve since 2013, has yet to be designated. The response back from the Department of Environment and Climate Change was that consistent with government’s mandate, the Department of Environment and Climate Change continues to work jointly with the Department of Lands and Forestry on these designations.

Can the minister provide me an update as to why Coffin Island is still being held up, not being designated, if these departments are working so closely together?

CHUCK PORTER: On this particular piece, as you have mentioned, honourable member, the designation ‑ looking for this designated to a nature reserve - I think you said you wrote to the Department of Environment. This does fall under nature reserve. The designation does fall under the Department of Environment and Climate Change. That is totally within their purview.

We, as Lands and Forestry - this land is a piece of it. It is Crown lands, so it has some impact with us, but all we do is basically say, yes, it’s here. We have no other reason to say that it couldn’t be or could be. This would have to be a question for the Minister of the Department of Environment and Climate Change as to what the status of that is. I can’t comment because we don’t know. Other than ‑ I’m not sure, but you could certainly check with them. The consultation, if there were a consultation - there probably would be to be done on this property - that would all be done through the Department of Environment and Climate Change as well.

KIM MASLAND: What I am hearing from that, minister, is that your department - although Environment and Climate Change is saying you guys are working very closely on these designations - your department is not aware of any conversations with Environment and Climate Change to designate Coffin Island, as of now.

I’ll move on to my last question, which is a question that it seems like I have to ask every budget session and every Question Period session: What are the plans for Carters Beach this Summer?

CHUCK PORTER: First, thanks for the question and your raising it every year. I would say to you, honourable member, a couple of things: (1) I am familiar with Carters Beach; (2) there is activity going on ‑ discussion and activity going on with regard to Carters Beach; and (3) stay tuned.

KIM MASLAND: I will certainly be staying tuned. I will now turn the Progressive Conservative caucus time over to my colleague, the member for Cole Harbour‑Eastern Passage.

THE CHAIR: The member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.

[4:30 p.m.]

BARBARA ADAMS: I just have a couple of questions. About a week and a half ago, I wrote to Jason MacIntosh from the Department of Lands and Forestry. He is an amazing staff member. We have a great working relationship and I really appreciate that. I wrote to him because we recently learned that Rainbow Haven Beach, which is one of the most popular beaches in the province and certainly in our area, is almost a complete circle of land that’s owned by the province, with the exception of a very small part that is owned by the public for their own homes.

The gun club that was there, which is right on the ocean, is now up for sale. It is an area where there is a clubhouse, if you will, with two bathrooms, and there certainly would be an opportunity to utilize this for some kind of conservation or education or training area. I would like to ask the minister: Has the minister heard from Mr. MacIntosh? I had asked him to approach your department to talk about a possible purchase by the province to make that entire area owned by the province.

CHUCK PORTER: We are certainly aware of Rainbow Haven Beach and that situation there. All I can really say to the honourable member is - like we do multiple times a year under different circumstances, although maybe similar - with regard to land and Crown land, is that we’ll take it under consideration. I don’t have any more real detail that I can share with you today. I haven’t seen the letter myself. Staff may have seen it, but I have not read the letter. Certainly, we would look at anything for consideration.

BARBARA ADAMS: I appreciate that. It is a very important area. To go back to the issues with Rainbow Haven, there was a strategic plan developed back in around 2018, where they were looking at renovating the buildings in Rainbow Haven. Certainly, one of them is historic because we walked through it and there is huge public interest in that particular structure. Nothing did happen over the past three years to that area.

I would like to ask the minister: Is he aware of when there may be plans to move forward with some kind of upgrades to that particular park and if the community will be reconsulted, given that it’s been over three years since the last time they were consulted?

CHUCK PORTER: In this park - like all parks that we own, and we have a lot - there is a three‑year rolling capital plan, as I talked about last night, I think, when I started the conversation. I am not sure where this is in that plan, but I can tell you that parks are always under assessment. I would say that I’m sure this is under assessment, but I can’t tell you the actual status of it at this time.

BARBARA ADAMS: I will reach out to you to have more of a discussion about that.

The Valero oil refinery in Eastern Passage, which is right on the main road on both sides of the main road in Eastern Passage, is in the middle phases of cleaning up its facilities so that the land can be sold, and there are over 180 acres, approximately, of land. I would like to ask the minister: Is the province aware of the pending sale of this land and if there have been any discussions with the owners in terms of the province purchasing some of that land to turn it into parkland or other uses?

CHUCK PORTER: I am just trying to determine - to my knowledge, I certainly have had no conversations about any of that. I do know the location, honourable member, but I think it’s safe to say that I am not aware of any conversations that are going on with regard to that. I am not sure what their plans are. I would say they would be going through their tearing down, cleaning up, et cetera, and then there may be some other federal regulations or something perhaps, but I don’t know. We are not involved in that conversation. The Department of Environment and Climate Change perhaps may be. I don’t know that they are not. So thanks.

BARBARA ADAMS: I was just messaged one final question. I have calls constantly about the garbage that’s collected around parks and government lands, and I know that I am always repeatedly told that they actually reduced the number of garbage cans in and around the parks like MacDonald Beach and areas because it just encourages household garbage to be dumped there. I constantly get calls asking for more garbage cans, to be told, no, in fact, we have deliberately gone away from that.

I am just wondering, given that the public is constantly calling for more garbage cans and the department is saying that people just dump household garbage there, is there some kind of happy medium where we could have more garbage cans out there with perhaps an increase in garbage collection?

CHUCK PORTER: I thank the honourable member for the question. This is obviously something we experience across the province, not just in one park or two or in one area - in a variety of places on Crown land. We all probably ‑ anybody in rural parts of Nova Scotia has probably seen things where dumping has occurred over the years. One of the things, going back a number of years that I can recall in my time here is the education that happened around recycling and reusing, no littering, and there has been campaign after campaign. You know, as much as Nova Scotians are leaders in all of those kinds of things around our recycling and good stewardship of the land, we still have some of these issues occurring. It is a constant challenge for us in the department.

We have just recently finished cleaning up a different area, not too far from where the member spoke of, where excess garbage has been dumped. It is a challenge, there’s no question about that. We are looking at what options there might be, but it probably ‑ you know, it may not matter how many garbage cans you put out, will they all be full? Will we still find garbage on the side of the road? How unfortunate that is, but really, this is a huge education piece as well.

You can throw it out the window or you can dump it in a can at the park, or you can take it home and do what we should all do with it, appropriately. For me, this has always been, in all of my years here since ‑ I remember the early days of those campaigns. They’re very valuable. We start teaching young and we hope that it carries on throughout the course of their lives. Let’s be serious: We know that these issues are here, and we do our best to keep our parks and Crown land as clean as we can. That’s going to be an ongoing issue, in my personal opinion, honourable member. So we will continue to do the best we can with it.

BARBARA ADAMS: I agree. We have Friends of McNabs Island, who routinely clean up thousands of bags of garbage from McNabs Island, as well as Angela Riley and the entire team in our community who go around every weekend and clean up some part.

I would now like to turn over time to the member for Cumberland North.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Cumberland North. The member is on mute.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: That’s probably a good thing for what I just said.

I would like to start the conversation with the minister about bears. A couple of years ago, my sister was visiting from Los Angeles and she couldn’t believe the things that people call our office for. She couldn’t believe that Summer I had so many people - we’d be out in public and people would stop me at a local store and start talking to me about the bear problem.

I would like to ask the minister: Has the minister and the people in his department discussed the issue of overpopulation of bears and any solutions being planned?

CHUCK PORTER: I am not sure if the honourable member from Eastern Passage is still on. I see she just popped up there. I just wanted to let her know, just as we had been moving into the next speaker, her question around Rainbow Haven Beach, work to be done there in Design and Construction 2023: they are very much in that rolling capital plan. Just so you know.

On to the member for Cumberland North. Thank you, and welcome to the conversation this afternoon. We do, indeed, have a healthy population of bears, it could be said, in this province. We do have staff who are dedicated to this, to managing this. We have heard lots of stories in a variety of areas, including my own.

Bears have been something that we have had all of my life where I grew up, in a rural part of Nova Scotia. In those days, we had things called dumps where they incinerated and burned garbage. They were a huge factor in what brought out that bear population and they were always hanging around there. It would not be abnormal to be back there, taking your garbage there, and see bears actually roaming around not too far from you.

I don’t want to say you got used to that, but you were aware of it. This is a pretty serious issue by way of the conflict and how we manage that conflict between humans, obviously, and the bear population. There are reasons why the bears come into certain areas, obviously, and a garbage can would be one of those, with rubbish and stuff around in an area. It may draw them, and there may be other reasons.

I’m no specialist in bears. I am very familiar with bears but the population is, indeed, healthy in this province. Again, I want to state that we do have staff that are dedicated to managing this process.

[4:45 p.m.]

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: In our neighbouring province of New Brunswick, there is a Spring and a Fall bear hunt. Here in Nova Scotia, it is just in Fall and many people believe that is one of the reasons leading to the overpopulation of bears. In some areas, there are literally 12 bears being located in one area. It’s not just because people have a garbage can laid out if there is a definite overpopulation.

I would like to ask the minister: I am wondering if the department is looking at what our neighbouring province of New Brunswick is doing and considering implementing a similar solution?

CHUCK PORTER: This is something I have been asked about on my very first day in this job and it was about a Spring bear hunt. As familiar as I am with bears and hunting seasons, this would definitely be outside of what we would see as the normal hunting season. What impacts would that have? Maybe some. The other issue is that in the Spring of the year, you have mama bears and cubs, so I’m not sure what that would have by way of an impact on bears’ lives, as far as that goes.

Again, I’m no specialist in bears. I think, given the interest that I’ve had from people at home as well - I mean, I come from a rural area also and I am surprised at how many people have asked me about this. I’ll be honest with you: I would never have thought this was an issue because I never heard anything about it until I became the minister of the Department of Lands and Forestry, responsible for bears, if that makes any sense.

We can have a look at this. Staff can report back on this issue for me. I’m only here a short time. It is something that I haven’t even had ‑ to be honest with you, I haven’t even had the chance to talk to staff about the requests that have come around a Spring bear hunt, but there have been a number of them and it is something we will look at. I’m not going to tell you today ‑ I want to be very clear. I am not promising that is going to happen, but I won’t tell you right now, either. What I will tell you is that we will have an assessment done. We will look at what it might take and we will look at the impacts. I’m sure there’s some science around this when it comes to any kind of animal and how they’re impacted.

Again, we will continue to do our management of this with staff dedicated to the safety, obviously, and you know there have been times where we’ve gone out and trapped bears and looked after them accordingly and appropriately. Those kinds of things are important. We have calls ‑ I don’t know how many calls a year, but at times we would have numerous calls around bear sightings in certain locations. I know at home last year ‑ I think it was last year or the year before, time does go by quickly - but there were multiple sightings of bears in one area, and it’s a little unnerving that they are actually right there on your doorstep.

Those are things to consider. Obviously, when we hear those, we want to make sure that people are educated around what to do. That’s an important piece as well. We will continue to work on this one around that Spring bear hunt request and what you have referred to and we will report back at some time on it.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Yes, and keep in mind New Brunswick is our neighbour and that is what they are doing, and so I am sure you could consult and collaborate with our neighbours on this topic. I’ve been trying to encourage our government to do this more with the pandemic. I don’t know why we are not working on things more as a Maritime region, but certainly I would encourage you to talk to our neighbours and see how they are doing it. I know that a lot of the food ‑ a lot of the meat ‑ is given to food banks. Certainly, it would help them out as well.

A couple other things I wanted to bring up: 1) we’ve actually already had correspondence about this, but I wouldn’t be representing my people if I didn’t bring this up because it is a very important issue to them, and that is the Tidnish suspension bridge. It does fall under ownership of the Department of Lands and Forestry, and it has been requested that repairs are needed. There has been an engineering report done and, unfortunately, message I am getting back from the department is that there is no money for repairs.

I just wanted to bring that up during budget Estimates and I will continue bringing it up because I believe our area of the province, when you talk about trails and a healthy approach to our population health, that this important piece of infrastructure is very important to this area of the province. It is also part of our history. It is part of the Chignecto Ship Railway and we are looking at doing a project here around the Chignecto Ship Railway, the 40^th anniversary of our local Cumberland County Museum. They have a big project in the works around that as well.

I did just want to bring that up and just ask the minister and his department to consider doing the repairs ‑ the needed repairs on the Tidnish suspension bridge, knowing that this connects the Ship Railway Trail. It’s also used not only for walking and biking, but also snowmobiles, off‑highway vehicles, ATVs, and that as well. I did just want to bring that up. I don’t know if the minister wants to make a comment about that or not. He has already sent me correspondence, so if he’d rather not, I’m okay with that.

CHUCK PORTER: Lots of history in Cumberland County has risen in many places right across this province and we are all a little different, depending on what part of the province you’re in and what our history dictated. I do know that in 2015 there was an engineering study done on that bridge and I know we are working with local trail groups.

The Cumberland County Snowmobile Club has been an example of that - about how to proceed forward, whether they maybe take over the ownership of that, or what that might be, or how they might look forward to applying for dollars to assist with that. I am not sure what the costs are. I have no idea what those costs are to replace or repair whatever is exactly needed there, but there is ongoing work on that suspension bridge in an effort to help resolve that.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: After our conversation, I will forward you the report. We have an estimate for the costs, and the answer that we’ve gotten from the previous minister was that there was no money in the Department of Lands and Forestry for the repairs.

I do think it’s unfair to offload the provincial piece of infrastructure to a trail group. I think that they are a great partner and stakeholder and I am sure they will do everything they can to help, but to pass on the full costs of the repairs of a piece of provincial infrastructure certainly doesn’t sit well with me or anyone in our area. I do believe the province has the responsibility to repair its infrastructure that it owns.

I also wanted to bring up about our provincial campgrounds. We love our provincial campgrounds. I’m sorry, we only have one provincial campground, but our provincial parks, as well. We have Blue Sea Beach, Fox Harbour, Gulf Shore, Heather Beach, which is ‑ there are some accessible pieces and components to Heather Beach Provincial Park - Northport, Amherst Shore, which is a campground with overnight tenting, and Tidnish Dock. We love our provincial parks and I do think that our local staff with the Department of Lands and Forestry do a great job.

Some of the comments I have received from people, and just more in the last 12 months ‑ I think people, with the pandemic, are using the parks more, which is good - but I’ve had some people contact me and ask if the government could look at making them more accessible, especially for our seniors, as we have more and more people with physical disabilities. I would like to ask the minister: I am wondering if that is something the department has looked at. Have they been looking at the provincial parks and campgrounds in general, at accessibility and looking for ways to improve accessibility?

CHUCK PORTER: The parks, we do. The honourable member mentioned that there were parks there in her area. We are all very fortunate across the province to have parks in most all of our areas and, certainly, as rural members, we have some very beautiful parks, and well‑attended parks.

Last year was an amazing year, with 1.2 million visitors to these parks and this year the bookings have been just as busy. We have a lot of ‑ are we fully booked now? I don’t know what ‑ we are almost fully booked now. I know it’s been busy. We’ve been watching this for the last little while, since it has been opened up for bookings and the number may even be a 35 per cent increase. We are up 35 per cent from where we were last year already.

It’s another year where, you know, to your point, with COVID-19, people aren’t travelling away maybe as much. They want to get out, they want to get away from home a bit, and go take in some of these beautiful parks, which is a wonderful thing. We see that as very positive.

One of the things we did last year was hire students to evaluate the very issue that you’ve referenced here by way of accessibility in our parks. We do have a plan that we will be rolling out based on what we have learned by way of the information, so stay tuned for more information on that. There will be more coming.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: That’s great news. I am happy to hear that.

I spent a lot of time from the end of March until January visiting and talking with the conservation officers who were working at our border. I realize they are under the Department of Environment and Climate Change, but I wanted to ask the minister for the Department of Lands and Forestry how he feels about the fact that conservation officers are under the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Does the minister think that that is the way it should be, or should our conservation officers be, in fact, working in the Department of Lands and Forestry?

CHUCK PORTER: We’ve had a number of enforcement personnel who work for government. You have those inspectors - Agriculture, for example - those who do conservation work, and so on. To me, the big piece here is the work is getting done and it is getting done appropriately and correctly. Where it falls, it is under the Department of Environment and Climate Change and we do share many things with them, obviously. That is the current home of where they are placed and managed out of.

I don’t think the work that they do matters to ‑ I don’t want to say it doesn’t matter to them, but the work that they do doesn’t impact where they ‑ the department that they fall under. These folks are out there doing great work every day and they are well supported. So, for me, I don’t personally find it that big of an issue. They are still out there doing the job and that is the main thing for me. So I’ll leave it at that.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: There may need to be some conversations because I do think it matters to the conservation officers. Anyway, I’ll leave it at that.

I have a question regarding pulp wood. With regard to forestry, I would like to ask the minister: Has the department considered any strategy now that there is no longer a market for pulpwood with the closure of Northern Pulp? Has the department considered any strategies or solutions for a market for the pulp that is now just being left in the woods?

[5:00p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: Obviously, we have, I’m sure you are aware, a transition fund that was put in place to help offset some of these, to find new markets, to look at value-added products, and other innovations. We are very interested in working with those in the industry and others to help create those new opportunities as we go forward from where we have been. This was announced very early on, about our support for this thing.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Does the department have any increase in their budget for silviculture in the province?

CHUCK PORTER: Could the honourable member just repeat that? We had a bit of a technical glitch there, I think, where we didn’t quite hear the question.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: The Department of Lands and Forestry: Is there any increase in the budget, over previous years, for silviculture?

CHUCK PORTER: I am just getting some details here. In 2018‑19 and 2019‑20, in each of those years, there were increases of $1 million each. So $2 million since then, and those are permanent increases that will remain there. That was used to help facilitate the interim guide that we have that was post‑Lahey. Also, this year we put $800,000 one-time into Crown land silviculture and we put $2 million one-time into private land silviculture initiatives.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: My last question, before I turn it over to my colleague, is: Has there been any increase in funding from the department for the planting of trees?

CHUCK PORTER: The money I just spoke of, that is included in that. The planting of trees is part of silviculture. That is all within the money I have just mentioned, the millions of dollars I’ve just talked about.

ELIZABETH SMITH-MCCROSSIN: Thank you very much to the minister and I will now turn Estimates over to my colleague from Argyle‑Barrington.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Argyle‑Barrington.

COLTON LEBLANC: Thank you to the minister and his staff for the opportunity to ask a few questions with the few moments that remain in this round of questioning.

I guess, although we are miles apart across this province, some of the issues aren’t that different. I do want to continue the conversation that my colleague from Cumberland North started on the bear populations and include the deer populations.

Back in January of this year, I did write to the minister of the time regarding the issue after having received a number of concerns brought forward to my office regarding nuisance deer and bear, and even hearing about the issue in the neighbouring constituency of Yarmouth in the town itself. I was a little surprised, seeing some of the data that were sent along, and I was very appreciative of that. You know, over the last ‑ since 2015, in 2019 there was either no, or one, bear complaint in Yarmouth County, and then in 2020 there were 12. I don’t know if people are home more often seeing the bears around the yard, but it is proof that there are more people who are seeing bears.

I guess I am just wondering from the minister: What actions are going to be taken from that data to inform the department, to make decisions when it comes to not only licenses for the bear population in Yarmouth County and the surrounding region, but as well as other practical and appropriate measures to control the bear populations?

CHUCK PORTER: Welcome to the honourable member from Argyle‑Barrington, I guess we refer to now, for some debate this afternoon. The bag limits for bear are set in regulations, as you may or may not be aware of. I’m not sure what data you were sent at the time. Additional licenses can be made available if it is deemed necessary. There are other alternatives. I don’t know the exact number. I did ask the question, but I don’t know the exact number, as to how many per year. There would be a few hundred, is our estimate of licences that go out, and more can be made available if that were the desire. Again, I think the assessment would have to be done.

You said you had 12 and then you related it to something very important: Is that because more people are home and are actually seeing these things that we wouldn’t normally have seen? I don’t know, but the fact of the matter remains that you have an increase of 12 and it is really about how to manage that. Again, we have dedicated staff, as I mentioned earlier, helping to manage this very issue.

THE CHAIR: The member with nine minutes left in this hour.

COLTON LEBLANC: I appreciate the minister’s response. I guess the same arguments can be made when it comes to the deer population and both can be considered nuisances. It was noted in the response that additional hunting stamps, outside of the legal hunting season, are implemented through the regulations.

I would like to ask the minister: Has there been an increased uptake of that? I believe maybe even the minister did allude to that, but I am just wondering, has there been any increased uptake in that regard of managing the deer and bear?

CHUCK PORTER: With regard to the deer, yeah, it depends on where you are at, but most anywhere these days it is not uncommon to see deer roaming about, my backyard being one of them. There was one night last week at two o’clock in the morning when the dog started to bark. I looked out the door and there were 10 in a line making their way through the yard. They are everywhere. Last night, driving home late, we saw one right beside us on the road. Luckily, we didn’t hit it. It didn’t run in front of us. Some people look at them as a nuisance, you know and others, maybe not, but we will be bringing forward some recommendations, this year, around the doe tag and how many.

We’ve done some things in the past, if I can recall, around how many you could take, et cetera. We’re at - I don’t know what the numbers of deer are in the province. Somebody may know that number, but I know there are plenty. We have many, many deer right now roaming about in the province and not just at home. I know that they are everywhere. We see them all the time. Again, we will have more coming forward in the near future about what this season looks like.

COLTON LEBLANC: Similarly, in Argyle‑Barrington and where I live in Springhaven, it can be a dangerous drive home. They are certainly nuisances for those who end up in collisions with them, that’s for sure, so I appreciate the minister’s response.

I guess, with the few moments that remain, I have one last question on hunting. There are a number of Sundays in the hunting season that are permitted for Sunday hunting. Is this something that is being considered to go beyond what is currently allowed in the province of Nova Scotia?

CHUCK PORTER: I recall the days when there were no Sundays in hunting. Prior to that being implemented, where we now have two for deer hunting, there was public consultation done and, as I’m sure you can appreciate, like most consultations and when you ask someone for an opinion, it is varied. They were, indeed, split, and I think that was part of the guidance, at that time, to help the department decide that okay, we will meet you in the middle at two.

I don’t think that they are, just being very honest with you - I don’t think there is any discussion or direction that we are moving to anything different at this time. Anything can be considered. I’ve heard from a couple of people, I think only because I am the minister of this department now, people have contacted me even at home to ask this question - much like the bear hunt - but before, I was never asked those questions. I think it is just relative to where I sit today. I appreciate that, though, very much. That’s an issue. The hunters like to get out, people work through the week, and there is a variety of - you know, people take holidays maybe on Fridays or whatever to go hunting. I’m a former hunter myself and I haven’t done that in many, many years. A walk in the woods is something I enjoy and most of the times I was unsuccessful. I may have seen lots of deer but was unsuccessful. That’s okay, too.

They are a beautiful animal, as you have pointed out. Some people might consider them a nuisance, and they are in some ways. When you are out on the highways and you are smashing up cars because deer are running out in front of you, that’s one issue. For others, you know, it might be them eating the flowers in my garden or what have you, and so on. There are a lot of ways you can consider them a nuisance, but they are something we have here in this province, and they are beautiful animals.

There are no plans to change, at this point in time, but we will see what happens into the future.

[5:15 p.m.]

COLTON LEBLANC: I do want to discuss briefly our wildfire response in our province. It has been brought up and the minister may have had a better appreciation for this question in his previous ministerial role as minister of the Department of Municipal Affairs, but I understand that before March 15^th or after October 15^th, so that’s the wildfire season, that if a fire department is asked to respond to a wildfire outside of that season, that they are not reimbursed or rather compensated as they would be within the wildfire season. So they are doing the same work, just at a different time of the day or a different time of the year, rather. It could be a matter of March 14^th or March 15^th and that they get financial support from the province.

I’m just looking for the minister’s comment on this question: Would he be open to the opportunity to re‑examine, renegotiate that agreement with the fire service? We are seeing drier weather, we are seeing wildfires earlier in the season and later on in the season. I’d appreciate the minister’s response to this question.

CHUCK PORTER: I thank the honourable member for the question around that very important piece. We certainly have great fire protection, not only within the department, but certainly under municipal units and all our voluntary fire services across the province. They do good work when they are called upon to do it. We are extremely appreciative of that and I would say that we will look at this and assess this.

I am not familiar with any of the specifics of it, but it would seem to me to make sense that we would do it, you know, if there was something outside of the norm that was big, over and above. We would certainly be open to having a look at any of those situations. That would only seem fair and the right thing to do, given these folks, the majority of these guys are volunteers out there, and gals, leaving their jobs, et cetera, to go and do good work on our behalf. I appreciate the question.

COLTON LEBLANC: I greatly appreciate the minister’s response and agree that it should be seriously considered. I hope that the minister does undertake that examination.

With less than one minute that remains, a quick question on provincial parks. I am happy to hear my colleague talk about accessibility. That is a sentiment that is echoed in Argyle‑Barrington, but also the department’s role in working with local recreation departments to improve access and safety to swimming areas such as in Glenwood Park, one in my constituency that I have written to the department on, about that issue. Is that something that the department is willing to undertake to work with me and the local municipal unit, to improve the safety and access more so, as well, at that site?

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The time for the hour for the PC caucus has expired. Maybe the minister can take some time during the COVID-19 break and come back and answer that question for us.

We will take our required COVID-19 break and return at 5:33 p.m.

[5:18 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[5:33 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee on Supply will resume.

We finished off with a question from the member from Argyle‑Barrington when we closed, and rather than take time from the NDP, from their hour, unless the member consents, we will have the minister answer that question in the final hour of the night.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

LISA ROBERTS: If the minister would like to answer that question so that the member, who I can see is still with the meeting, can hear, I don’t mind allowing that.

THE CHAIR: Thank you for that.

The honourable Minister of Lands and Forestry.

CHUCK PORTER: I thank the honourable member for Halifax Needham for a moment here, or two, to answer the question.

Look, we are always willing to work with our different levels of government in an effort to make sure that safety is in place. Those are always concerns, so that door will always be open to doing so. I think it is important.

There are a number of these around the province, I’m sure, and probably some we are not even aware of in a variety of places, whether it be swimming, or visiting, or what have you. Safety is always our first concern and if there’s something we can do to help improve that, we are certainly open to the discussion to help make that case.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

LISA ROBERTS: I thought I would just take an opportunity for a moment and share some thoughts on some of the questions that were asked by members of the PC caucus.

First of all, regarding Carters Beach: I have often said that good ideas are kind of easy to come up with and they are often more difficult to execute, but I really do think that Carters Beach is the most amazing spot. I have visited it on a number of occasions and certainly have seen the trouble of very congested roads and the lack of services. I note that there is a non‑profit organization that has taken over - I think it was an old school on the main highway which would be about maybe a three-kilometre, maybe five-kilometre drive from the beach. Of course, there’s a parking lot at the school and there is no parking lot at the beach.

I would love to see some sort of partnership between that non‑profit organization and the department to maybe do a pilot with an electric minibus where people could park at the school, which is now a hostel, a café, and a craft store so it would be great for them for that reason too, but just have a constant electric shuttle going back and forth to the beach, you know. Maybe take 20 or 40 vehicles off of that little road that really cannot handle it. Anyway, it would be great to see some innovative partnerships like that.

I happen to know, in my constituency, a travel writer. She is various things, but she has just published a book called 25 Family Adventures in Nova Scotia: Making the most of your travels with kids. She copied me on some correspondence back and forth with the department where she posed the question: Should she remove Carters Beach from this list of top 25 family adventures? I think the conclusion was that yes, they should, because the infrastructure was simply not there to support the level of visitors to that really amazing spot. Wouldn’t it be great if, instead of trying to discourage people from visiting a really beautiful spot, we actually made it possible for people to do it in a way that is sustainable and good for the community?

In a similar vein around campgrounds, I - and maybe fellow members can sympathize with me, given that we are sitting long hours at this time of the year - am simply not capable of jumping on a website in April, on the one day that you have to do it, in order to get camp reservations for August. It’s just - you know, my kids and my partner have to forgive me, it’s just no longer in the realm of our possibilities - the kind of thing I used to do before I was elected. So as a result, we’ve switched to often camping in friends’ backyards or sometimes in private campgrounds that seem to have vacancies but aren’t the beautiful provincial campgrounds or federal campgrounds, because both are somewhat similar.

I just checked in with a friend who was on it and made reservations on the day that the campgrounds opened up for reservations. We were just dialoguing back and forth over text about what kind of reservation fee is paid and if that fee is forfeited if you cancel. I know that lots of people cannot plan for August in April. There is an awful lot of uncertainty four months out. Right now, it feels like there is a lot of uncertainty even one week out.

So if there was a reservation fee that was significant enough to maybe deter people from booking weeks and weeks of camp sites, or if there was a system where when people cancelled, the folks who were trying to get on were actually alerted that maybe people could go on a wait‑list for those sites, it would seem to introduce some element of fairness. Also, frankly, I think it would be great if a reservation fee like that was actually put into some sort of trust to benefit the park system.

One thing, and I will move to my questions after this, but one thing I am aware of is that Nova Scotians tend to invest, or tend to support investing, in protecting spaces. Why don’t we put a reservation fee on campgrounds and have that not just go into general revenue, but maybe go to support adding small purchases of Crown land or purchases of private land to add to Crown land, to enhance protected areas.

I know that in, I think it was December, a story was published about a private citizen of Nova Scotia donating a small amount of land that he had purchased, basically in order to protect it. It was adjacent to a large part of protected land, but quite crucial to that piece of protected land being enjoyable for the public in the long‑term, and that was eventually a spot on the Eastern Shore donated to the province.

Those are a couple of thoughts from a person who really does enjoy travelling Nova Scotia and often does use facilities and spaces that are in the responsibility of the department.

One question before I get into my main part. I am wondering if, in the capital plan that was released a little bit prior to the budget, there was reference to the department and to land, as well as buildings, as expected capital expenses this year. I would like to ask the minister: Can the minister clarify what land it is that the department will be spending capital dollars on?

CHUCK PORTER: I appreciate your comments, your opening comments on a different perspective on things and your input there. I very much appreciate that.

As for the capital plan and to your question, we have $1.5 million annually that we set aside in capital for land purchases that we could buy, if needed, for any number of things with regard to capital.

LISA ROBERTS: Can the minister just clarify, then: Would a similar amount have been allocated last year and on what was it spent?

CHUCK PORTER: Yes, last year that was there as well. That was dedicated to purchasing private forestry land.

LISA ROBERTS: Okay. I want to ask some questions about the Biodiversity Act. Bringing forward the Biodiversity Act was both part of the government’s response to the Lahey report and also mentioned in the minister’s mandate letter. I wonder if the minister could speak, because we haven’t really heard him speak in debate on the Act, on his understanding of the biodiversity crisis?

[5:45 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: I appreciate the question and the opportunity to talk a bit about biodiversity. Obviously, this is something that is the first of its kind in Nova Scotia, certainly in the country, and I’m not sure, even maybe North America. I don’t have that detail, but it could be.

There are lots of questions around this. We have put this forward and obviously we will be committed to Crown land. The best part of this, or a part of this, will be that for those who wish to, as private landowners, take part, that door is open for discussion. I think that is an important piece as well. We have talked about, in this legislation, the biodiversity reporting within three years and a review of the Bill within five years. It is just getting started. There have been many questions raised. We all heard the comments in the House, the debates that have ensued thus far.

We have a plan for a very collaborative approach to regulations that will be developed, and I think that is an important piece as well. I know we have third reading coming up at some point. I’m not sure just exactly when that will be, but I look forward to that. I am sure there will be some more comments and I might offer a comment or two, a couple of minutes of time there, just to talk about that in third reading.

LISA ROBERTS: The minister didn’t actually discuss his understanding of the biodiversity crisis but I will assume that he has that understanding. I certainly learned a lot by listening to people in the Law Amendments process.

We’ve talked in my earlier hour of questions about some of the regulations that are in effect on both Crown lands and private lands now. For example, the need to leave land undisturbed around watercourses - that’s one of the regulations that is actually in effect on Crown land, and on private land now. A lot of the division around the Biodiversity Act came down to who has the right to say what should or should not happen on private lands.

Does the minister feel it is reasonable for the government to set regulations that protect biodiversity on private land?

CHUCK PORTER: I think it is important to note the point that the member did raise, that there are other regulations that are in place through not only the Bill that she referenced, but there are others out there that will work right along with the development of the regulations and the Bill that we currently have before the House.

I think this is an important piece of legislation that will be measured. The fact that we have a three‑year window in there to measure and report on it and, again, another five‑year window that says we will look at the legislation itself at that time. I think the measurable outcomes will be quite important. We will see whether or not what has been put forward is agreeable to Nova Scotians who are private landowners, as an example; what the impact of Crown land has been or will be as we move forward; and how that changes, or may change, practices that currently exist. All of that working together with the current legislation, other Bills, other pieces of legislation, and regulations that already exist in the province.

I’d like to say that we are quite confident that we are in a good place to be moving forward and we look forward to the collaborative efforts in the months ahead by way of consulting and looking at regulations. I think that people will take an interest and they will be involved, and it is important that they do. The comments that come from the consultation period that people vote, and do, on regulations will be of great interest, I think to certainly the private landowners and to be clear in where their options lie, for taking part if they wish to do so as a private landowner in the current makeup of this Bill.

LISA ROBERTS: I wonder, given that this legislation has been in the works for quite some time - I mean, it was referenced in the Natural Resources Strategy - and particularly the gap in governance around taking a preventive approach to introduction of invasive species was discussed in the Natural Resources Strategy. I know that from within the department, it was that gap that this legislation particularly looked to, to address. Given that, can the minister shed some light on the decision to suggest extensive amendments before the Act even made it to the Law Amendments process?

CHUCK PORTER: A collaborative approach has always been our approach. Certainly, the invasive species remain a priority for government. The Bill itself that she has referenced and the changes that have been made, I would say that we took the feedback very seriously, what was portrayed. The Premier has spoken to this. The intent was never to be heavy‑handed or harsh in any way, although we saw from the feedback that Nova Scotians, and certainly private landowners, took that as such.

There were things said that may not have quite been factual, but they were understood to be threatening in some ways, if that’s the word I can use, around what might have been going to happen. Again, it was not an intent, but when we look at the idea of the report in three years and five years for an assessment, again, those measurable outcomes I spoke about earlier, I think, we will have a good understanding of where this is and, again, this brings us to a foundation to build on as we move forward. I think that is an important first step. We will continue to build on that foundation.

LISA ROBERTS: Many Nova Scotians, both rural and urban, many of them landowners, were upset by the ads that the Concerned Private Landowner Coalition placed in the Chronicle Herald. The website that was associated with that coalition is no longer available online, but a few examples of the messaging from that group, just a couple of quotes: “Bill 4 threatens the peaceful enjoyment of our land . . . Bill 4 gives the minister the right to stop almost any activity on private land.”

I am wondering if, as minister, did he speak with any representatives from that group to correct any of the statements that were being made?

CHUCK PORTER: I think it is important to note I received many calls, letters, emails from folks right across the province and maybe beyond on this issue. The member spoke about things that were said, things that were put in the newspaper. It was never, again, I want to be clear on this, regardless of what people might have thought, the intent was never that the minister just had unyielding power that he could do whatever he or she wanted at any time.

This was always a collaborative approach and that was mentioned in this, that we want to work with landowners. The opportunity was there, voluntarily, to work with government if they so chose. Compensation was part of that and mentioned at one point there, but there was never any intent to be - to do any of those things. What was important here is that to get to the point where we are, we listened to what Nova Scotians had to offer, both through all of those mechanisms I talked about, Law Amendments, and it was clear that we needed to make sure that Nova Scotians understood exactly what I am talking about.

Our intent was never to be heavy‑handed or harsh in any way around this. It was to deliver a Bill that was a great foundation ‑ a beginning point - to move forward on what we could build on and we could measure. We believe that we have a start. We will move forward from here. I would also add that I am very appreciative of the comments that came in from all sides.

You know, you have to have an understanding; you have to have an open mind here and listen to all sides of the story. Some of it you would argue, if you will, for lack of a better word, that no, that’s not at all correct, that’s not right. That’s not what was ever intended here. In an effort, I think in a real sincere effort, to ensure that Nova Scotians understood where we were and that wasn’t the intent, it became much easier to look at this and go, well look, that’s not our intent, let’s take that out. Let’s show Nova Scotians sincerely that we are not who we are being described as here. That was not the intent. So that’s what we did and that takes us where we are today.

You know, we’ve gone through the processes of introduction and second reading and obviously through debate again on the Committee of the Whole. At some point, we will debate again on third reading. I am sure there will be further comments to this. Again, it may reflect many sides of this. It is just hard to say what debate in the House will bring forward, but I would like to think that Nova Scotians look at this as an opportunity for us, as I’ve spoken about, to build on, going forward. Maybe they will pick up the phone and call and say, hey, we’re interested in this, how do we become part of it? I’m confident, to be honest with you, honourable member, that there will be people who will call and be interested in this because they are good stewards.

We’ve talked about the agriculture community and farmers and other private landowners, and a lot of farmers are woodlot owners around Nova Scotia, as you know. It’s one and the same in some ways, if you want to reference it that way. They are good stewards of the land. I would never think for a moment that they are not. Those are the people we need to be talking to and working with, and that we try to grow what this legislation is about and to get people to understand and to educate them about what biodiversity is and in doing those sorts of protective measures.

I think it is important that we have a sincere and a significant interest in Nova Scotia with all of those private landowners who are interested in talking to us. I am hopeful that we will see some of those conversations ongoing and some people saying, well, hey, I’ve got a piece of property I’m interested in, how do we go about that?

I think, as anything, when people start to see, perhaps, this isn’t how it was delivered, or at least initially, maybe we will see some input and some excitement around that, some discussion around that, and more education around that. I’ve even had young folks from schools write me, quite honestly, from different parts of the province, talking about this and I think that’s a great thing.

Again, we talked about issues earlier, about teaching people at a young age to understand what some of these things are about and why we are where we are on them. It is important they understand that. It is important that they understand debate and it is important that they understand that debate is healthy, and that change can happen, and that we want to move forward in an effort that represents all Nova Scotia ‑ not some Nova Scotians, not part of Nova Scotia, all Nova Scotians, and we all have a part to play together.

That is where my head is around this. I’m no expert. I’m new to the Department of Lands and Forestry but I’m not new to Nova Scotia. I know a lot about the forest and certain trees and things but I’m no expert. The staff here are the experts, there is no question about that, but I can tell you that in the last couple of months I’ve learned an awful lot. Some days, I would say I’ve not learned enough yet, but I have learned an awful lot about some of these philosophies and how we get to where we are.

[6:00 p.m.]

It’s a give and take here. There are a lot of sides to this but, most importantly, any government has to be prepared to sit down, to listen, to have a conversation, and maybe sometimes step back and say, okay, that’s not what we meant. We will show you it’s not what we meant and that is how we get to the bill today where it is.

LISA ROBERTS: Thank you. Like I said, the coalition of private landowners ‑ the Stop Bill 4 website no longer is up but the Facebook group is still active. Both from a CBC interview that Jeff Bishop did, as well as acknowledgement of Forest Nova Scotia in the ad, we certainly know that Forest Nova Scotia played a significant role in, sort of, standing up that coalition. I wonder if the minister could share how much funding Forest Nova Scotia receives from your department each year?

CHUCK PORTER: I’ll just start off ‑ we are just looking a little bit deeper for other numbers here to make sure that I have what I need for the member.

The annual funding for Forest Nova Scotia would be $720,000. In 2019‑20, they received $500,000 for extra projects that they would have been doing. One of the things I think it is also important to note is that Forest Nova Scotia represents, I think, a fairly large body - not all, but a fairly large body - of the smaller landowners and that’s who they are certainly representing.

To the member’s point and comment in a previous question, I just want to talk about websites and Facebook, social media, et cetera, and other things that are out there. I think it is important in this province, in this country ‑ this is a free and democratic society and everybody is entitled to their opinion. We don’t always share the same opinion. It’s their ability. It’s why we have the Law Amendments process in this province. We are one of the only ones left in the country, I think, that do that. It is an opportunity for people to speak their mind. It is what they believe, it is what they’ve been told, and how they believe it. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s factual in every sense of the word, but sometimes they may believe it to be something if they don’t know the difference.

I think what we have done with the biodiversity Bill, as you talked about, member, and the changes that we’ve made to it going forward, to come back to that again to say, okay, you thought it was this, but we are willing to make those changes to show you that’s not who we are and that’s not what this is all about. This is about something totally different than some power issue, if you will, or some overarching power that the minister might have, or government.

I think those are all ‑ it’s relevant to talk about that because you raised it and the fact that those sites are out there. I wasn’t on that site. You know, there are people who have opinions and, again, it is extremely important that they are able to share those opinions. We don’t always agree. We won’t always agree. I’ve always said that if everybody agreed, well, it would be a pretty boring place. We are not robots. We are entitled to our opinions. It’s important in the House and other places that they are able to be shared.

I want to touch on that $500,000. I do have a little more detail. In 2019‑20, I talked about the additional $500,000. That was project‑based. In 2020‑21, it was $1 million from the transition fund for roads that took place. Those are ‑ just looking to see if there are a couple more things ‑ and that was for private woodlot owners, that investment of the $1 million in 2020‑21, over and above. The $720,000 is an annual line item for funding for Forest Nova Scotia. In 2019, the $250,000 extra was project‑based and in 2021 the $1 million in transition funding was for roads for private landowners ‑ woodlot owners. I want to be clear on that.

THE CHAIR: Just before I recognize the member again, I want to just put you on notice that in about 11 minutes my computer is going to restart again, so I am going to ask Mr. Wilson to stay on standby, should I disappear for a little while, and conduct the meeting, if you all consent. Thank you. The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

LISA ROBERTS: Thank you and I appreciate the minister’s comments. I have to say I am actually surprised at how high those amounts are. I didn’t realize, and maybe I should have, that we were funding Forest Nova Scotia to that extent. So it does seem odd, given that Forest Nova Scotia must receive a very significant amount of its funding from the Department of Lands and Forestry, that it is working at odds with the department on some major work that is coming out of both the Lahey review and out of the Natural Resources Strategy.

Again, Jeff Bishop is the only person I heard actually do an interview on behalf of the coalition of private landowners, or whatever that coalition was called.

In May 2018, the Auditor General, in their audit of various grant programs, also pointed out an additional, kind of, wrinkle with Forest Nova Scotia, which is that they administer the roads program and are paid to perform inspections on 100 per cent of the applications each year even though the Off‑Highway Vehicle Infrastructure Fund grants, which are similar in nature, don’t actually do inspections.

In order to qualify for the Access Road Construction Program, woodlot owners have to join Forest Nova Scotia. The administrator for Forest Nova Scotia charges an application fee of $266 for each program applicant and then the applicant also has to pay a membership fee to Forest Nova Scotia. So, part of the reason why Forest Nova Scotia represents a good number of woodlot owners is because they don’t want to not have access to the significant program from the Department of Lands and Forestry that helps them replace their culverts or what have you. It really feels like the department, in many ways, is ensuring that it has a robust, in some cases, counterforce, I guess, in some effort, certainly, if biodiversity is used as an example.

I don’t know if the ‑ I would like to ask the minister: Can the minister update me in terms of whether the department has completed the actions recommended by the Auditor General in that May 2018 audit?

CHUCK PORTER: Yes, to your question around the AG’s audit of 2018, those recommendations have been addressed. There are agreements that have been updated, and new agreements in place with Forest Nova Scotia that address those concerns.

LISA ROBERTS: Just a last thing around biodiversity, and also around ecological forestry. It has been pointed out to me by a number of foresters who have made their careers largely doing ecological forestry, or doing their best to, that the construction of roads has a significant impact on biodiversity itself, and I am wondering if the department - or maybe the part of the department that has championed action to protect biodiversity - is in dialogue with the part of the department that is, it seems, expanding investment flowing out into road construction around. I’ve heard this, particularly in southwest Nova Scotia: that the width of the roads ‑ and I’ve been on different forest roads and I’ve had some pretty bumpy rides on some forest roads - but I understand that some of the roads that are being constructed now are actually quite wide and quite built to a very significant standard, so that - it’s like the road pre‑dates the harvest. So once you build the road, then you are going to use the road to do the harvesting and if you are building a big road, then you are likely going to try to use that road a bunch, I guess, and the road itself has an impact on interruption of habitat, and so forth. What can the minister comment on that?

[6:15 p.m.]

CHUCK PORTER: I know we’re getting down in time, so I’ll jump right in there. I just wanted to clarify some things. To the member’s point, all of these things - when a harvest plan is under way and is initiated, there are a number of things that they have to go through, and I think we spoke to this previously.

There are a number of species at risk and all of those things, but if the road is being built, all of these things have to come into consideration. Preparing the harvest plan to meet the requirements on Crown land operations using the available data, for example, including forestry inventory, species at risk occurrences, aerial photography, satellite imagery, applied resource management data, et cetera.

There are a lot of pieces to this that I think sometimes maybe ‑ as I have learned in my short time here, I was quite impressed with how much actually goes into a harvest plan. It is not just here you go, sign this off, and we are going to harvest a certain area. There is a lot of science in these policies that has to be met, including the protection of things like the species at risk, and so on, that are taken into consideration, and, you know, buffer zones we talked about earlier. Waterways and such.

There is a great deal in this that we have to make sure is appropriately designed before the harvest is even approved. There is a lot of work that goes into that.

LISA ROBERTS: I’m going to move on to another topic, but I will just say that, while I appreciate the minister’s comment, I know that some people thinking about this more at an ecosystem level would point out that examining the road for each individual harvest doesn’t get at the ecosystem impact of ‑ the cumulative impact - of all the roads and all the interruption of habitat.

I want to move on and ask about the Small Scale Wood Energy Initiative, which is also something that comes, to some extent, out of the Lahey review, as well as drawing on some work that has happened over the past 10 years, at least in P.E.I. I would like to ask the minister: Can he give us an update on the wood heat energy systems that were meant to be ready for the 2019‑2020 heating season, and let us know if we have moved into the phase of expanding the number of facilities using small scale wood energy?

THE CHAIR: My computer is going to be shutting down in 30 seconds.

HON. GORDON WILSON: Yes, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to confirm that. With the consent of the group, I will start, and we are good to 6:35 p.m.

I beg the question, are you going to be back?

THE CHAIR: I certainly hope so.

GORDON WILSON: We do too.

CHUCK PORTER: In Phase 1 of this initiative, nine public buildings - exit site - were part of this. Following a competitive procurement process in September of 2020, those contracts were awarded.

LISA ROBERTS: So I guess we haven’t moved beyond the initial ‑ into a phase of expanding the number of facilities as yet, I’m hearing. If I misunderstood that, you can correct me, but I’ll move on with my next question.

Last May, renewable energy regulations were changed, and this allowed for burning more biomass at Brooklyn Power and Port Hawkesbury. We understand that it was to make up for a shortfall in energy expected from Muskrat Falls, but also to find a home for by-product from mills that can no longer be sold to Northern Pulp. Can the minister tell me a bit about what led to this decision?

CHUCK PORTER: There are a couple of things I just wanted to point out. Phase 2 of that - just to follow up on where I left off - those sites are in consideration with our partner departments right now. It is ongoing and it is still moving, very much so.

Your question you just asked was energy-related, so we would have to ask the Minister of Energy and Mines during that time, but of course, that is me, as well. Just so I make sure I have accurate information for you, member, I am going to get that and will come back to that, if that is okay, just based on Energy and Mines. I have all my staff from Lands and Forestry with me today, and not my Energy and Mines team. I just want to make sure that I have accurate information that I report for you. I will see if I can get that in the very near future and perhaps when I come back after break, I will be able to address that for you, maybe even just before.

LISA ROBERTS: I guess I would also be particularly interested in any role that the Department of Lands and Forestry played in providing input to that regulatory change. To what extent did the need to find a home for by-product from mills play into that particular solution to the shortfall in energy expected from Muskrat Falls?

Yes, I think the other questions do fully fall under your other hat, so I won’t continue along that path.

I would like to touch on two recommendations from Lahey regarding the Endangered Species Act. Recommendation No. 18 states that the department should, as an immediate priority, fully implement the Endangered Species Act on Crown land, “including the completion of recovery plans that identify and make provision for protection of core habitat for species at risk located on Crown lands.”

Recommendation No. 29: “Working with landowners, DNR must, as an immediate priority, develop and implement a plan of action for fully and effectively implementing the Endangered Species Act on private lands.”

In the 2018 response to the Lahey review, the government committed to completing all outstanding recovery plans and status reports by 2019. I know that there was a flurry of hiring and some progress also, perhaps, spurred on by a court action. Can the minister tell us what progress has been made on this? Are the outstanding recovery plans and status reports all complete?

CHUCK PORTER: One hundred per cent of the recovery teams are in place. Only one outstanding recovery plan for provincially‑listed species is outstanding and that one is drafted. Just so you know, it is in draft form, so we are getting there. Eighty‑three per cent of the listed species have approved recovery plans, as well.

LISA ROBERTS: Thank you very much for that update. I am aware that I am down to only a few minutes, so what to ask? The Medway Community Forest Cooperative has been asking for an expansion of the land that they manage for some time. Professor Lahey commented specifically on the co-op, saying that they were “given significantly less land to manage than it applied for and, in my view, less land than it needs under management to have a reasonable prospect of viability.” This is a longstanding request. Lahey also reiterated their request for a longer term for their licence.

Can the minister tell me whether the area that they manage, or the term of their licence, will be expanded this year?

CHUCK PORTER: We will continue to work with the community foresters. It’s an ongoing conversation. We want them to be viable in the long term, so there are some conversations that we are certainly willing to have. I cannot get into any details about what kinds of conversations or what we’ve been talking about specifically, but a sustainable future for those folks is obviously a concern to all of us. We are happy to continue any conversations that they would like to have.

LISA ROBERTS: Good luck with that work. Professor Lahey also recommended the creation of a strategy for attracting and retaining forestry professionals to Nova Scotia, and part of this included an emphasis on generational and gender diversity. Can the minister say how the department is addressing the need for younger people and women to join the forestry industry?

CHUCK PORTER: Sorry, stand by one - I’ll come right back.

There we go. I was trying to get off mute there. This is something, not only in this department but as a government, that we have focused heavily on ‑ diversity around gender and equality, and it is no different here in Lands and Forestry. If you walk through my office any day of the week, you will see quite a diverse community of people working within the Department of Lands and Forestry, and I think that’s great.

I think we will continue. There is no reason that we would not continue on that path. It is something that has been a government initiative for some time and we will continue as we normally would with hiring great people to help move along all the files here at the Department of Lands and Forestry. There are a lot of very talented individuals. There are a lot of, I’ll say, older people like me around - not so many. There are a lot of younger people and it is interesting, as you walk through the departments, the number of young people you see.

Where I formerly came from, over at Municipal Affairs and Housing, the number of young folks - who I will refer to as young folks ‑ younger people than me ‑ are just absolutely brilliant in their ability around policy, around development. What they do, what they bring to the table, what they have to offer is just something to sit back and be amazed by, actually. It is great and I’m glad to see that. We may share some age and gender differences when we look around the department, but I can assure you that every day in this province, contrary to what some may believe, there are people working hard in every department on behalf of all Nova Scotians to bring forward good projects, good plans, good policy on behalf of everyone.

LISA ROBERTS: I think I will just thank the minister and wish him luck in his new portfolio. I have enjoyed learning quite a lot about your department without ever really having set foot in it. Anyway, I can’t imagine what it is like to sit exactly where you sit, so I wish you luck.

CHUCK PORTER: Thanks very much. I appreciate that, and you are welcome to come and have a visit any time.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, everybody. That concludes our time for this. We will now take our mandated COVID-19 break until 6:48 p.m. Thank you very much.

[6:33 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[6:49 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee of the Whole on Supply will resume. We are on our final hour for the evening and the member for Cumberland South ‑ oh, I don’t see the minister on yet.

TORY RUSHTON: We’ll give the minister a few minutes.

THE CHAIR: Okay. There he is. Okay. The honourable member for Cumberland South. You will have 59 minutes because we are going to leave one minute for the minister’s closing remarks and to present the resolution.

TORY RUSHTON: Good evening, again, to the minister and staff. Thank you again for being here for night number two and, I think, the last hour for yourselves. I have one quick local question that I would like to ask, and I will put a little bit of history into it, as I appreciate the fact that the minister is relatively new to the department.

In the last number of years, and I know the minister has followed this, there’s been development of the geopark through the Fundy Shore, and in part of that there is a building in Eatonville, which is just about a 15‑minute drive on a back road just outside of Advocate Harbour. The building is property of Lands and Forestry. At the time, it was built and developed by Lands and Forestry, it wasn’t a tourist attraction. It was a centre spot. It’s completely off the grid, and there are lots of trails through it, but it is a key spot for the UNESCO geopark. I know the new park committee and the chairperson has reached out that the building is wanting to be attempted to be allocated to the geopark and there was some communication back and forth with the department.

A number of years ago, I visited that with one of the Department of Lands and Forestry staff from Parrsboro and the local councillor at the time, Don Fletcher. We were with the understanding from Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal that the building was deemed to be heading for the wrecking ball in years to come if there wasn’t a project slated for it. Fortunately, from conversations with the Department of Lands and Forestry and the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal a few years ago, we were able to hold it back.

The geopark is interested in having this building and I know they have reached out to the department ‑ I think it was prior to the minister’s time being there - but they are waiting for an answer. Maybe the department has already responded to them. I haven’t heard that back yet from the chairperson of the geopark. I am just interested in knowing if there is a plan to respond back to the geopark and hopefully, maybe in a positive manner, we can develop that building for further use.

CHUCK PORTER: Just on the geopark, I am not familiar with the current status but we will check on that and certainly report back to the honourable member. I’m not sure what the status of it is currently, but we need to do some work to find out, by the sounds of it.

TORY RUSHTON: I’d greatly appreciate that. I guess, recognizing the fact that there really doesn’t need to be a third person in there, it was more of an ask for the chairperson. If there hasn’t been an answer given out to the geopark committee, I’d certainly welcome the answer to go directly to the geopark committee, rather than having a third person in there. I appreciate that answer.

I just want to pick up a little bit from where we left off last night on some parks and camping. I do recognize the minister spoke a little bit about parks and campgrounds today. I did miss a little bit of that and I do apologize. My question for the minister is: How much is the budget this year for parks and is there an estimate on how much they are going to be spending in the years to come for any major upgrades, or maybe introductions of new parks?

CHUCK PORTER: First of all, the capital fund’s a million dollars a year. We’ve got the three‑year rolling capital plan, so there’s a fair amount of money there. Overall, operating takes in all of the regions and the total is around $30 million.

TORY RUSHTON: To do with the parks, are all the overnight parks ready to be booked this year? I know there are bookings taking place online, but I guess maybe a better question to the minister is: Are all parks going to be booked this year? There are no parks that are going to be closed? Overnight camping that would normally be accepted ‑ there’s been no winter damage or such?

CHUCK PORTER: Correct. All parks are expected to be open. There are none that we are aware of for any reason that would be closed at all at this point. There is nothing, I believe.

I just want to clarify in my previous statement, as well, to the member ‑ the $30 million that I referenced is the operating budget, not just for parks but overall regions across the province, just so you are clear on that.

TORY RUSHTON: Yes, to the minister. I assumed that, I guess, minister. I didn’t think we had Disney World here in Nova Scotia yet, but it is something to build to, I guess. I assume that all parks are ready to open and that would include the day parks, as well? There was no Winter damage or Spring cleaning that might be a surprise to anybody in areas that would quite possibly be closed to day parks?

CHUCK PORTER: All parks should open as per normal. The only thing that might be normal, I would say, is the regular maintenance readiness, as we proceed to open parks and welcome visitors.

TORY RUSHTON: In the mandate letter, if you will, the development and framework of identifying areas of ecological significance, and of some importance is the Indigenous protected area and conserved areas. How was the land that was purchased last year for future protection of parks, for parks?

CHUCK PORTER: I wonder if the member would just repeat that. For some reason, there was, again, a bit of a technical bump there. I don’t know what it is, if it’s updates that are going on somewhere or not, but we didn’t quite capture all your question there.

TORY RUSHTON: No trouble at all. Basically, in a roundabout way to the minister, I am looking for a list of purchases that might have been done in the last year that would be slated for future protection or park areas in the province.

CHUCK PORTER: Nothing that we have purchased in the last year that you are referencing is currently designated for anything other than the fact that we purchased it. That doesn’t mean that a park or something couldn’t be created out of that in the future, but nothing is currently designated as such.

TORY RUSHTON: I apologize. Maybe I wasn’t fully specific because of the glitch that the minister received, but a little bit more information was on the ecological significance of land that we might have received, but I appreciate that.

I want to go into a local question that I’ve had. When the department announced that they were going to have further consultation on protected areas, there is an area in my local constituency that has a number of camps in that area. The camp owners have received a letter, but there is no indication in that letter of whether those people would have to vacate the land or property. There is some uncertainty coming to my office and, just with the sitting of the Legislature and the timing, I haven’t had the chance to reach out, so maybe this is a good opportunity and maybe we can discuss that.

My question for the minister is: What would happen to those camp leaseholders here in the very near future if that land were to become part of that protected area?

CHUCK PORTER: Are you specifically talking about, there in your comments, parks, or are you talking about wilderness areas?

[7:00 p.m.]

TORY RUSHTON: To be a little further in detail, maybe the minister’s staff is familiar with the Fountain Lake area between Westchester and Economy, if you will. There is protected area in there. In the map that is proposed of further protected areas, there are some camps in that area. Landowners did receive it. They’re questioning here ‑ it wasn’t specific in the letters that they did receive of what may potentially happen.

I do know from family in other areas of the province who had land on a section of Crown land that became protected, there was an agreement that they still could utilize their recreational dwelling, if you will, but there were certain regulations and rules that they had to follow to utilize that. I am just curious if they are going to be safe up here or are we going to see some camps having to be moved in the near future, if this land were to move to be on that list?

CHUCK PORTER: That area ‑ yes, I am familiar with it - is a wilderness area. The letters that were sent out and/or received would have come from the Department of Environment and Climate Change. Given that that is wilderness area, I’m going to assume that they came from the Department of Environment and Climate Change. They did not come from us is what I’m being told. There would be a process that they would follow and it should be outlined in the letter. I am only assuming that.

Again, when the minister of Department of Environment and Climate Change gets a chance, maybe, to come before you, that might be something you want to raise with him just around ‑ he and his staff are probably familiar with those files on that particular area.

TORY RUSHTON: As I did mention, it is just timing with the Legislature sitting and everything. We haven’t had a full chance to have that discussion with the locals. I appreciate that information.

I want to go down a little bit ‑ just when I was a newly‑elected member of the House, I became critical of Lands and Forestry, and one of the things that was being echoed from the department at the time was the small-scale wood energy projects, and they were supposed to be implemented for the heating season of 2019‑20. We know now that they are late, and it is projected for the 2021‑22 heating season. I would like to ask the minister: Are those projects on target? Are they going to be ready for that heating season?

CHUCK PORTER: In phase one, there were nine projects ‑ nine public buildings at six locations, rather - and those projects are up and running. Phase two are in consideration with partner departments and we are aiming to launch the next RFP process in the Spring, which we are now in, so that process is under way.

TORY RUSHTON: Do we know at the present time what the anticipated cost savings are per building on ‑ not specific to any specific building, but is there a percentage of what we can expect to save on the heating of a set building in the province? Is it a benefit for use to be doing this, I guess?

CHUCK PORTER: I would say at this point, given we are up and running and just under way, it is not possible, I don’t think, to project specific targets, cost savings. Once we are up and running for a while, you know, if you ask that question this time next year you will probably get a more definitive answer. We’ll be able to analyze and look at those costs and have a better idea. I can’t give you a definitive number or target.

TORY RUSHTON: It’s just that the last two years of questioning the previous minister and staff, we always had a set projection of what is anticipated, and I thought maybe where we did have part of a heating season, that they were operating, and you might have had a projected idea of what it was. I appreciate that they are just up and running and will be.

I guess it would lead to my next question about these heating projects. Where does the government source the product ‑ the by-product from - to feed these units?

CHUCK PORTER: All of this is from private woodlots. This is managed privately. Suppliers do this and then an RFP goes out from government to manage that. We don’t do that, but our involvement is that process to put out the RFP and then it is totally managed by private suppliers.

TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate that answer. I believe I understood that that is how the process was going. I guess where I am going with this line of questioning is my colleague previous was questioning about membership within Forest Nova Scotia. It is my understanding that if a small woodlot owner owned a lot of land that wasn’t accessible by a road and they were not a member of Forest Nova Scotia, they may not be able to get a road into it.

My question for the minister is: Is it necessarily about membership within Forest Nova Scotia? Are there any other programs within the Department of Lands and Forestry that a small woodlot owner could access his or her woodlot and take part in putting a bid in on some of these small tenders to supply some of the biomass?

CHUCK PORTER: I just want to take a minute there to make sure I was clear on the question as we work through what is available.

In the transition funds that we have available, we support the private woodlot owners, and they don’t have to be a member. Just to be clear, they don’t have to be a member of Forest Nova Scotia. There is an opportunity for folks to apply for that funding and assistance. It doesn’t have to be ‑ there is no relationship to wood heat or - not about roads - but it is $1 million annually that is there. I think there are groups that can apply, but you don’t have to be connected to Forest Nova Scotia.

I don’t know what the numbers are, right off the top of my head, how many of the smaller woodlot owners who make up Forest Nova Scotia. I don’t know the total percentage right off. Somebody in this room probably does who is a part of that organization and/or not of the total number. I know that there are a lot of small woodlot owners in the province of Nova Scotia, but they too can reach out and look for support from the department.

TORY RUSHTON: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that. I thought one of the ‑ sort of, the line of questioning and one of the comments from the colleague previous was a little bit misleading and I wanted to clarify it, just to make sure there wasn’t something that I missed, that those small woodlot owners who were not members of Forest Nova Scotia still had ample opportunity to take advantage of some of the programs that were there.

When the minister was speaking about the Phase 2 rollout of the small wood heating projects, and I’m not sure - maybe I missed it, and I apologize if I did - but did the minister indicate how many provincial buildings will be included on that?

CHUCK PORTER: Just for clarity, to your point you made there, you are correct. This isn’t just about money that is flowing through, that we talked about earlier, so that point of clarity is good. I didn’t mean to mislead anybody into believing that was all that’s available. That is not the case.

Phase 2 ‑ on to that question. There are a number of projects that are being worked on. I’m not sure, at the present time ‑ actually, I probably feel more sure than not. I won’t disclose what those are, just based on the status of where they are right now, but they will be disclosed, I think, in the very near future. We’ll hear more about those, but I won’t get into the specifics of what actual projects they are. Some of them may come to fruition, some may not, and so it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to define certain projects and not others.

[7:15 p.m.]

TORY RUSHTON: Just to clarify, it wasn’t a comment that the minister had made, but a previous colleague, that I heard a like question about that, so I appreciate that. That is cleared up. That’s great.

One of the lines of questioning that I’ve been asking since being critic is about the collaboration within the department. I’ve seen in the mandate letter that it’s still a key initiative to continue to develop and implement a process to support public and stakeholder input into forestry‑related decisions, to improve openness, transparency, and accountability, and utilize the Minister’s Advisory Committee on Forestry.

After study and a recommendation for a new hire a couple of years ago, it still continues to be an issue that we see come up every year at this time during Estimates. I guess, being new in the department, maybe the minister doesn’t have a statement on this, but I am curious and would like to ask the minister: When can we finally close the door on this? When can we expect that this wouldn’t be in the next Auditor General’s report, if you will?

CHUCK PORTER: I think it’s ‑ when you have a department like this, which is big in many ways, there are a lot of things going on. There are a lot of files that are active, and you are working as collaboratively as you can with many stakeholders. It’s hard to move forward without being able to do that with the kind of agenda that we have.

I think we’ve got a dedicated group of stakeholders who are sincere about what they want to see. We have good relationships with them, the Minister’s Advisory Committee, actively meeting and advising on various viewpoints, how they feel about things. That’s a good thing and we will continue to hear from them going forward. We are committed to continuing the transparency and the open forums that we have. We want to make sure that Nova Scotians understand what we are doing and that folks in the department and in other departments and partnerships that we have in and around government understand what our approach is and what we are doing. We are, indeed, committed to that - extensive levels of consultation, implementing projects, and we will continue to do that, as we have done.

TORY RUSHTON: I just want to recognize the fact, again - and I appreciate this, too, from the minister - that this is a huge department and it’s a huge undertaking for anybody who would be jumping into the ranks of minister, but to share a minister between two very important portfolios, my hat is off to the minister for that. I know it’s a huge job.

Speaking of staffing, I usually ask this question of the minister every year: Are we at status quo with staff or are we looking for more staff for the department?

CHUCK PORTER: We are pretty well status quo, with the exception of something you may be familiar with. You may have heard a lot about the Land Titles Initiative here in the province. As we work through that - we passed a bill in the House and we have a bill before the House - there are seven additional staff, some of them surveyors, who will help on this file. That’s the only change by way of department staffing levels.

TORY RUSHTON: I’ll be very honest: I have a bit of a concern. I cannot remember where I read it - I was trying to look for it earlier - but I had read something that made reference that there was suspicion that there might have been 30 staff short within the department. I appreciate the minister responding to that and going from there.

I’ll move on to a different topic. I’d like to speak about the Strathlorne Forest Nursery. I read in an article recently about upgrades that were going to take place or maybe have already taken place - I can’t remember specifically - at that nursery. I just wondered if the minister and his staff could indicate any of the improvements that did take place and maybe the cost of what the improvements were?

CHUCK PORTER: There are just a couple of points I want to clarify. On your last question - in my comment, the staffing level I mentioned was seven. You may have been looking at a number. I think it was 24. That is normal turnover, coming and going, that would happen annually. That is not a shortage for us. That’s just normal course of business. I wanted to just clarify that for you.

The other piece around Strathlorne improvements, that would be with TIR, or what was TIR, likely now on the Infrastructure and Housing side. They would be funding that. That wouldn’t be us. Yes, that wouldn’t be us at all, not out of our budget. So again, you could ask Minister MacLellan, I guess, now that Infrastructure and Housing is, as I said, where it’s likely still at.

TORY RUSHTON: I certainly will speak with the minister on that, but the improvements are to the facilities that are under the Department of Lands and Forestry. Is there a list of improvements that were requested or that were done that you can share for the benefit of us today?

CHUCK PORTER: Yes, I am happy to share. I’m just getting a list of things here that we’ve done. Working together with TIR - TIR at that time - an energy assessment was done. New ventilation systems were installed, a new pellet boiler system for wood pellets and oil in it was installed, as well as a new roof. That was from storm damage that may have been back as far as Hurricane Dorian a couple of years ago, where it started, but that was done as well.

TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate the response. I’m curious about this site. Are there any considerations or future partnerships or development within this property or the nursery?

CHUCK PORTER: The nursery is a key part of our system. It reflects station efforts and demand for seedlings is up. We certainly are working with them on that shift to ecological forestry. Who knows what’s next? There are always options and opportunities here to work on other kinds of initiatives that will come along. We have a good partner there.

TORY RUSHTON: I would like to ask the minister: How many seedlings will come out of this nursery to see the grounds in Nova Scotia this year, or do we outsource from outside of the province as well? I guess what I’m indicating is where do these seedlings head and how many?

CHUCK PORTER: A big number. About 4.1 million seeds were planted last Spring. A lot of that will be for here in Nova Scotia. Some of that will go to New Brunswick. The intent is to seed 5 million, actually, this year.

TORY RUSHTON: Is this the only nursery that the province would co-operate with or are there other nurseries that we may, as a province, pull seedlings from to ensure they get to the right spots in Nova Scotia?

CHUCK PORTER: There are two other private nurseries that we deal with that help supply for Crown land.

TORY RUSHTON: Maybe the minister doesn’t have this number, but I would like to have this number, if not tonight, at a possible date. I would like to ask the minister: How many seedlings would the province oversee putting into Crown land in the run of a planting season, recognizing that we have a Spring and a Fall planting season? I’m not sure if the province operates in both of those seasons, but it would be nice to have a number to see if we are meeting the expectations of Nova Scotians and doing the right thing in replanting some trees and taking care of our Crown lands that way.

CHUCK PORTER: It’s a good question. I don’t have the numbers but we are committed to getting them for you.

[7:30 p.m.]

TORY RUSHTON: I guess my last question is: I recognize the fact that we are growing trees and we are doing it for the right reasons, so this question is a bit lost, but it’s not. I would like to ask the minister: Will the operation have a break-even or a loss, fiscally, this year? I know there’s a huge benefit to the employment in the area and there is a huge benefit to the environment by planting the trees and taking care of the trees.

I guess my previous question for the minister is: Are we looking at partnership through development on this property? If we are at a loss, I would certainly like to entertain ideas of what we could do to sustain this nursery for years to come. I am guessing. Is there a loss, fiscally, this year that is going to be anticipated or are we actually making gains, not just environmentally but financially as well?

CHUCK PORTER: I think it’s safe to say we’re always looking for opportunities, as far as that goes, to increase our efficiency. We always want to be doing that. We look for opportunities to expand our partnerships. I think that’s always great. You can learn from other partners, regardless of where they are or who they are. We might, as an example, work with Natural Resources Canada on a project to generate revenue, plus maximize the use of that facility.

We are always open to those conversations but I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that we were a department that’s looking to generate millions and millions of dollars. We have a budget and we have a defined process of what we do. If there are some efficiencies to be found, that’s great, it’s wonderful. Partnerships are more of the strength we are looking for and growing - pardon the pun - and looking at opportunities that way, how we do business differently, as we move into the future with new technologies and things, all important for us in the department.

TORY RUSHTON: I certainly appreciate the statement that they are not looking to make millions. I guess what I’m looking at is that this is a needed system for where forestry should be going in Nova Scotia. It’s an asset that does belong to the province and there is a need for it, but if we are going in the hole big time, I applaud the energy that the minister shares to look at ideas and a partnership with that.

Just to give a heads up to the minister’s staff, I think my final line of questioning is going to be on the Off‑Highway Vehicle Infrastructure Fund, if they needed to pull anything up. Mr. Chair, I do have to make this statement: Ever since I’ve been in the House, I’ve asked every year where the report is, annually, for the off‑highway vehicles, and I must say I finally applaud it, that it has arrived under this minister. It is online now, so I do applaud that. If I read the report right, the off‑highway vehicle contributions were $1.76252 million. I would ask the minister: Is that correct?

CHUCK PORTER: The short answer is yes.

TORY RUSHTON: Are disbursements at $1.8 million?

CHUCK PORTER: Correct.

TORY RUSHTON: The statement suggests that the account balance is $400,000. I would ask the minister: Is that correct?

CHUCK PORTER: Just for clarity there - I appreciate the question - no is the answer to that figure you gave, honourable member. It is considerably higher than that. I think it is somewhere closer to a couple of million dollars in that fund balance.

TORY RUSHTON: If I understand the minister correctly, I’m pleasantly pleased, I guess, if that statement suggests there is an account balance of a couple of million dollars that is still available to groups. Is that what the minister is saying?

CHUCK PORTER: The fund is certainly being spent annually. You saw the number there - you quoted it a moment ago - the $1.8 million. The good thing is it continues to replenish. There is always a bit of a running balance there unless there was another request for a special project or something like that. The balance accumulates, obviously, over the course of ‑ well, since 2006. I was trying to think. I knew this has been around a long time. As long as I have been in this business it has been here, and I knew it came in early in my tenure.

It continues to accumulate but the fact that we are able to put these kinds of projects out, do the work that we are doing with it, it’s money in/money out. The balance looks big at certain points but the money does get put back out on projects. The expenditures do happen.

TORY RUSHTON: I appreciate that. I am going to make the comments and I know the comments are not lost on the minister. This is a huge industry, whether it is Spring to Fall with ATVs and side‑by‑sides, and in the Winter. I know the majority of Nova Scotia didn’t have a lot of snow this year but we certainly saw a lot of snowmobile activity in our neck of the woods in Cumberland County. Many riders were not able to cross the border this year to get to New Brunswick, when they would normally take trips to New Brunswick or Quebec.

This has a huge impact on rural economies. This is a huge investment from the province to assist in these trails. It was two years ago that a couple of the local groups ‑ there was actually staff from the minister’s department that took part in it and there was staff from the RCMP, and we went out on a rail run that was put on to show the elected representatives in the area what the trails mean to the economy, what they mean to the sport, and how many people were actually drawn into these areas, into rural Nova Scotia.

I know in a typical year without COVID-19, pre‑COVID-19, we would have at least 50 or 60 four‑wheelers or side‑by‑sides in the Advocate Harbour area and that is bringing local economy business to the store down there, and the travel between Parrsboro and Advocate, the travel that would be between the New Brunswick border and the open trail system - that is great.

I applaud the money that is being invested in these trails because these individuals are good stewards of the land. They want those trails to be a success and it’s the ones who are involved with these clubs and taking care of the bridges and the roadwork and the infrastructure that are invested in it, so I welcome this. I also welcome the comment and entertain the comment again: I was very, very pleased to see that the reports are finally online for these groups to see what is going on all over the province.

I know it’s not this minister’s department, but the trial process is for off‑highway shared road concepts. I think conversations, again, with one of the minister’s colleagues ‑ and this is something I believe can certainly work in rural Nova Scotia in certain areas. Anytime that we can talk about the economic impacts that off‑highway vehicles have, whether it’s ‑ and that’s four seasons that it can bring. Is it available for all trails? No, there are some trails that are not motorized and, as a province - and I heard the minister speak about this earlier - we should appreciate the fact that not all trail users want to see motorized vehicles. There is a shared area for our province in there and I applaud anybody who is getting involved.

Prior to being in this Legislature, I was involved in a couple of different trails as a runner, not as an ATV enthusiast. My boys are certainly growing up and I can ‑ we took them out last Fall and I can attest that they are certainly bugging me to have that four‑wheeler experience again with the group. I appreciate this.

Does the minister have any idea how many applications have actually gone out? I know there is a due date of November 16^th. Would the minister be able to tell me how many applications came in for that, and when will they find out if they are approved or not approved?

CHUCK PORTER: First of all, thank you for your comments on that. You are quite correct, the economic impact is huge, not only in Cumberland County but across the province. It is no different in my area. There are lots of things going on. The world of what used to be known as three‑wheelers, more so than anything when this sort of first started, and I don’t know that I’ve seen one of them in a long time, but the side‑by‑sides seem to be much bigger than they ever were. Let’s not forget the fire service in many places use these as well. It’s quite an asset to that team and the heavy use, obviously, within those departments.

Your question that you just asked on applications, numbers, et cetera, I don’t have that. Again, we will commit to getting that for you. I just talked with staff here and we don’t have that available to us this evening but we can get it for you.

TORY RUSHTON: I thank the minister and I do remember those three‑wheelers slightly. The minister is a little bit older than I am, and I appreciate his comment. The chairperson would actually remember the pedal three‑wheelers that probably preceded the motorized three‑wheeler.

[7:45 p.m.]

It is a huge impact. We look at neighbouring provinces like New Brunswick and Newfoundland and what they are doing with the off‑highway vehicles. I certainly welcome anything that we can do to grow this industry. I do know that my hometown of Oxford has applied to be part of one of those trials on the off‑highway shared roads.

I don’t really have any more questions to do with that. I have many more questions, but I know that the minister is very approachable and we can have conversations offline, so I will keep in touch with the minister as things go by. I look forward to having debates on different subjects in the House, and we will certainly look forward to any more funding that the minister might be able to throw to the off‑highway vehicle program. It would certainly be welcomed throughout the whole province.

With that, I will turn it over to the minister to finish off the Estimates and thank him and his staff very much for being here the last two nights.

THE CHAIR: Thank you for that. I recognize the Minister of Lands and Forestry for his closing remarks. I’ll read you this slowly to pass the time.

CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all those who have taken part over the last couple of days, last night on Energy and Mines, as well as ‑ I guess we started last night on Lands and Forestry. Thanks to all who took part in the debate, the questions ‑ some good questions, we appreciate that. I know we have a couple of commitments to members for information that we will ensure they get.

I want to thank staff last night as we started with Energy and Mines, and not only during that time - and Lands and Forestry as well - but not only during this time that we sit here, but the preparation time putting things together and the amount of work that goes into the budget each year. You never really know what the questions are going to be for sure, but we’ve got a great team in both places and I’m pleased to be the minister of both departments and to work with all of these great folks.

I think I’m pretty close to the time. I can keep talking if you like for another minute. Again, I want to thank everybody who has taken part in the Estimates. I know it can be long but when you are actually sitting and answering the questions it goes by pretty quickly, and I always used to find that when I’m asking the questions as well.

Thanks to a couple of our own members who got a couple of questions in last night to help us pass some time through the confusion while the Chair got caught up and we got things back on track there. It’s always a pleasure to work with all of you. Thanks very much.

THE CHAIR: Shall Resolution E16 stand?

Resolution E16 stands.

We are just about there. There, we made it. We made it, so I guess we’re back tomorrow at some point. I sort of got the indication that it could be the Department of Infrastructure and Housing when I heard one of the members talking earlier but we will wait and see what tomorrow brings.

With that, we stand adjourned and I hope to see everybody tomorrow. Take care.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 7:48 p.m.]